In the vast expanse of the Sahara Desert, a transformation is taking root—quite literally. Amidst the golden dunes and arid landscapes, Sahara circular gardens are emerging as oases of hope, pointing to a sustainable way forward in the face of increasing desertification. These meticulously designed green patches are symbols of human ingenuity and active combatants against the degrading soil and challenging climatic conditions of one of the world’s most unforgiving terrains.
Desertification refers to the process where previously fertile land degrades into desert. While natural climate fluctuations play a role, human activities—such as unsustainable farming practices and deforestation—have significantly accelerated the process. The Sahara, already the third largest desert globally, continues to expand, threatening local ecosystems and the livelihoods of millions.
This environmental phenomenon doesn’t just result in a loss of usable land. It disrupts local ecosystems, diminishes water resources, reduces agricultural productivity, and can lead to increased regional conflicts over dwindling resources.
Enter the circular gardens—concentric circles of vegetation that stand defiantly against the vastness of the desert. Here’s a breakdown of why and how Sahara circular gardens represent a beacon of hope in various ways.
Efficiency is paramount in regions like Senegal, where water is more valuable than gold. The design of Sahara circular gardens allows for a central water source, distributing the precious resource evenly to all plants. This hub-and-spoke model ensures that every drop is utilized to its maximum potential. The gardens, known locally as tolou keur, are the most recent incarnation of The Great Green Wall project.
These gardens are more than just a sum of their parts. Together, the plants work in harmony to create a relatively cooler micro-environment that maintains a higher humidity level than the surrounding desert. This microclimate is conducive to plant growth and offers a small reprieve from the otherwise harsh conditions.
The Sahara circular gardens’ genius lies in combining traditional desert farming techniques with modern agricultural knowledge. Local communities have long recognized the value of growing in concentric patterns, but today’s farmers are enhancing these methods with contemporary technology and insights.
Against the monochromatic backdrop of the desert, the Sahara circular gardens are vibrant hubs of life. They host a range of plant species, attracting essential pollinators and beneficial insects. This biodiverse setup supports the garden’s health and strengthens its resilience against pests and diseases.
Beyond the environmental benefits, these gardens have profound socio-economic implications. They provide local communities with a sustainable source of food and income. In an environment as challenging as the Sahara, the success of these agricultural initiatives can make a considerable difference to the economic well-being of the local populace.
Every plant in these gardens plays a role in healing the soil. As plants grow, decay, and get replaced, they return essential organic matter to the ground. Over time, this continuous cycle can restore the soil’s structure and fertility, combating the effects of desertification.
The gardens show that sustainable farming is possible even in adverse conditions. With carefully chosen plants, including those that naturally enrich the soil, these gardens can thrive with minimal external intervention.
The emergence of Sahara circular gardens is a testament to human adaptability and resilience. However, their proliferation also highlights the urgency of our environmental challenges. While these gardens offer localized solutions, they also underscore the need for global action against climate change and land degradation.
Researchers, environmentalists, and local farmers are keenly studying the potential and limitations of these gardens. As knowledge grows, techniques are refined, ensuring these green oases become even more effective in their mission.
The Sahara circular gardens are more than just innovative agricultural projects. They symbolize hope, resilience, and the indomitable human spirit. In the face of global challenges, they remind us that with ingenuity and collaboration, solutions can be found—even in the most unexpected places.
Cool Roof Technology: a Low-cost Way to Reduce Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions
Want a huge decrease in carbon emissions, a reduction in summertime cooling costs and a more efficient home? Cool roof technology can do all that. Cool roof technology has the potential to eliminate billions of tons of carbon dioxide at a very low cost.
If you’ve ever spent time on a black asphalt roof or up in an attic during the heat of summer, you understand how much heat energy is added to a home during summer months. This is heat that many of us pay to remove by using air conditioners and other means.
But what if, just by a better design and choice of materials, we could have a far cooler house that uses far less electricity each month? That is what people in the Mediterranean and other hot climates have been doing for centuries. White paint and chimney-style ventilation that distributes cool air from lower areas of the house are low-tech examples of cool roof technology that works.
Modern cool roof technology is similar. Most are just like regular roofs but are designed to reflect sunlight and shed heat, to keep buildings cooler in the summer. According to a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), cool roof technology could reduce energy consumption for cooling by up to 20%. The study also found that energy savings from cool roof technology could eliminate up to 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually in the United States. The equivalent of taking 300 million cars off the road!
According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, if all North American cities with populations over 1 million people adopted cool roof technology, air conditioner use would fall by one-third.
The Human Cost of Heat
The savings aren’t just in terms of money and carbon emissions. Climate change has disproportionately increased temperatures in urban areas. An urban landscape largely covered in asphalt, concrete and black roofing materials is far hotter than one covered in greenery or reflective materials, a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect.
The urban heat island effect is the phenomenon of cities being warmer than surrounding rural areas. This is because cities have more dark surfaces, such as black roofs, which absorb sunlight and heat up the air. The heated air then rises, creating a convection current that draws in cooler air from surrounding areas. This process can lead to increased temperatures in cities, which can have a number of negative consequences, such as increased energy consumption for cooling, decreased air quality, and increased heat-related illnesses and deaths.
Black roofs also radiate energy directly into the atmosphere. This energy is then absorbed by clouds and trapped by the greenhouse effect, further contributing to global warming.
Type Depends on Location Climate
There are a number of different types of cool roof technology available, including:
Reflective roofs: Reflective roofs are the most common type of cool roof. They are made of materials that reflect sunlight, such as white or light-colored tiles, metal roofs, or paints. Reflective roofs can reflect up to 90% of the sun’s heat, which can help to keep buildings cooler in the summer.
Evaporative roofs: Evaporative roofs are made of materials that allow water to evaporate, such as clay tiles or metal roofs with a water-absorbing coating. As the water evaporates, it cools the roof and the building below. Evaporative roofs can be effective in hot, dry climates.
Phase-change materials: Phase-change materials are materials that change their state from solid to liquid and vice versa. When these materials change phase, they absorb or release heat. Phase-change materials can be used in cool roofs to store heat during the day and release it at night. This can help to keep buildings cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter.
Cooling paints: Cooling paints are paints that are applied to roofs to make them more reflective and to help them cool down. Cooling paints are effective in hot, sunny climates and typically contain titanium dioxide, a highly reflective pigment.
Cooling granules: Cooling granules are small, reflective beads applied to roofing materials like shingles. The granules reflect sunlight and help to keep the roof cooler. Like cooling paints, cooling granules are most effective in hot, sunny climates.
Green Roofs are Cool Roofs
Another type of cool roof technology is the green roof. Green roofs are made of a waterproof membrane with a layer of soil and vegetation on top that helps to insulate the roof and reflect sunlight. Green roofs can reflect up to 70% of the sun’s heat, which can help to keep buildings cooler in the summer. In some cases, they can provide vegetable gardens or just a nice place to sit and enjoy the feeling of being surrounded by nature – while in the city.
Green roofs also have the effect of providing bird and pollinator habitat as well as reducing stormwater runoff. Because of the benefits, many cities are now mandating the installation of green roofs on new construction. New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Portland all require green roofs on new construction on buildings with roof areas over a specific set size. That said, retrofitting an existing building is often cost prohibitive due to the structural requirements to support the additional weight.
Cool roof technology is a promising way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the energy efficiency of buildings. As the technology continues to develop, the potential for cool roofs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will likely increase.
This is an easy way to make big gains in carbon reductions, saving homeowners and businesses money. Something we can all get behind.
Apple has issued something of a wake-up call to manufacturing partners around the world as it aims to clean up its supply chain and tackle climate change.
Sustainability is clearly high on the agenda for CEO Tim Cook. Only yesterday (27 October) Apple announced record results for fiscal 2022 fourth quarter revenue of US$90.1bn – up 8% year on year. That put annual revenue at US$394.3bn, also up 8%.
“This quarter’s results reflect Apple’s commitment to our customers, to the pursuit of innovation, and to leaving the world better than we found it,” said Cook.
“As we head into the holiday season with our most powerful lineup ever, we are leading with our values in every action we take and every decision we make. We are deeply committed to protecting the environment, to securing user privacy, to strengthening accessibility, and to creating products and services that can unlock humanity’s full creative potential.”
Let’s hope Cook has taken into account the fact that global CO2 emissions have more than doubled since Apple was founded in 1976, so leaving the world better than when they found it could be quite the task.
Apple will track and audit key manufacturing partners on carbon
The message seems consistent from Apple, and now they are putting the onus on their key suppliers to decarbonise. Apple requires reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reductions related to Apple production.
Apple says it will track the progress of key partners as it aims to set the same standards in its supply chain – the company has been carbon neutral since 2020 and intends to meet the same standard across its entire supply chain.
“Fighting climate change remains one of Apple’s most urgent priorities, and moments like this put action to those words,” said Cook, Apple’s CEO. “We’re looking forward to continued partnership with our suppliers to make Apple’s supply chain carbon neutral by 2030. Climate action at Apple doesn’t stop at our doors, and in this work, we’re determined to be a ripple in the pond that creates a bigger change.”
That work Cook is referring to sees Apple investing in numerous projects around the world to create clean energy, and some smart updates to its products.
Apple has reduced its emissions by 40% since 2015, largely through adopting renewable energy. With more than 70% of direct manufacturing spend coming from more than 200 suppliers, it’s no surprise to hear they have also committed to clean energy solutions.
Major partners including Corning Incorporated, Nitto Denko Corporation, SK hynix, STMicroelectronics, TSMC, and Yuto have committed to 100% renewable energy for all production relating to Apple products.
Apple’s shift to clean energy means it now uses renewable energy for all corporate offices, Apple stores, and data centres in 44 countries.
Now the company is involved in constructing large-scale solar and wind projects in Europe to tackle the 22% of its carbon footprint that comes from customers charging their devices. Earlier this year, the company also announced new renewable projects in the US and Australia.
An update in iOS16 means iPhone users in the US can also use Clean Energy Charging – a feature that will charge your phone at the optimum time to take advantage of renewables.
Apple’s new climate solutions projects
Apple has announced three new projects through the Restore Fund – a carbon removal initiative that aims to generate revenue for those involved. Developed with Conservation International and Goldman Sachs, Apple is working with forestry managers in Brazil and Paraguay to restore 150,000 acres of forests and protect 100,000 acres of native forests, grasslands, and wetlands. These projects could remove 1 million metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere in 2025.
New sustainability partnerships announced also include:
In Namibia and Zimbabwe, Apple is working with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to promote climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods through the Climate Crowd program.
In China, Apple has partnered with China Green Carbon Foundation to conduct research, demonstrate best practices, and build stakeholder networks to increasing the amount and quality of responsibly managed nature-based carbon sinks.
In Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, Apple is launching a new partnership with ChangemakerXchange to strengthen climate action and leadership in the region. The initiative will launch in Egypt at COP27.
The UK will continue to press governments around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions urgently in the next year to limit global heating to 1.5C, after the UN climate talks that concluded last week, the president of the summit has pledged.
Alok Sharma, the cabinet minister who led the Cop26 talks, said the world had shown in Glasgow that countries could work together to establish a framework for climate action but the next year must focus on keeping the promises made there.
“The 1.5C limit lives,” he writes in today’s Guardian. “We brought it back from the brink. But its pulse remains weak. We must steer it to safety by ensuring countries deliver on the promises they have made.”
Some argued the talks had failed because the pledges on emissions cuts made at Cop26 were insufficient to meet the 1.5C goal.
Sharma acknowledged that countries must increase their pledges and turn them into action and policies. Referring to youth activists from around the world who urged political leaders to act in Glasgow, he said: “We owe it to all of them to deliver what we agreed.”
Two weeks of Cop26 talks ended in dramatic fashion as Sharma feared the carefully constructed deal among nearly 200 countries was about to collapse at the last moment, when China and India objected to a reference in the final agreement to the “phase out” of coal-fired power.
In the end a compromise was reached, with Sharma on the brink of tears as he apologised to developing countries for the change. The pledges on emissions cuts made at the talks would lead to heating of about 2.4C above pre-industrial levels, far above the 1.5C threshold, so the Glasgow pact also requires countries to revise their targets upwards in the next year.
Under the UN rules, the UK will retain responsibility for climate negotiations for the next year, until the Egyptian government assumes the presidency next November. In his first public writing since the talks concluded, Sharma sets out his aims.
“The UK’s work as the Cop26 presidency is really only just beginning,” he writes. “Over the course of the next year, we will work with countries urging them to take action and honour their promises.
“There is no formal policing process in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change system, and so we must keep up the constructive pressure, and build on the trust and goodwill generated through Cop26.”
The lack of any policing process or sanctions for countries that fail to revise their national targets on emissions, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), means that the main ways of holding governments to account are through public scrutiny and political pressure.
Australia’s government has already made clear that it does not intend to increase its targets, which are widely regarded as inadequate. The US and the EU have also indicated they do not intend to increase their ambition.
Key countries under the spotlight are the world’s biggest emitter, China, whose promise to peak emissions by the end of this decade disappointed many analysts who argued it could go further; and the third biggest emitter, India, which announced new targets in Glasgow but has yet to formally detail them. Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil are also under scrutiny.
Sharma argues that business and finance will play a key role. “Markets are falling into line, with the value of shares in coal firms around the world dropping since we sent a signal that coal is no longer king,” he writes.
Green campaigners have told the Guardian that if the UK wants to show leadership this year, ministers must also look to their own actions. Proposals for a new coalmine in Cumbria, new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, airport and road expansion and dithering on green policy have tarnished the UK’s reputation, while above all the decision to slash overseas aid – even while the Cop26 talks centred on climate finance for poor countries – caused deep alarm.
Sharma was widely regarded as isolated within the cabinet at Cop26, as insiders told the Guardian of a rift between the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and prime minister, Boris Johnson, over green measures.
Sunak visited the summit briefly but made little impact on senior figures from other countries present. The foreign secretary, Liz Truss, also played a little role in Glasgow.
Rachel Kyte, a former World Bank top official on climate change, now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University in the US, told the Guardian that getting other donor countries to increase climate finance “was made even more complicated by UK Treasury’s insistence on cutting overseas aid. While this was then confirmed as being temporary the damage was done … The UK lost moral authority, and leverage as the presidency which we saw them struggling with. Alok was liked and respected wherever he went but it was not lost on people that he was a little alone [in the cabinet as a champion of climate action]. ”
Rachel Kennerley, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The fight to curb climate breakdown didn’t end with Mr Sharma’s gavel coming down on an underwhelming deal. Just next week the high court will hear about UK-financed gas drilling in Mozambique, so this is the perfect time for the government to withdraw support for that damaging project, laden as it is with climate hypocrisy.
“Given the UK’s historical contributions to emissions alongside our role as Cop host, it’s right that we take a good look at the fact that we are still supporting fossil fuel extraction, here and overseas.”
Announced today (23 November), the Carbon Innovation Fund will run for three years, offering £1m in grant funding annually to community environmental causes, social enterprises, charities, start-ups and collaborative projects working on solutions for a more sustainable food system.
Ten projects will be awarded each year by the Fund and each successful applicant will be entitled to a share of up to £100,000. Applicants will need to be UK-based but their projects could help decarbonisation at any point in the food system globally.
Co-op said in a statement that it will only support projects that contribute to “real systems change” for food. The company has also said the fund will support the preservation and dissemination of ancient and indigenous knowledge as well as supporting emerging technologies and processes.
“With the Carbon Innovation Fund, we’re looking to do something different; rather than ideas for individual commercial benefit, we want innovations that can be freely shared and can be of benefit to society in general,” said Co-op Food’s chief executive Jo Whitfield.
“It’s this type of co-operation that we believe we need to help accelerate our response to the climate crisis.”
The Fund is being provided with money allocated from the Co-op; the retailer allocates 2p from every £1 of sales to its charitable foundation. Applications are open until 12pm on Friday 10 December 2021.
Earlier this year, the Co-op Group built on a commitment to reach carbon neutrality for all own-brand food and drink by 2025 with a detailed 10-point climate action plan. The firm’s long-term climate goal is net-zero across all scopes, for all Group activities, by 2040.
Then, at COP26 in Glasgow this month, the retailer joined competitors Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose & Partners and Marks & Spencer in signing a new joint commitment to halve the nature and climate impacts of food systems by 2030. This initiative is being orchestrated by WWF.
The news on the Carbon Innovation Fund comes on the same week that John Lewis & Partners, in partnership with environmental charity Hubbub, launched a new £1m fund for innovative projects that help to reduce waste across the food, textiles and technology sectors.
Countries have gathered to negotiate the final details of a global bid to keep planetary warming under 1.5-2C.Olivia Wannan reports from Glasgow.
ANALYSIS: The world has agreed to ramp up climate action even further this decade, spend more on adaptation, and even for the first time, agree that (some) fossil fuels must go.
The two-week UN climate summit in Glasgow has ended in a joint compromise from nearly 200 countries, including on a number of outstanding sticky issues in the Paris Agreement “rulebook”. Developed countries have also acknowledged they have a legal and moral obligation to help vulnerable countries with the permanent loss and damage they are already suffering – though punted a solution to future meetings.
And a last-minute capitulation to phase down rather than phase out coal power cast a shadow over the Glasgow pact. In the end, the measure of success will depend on where history sets its benchmark.
If we use the lowest bar for success – whether there is more global climate action today than there was two weeks ago – then the 26th Conference of the Parties (or COP26) has achieved that.
The announcement that India had set a net-zero target was a pleasing development, even if the target date is 2070 and its short-term pledges remained unambitious. Indonesia’s and South Korea’s pledges to phase out coal-power was also good news. Canada and the US made large commitments to reduce fossil methane leaks (and, interestingly, agricultural emissions) and got nearly 100 other countries to sign up.
And while China declined to join the methane pledge, it did sign a deal with the US late in the second week, which included commitments to regulate methane leaks and limit deforestation.
Were governments ambitious enough?
If the point of success is 1.5 degrees Celsius, then the conference will not earn that accolade. Climate modellers have been tracking the plethora of commitments and coalitions launched during the meeting. Even on the basis that every single one will be met (a prospect many doubt), that path would hold warming to 1.8C. Scientists warn that the effects of climate change get vastly worse with even a fraction of a degree, so there is a lot of human suffering between 1.5C and 1.8C.
In addition, experts have also exposed the large gap between countries’ long-term goals and the short-term action they’re prepared to take.
Short-term goals are outlined in each country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (or NDC). These look out to 2030 – a point when carbon dioxide emissions would need to nearly halve, according to the world’s climate scientists, to keep 1.5C within reach. The path set by these and other pledges out to 2030 put the world on a path to 2.4C.
The host country, the UK, selected Alok Sharma to act as the president of the 26th Conference of the Parties (or COP26). JEFF J MITCHELL/GETTY IMAGES
With this in mind, countries that have not yet updated their NDC have been officially urged to submit tougher targets before COP27, to be held in Egypt. In fact, all countries are being requested to revisit their targets by the end of next year to ensure they align with 1.5C to 2C of warming (though this is caveated to take into account national circumstances).
It’s hoped big emitters such as China, Russia and Australia might then come to next year’s meeting with NDCs that could shift the global temperature dial even further still. Climate Change Minister James Shaw has already poured cold water on the idea of the New Zealand Government following this recommendation.
The onslaught of coalitions and alliances – on everything from methane and fossil fuel extraction to deforestation – announced during COP26 will supplement countries’ NDCs. There was plenty of criticism that these were voluntary, with no compliance. For example, if New Zealand fails to produce its intended methane savings of 10 per cent by 2030, the Global Methane Pledge won’t come after us in any way, beyond a public shaming.
But that’s a pattern set by the Paris Agreement itself. There are some seemingly mandatory features for the 197 countries signed up – such as reporting and deadlines for new targets. But even those aren’t well enforced: New Zealand missed the deadline to strengthen its NDC. We just scraped in before the start of COP26.
During a short speech on the final day, Shaw reflected on the shortcomings of the proposed agreement: “Is it enough to hold warming to 1.5C? I honestly can’t say that I think that it does. But we must never, ever give up,” he said.
“The text represents the least-worst outcome. The worst outcome would be to not agree [on] it, and keep talking through next year and deter action for yet another year.”
Countries in the naughty corner
Large greenhouse emitters China and Russia were called out for not showing up, literally and figuratively. Chinese president Xi Jinping and Russia president Vladimir Putin did not attend the leaders’ summit at the beginning of the talks, though negotiating teams for each country did attend to get the Paris Agreement “rulebook” and other outstanding matters settled.
Chinese president Xi Jinping did not attend COP26. He has not left China since the beginning of the pandemic (File photo) ANDY WONG/AP
By COP26, all 197 countries in the Paris Agreement were supposed to “ratchet” up their ambition. Russia updated its pledge last year, though it was deemed little better than its old one.
In 2020, Xinping announced a new pledge: that his country’s emissions would peak before 2030 and that China would reach net zero by 2060. This year, he formalised those commitments and promised to stop financing coal-fired power plants in other countries.
The Chinese leader is known to save his major climate announcements for UN general assembly events, rather than play to the COP timetable.
But similar criticism could be aimed at New Zealand, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern not attending the talks and – more importantly – taking few concrete steps during the two weeks.
The Government did increase its NDC, before the summit began. Ardern promised to save 149 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next decade.
Billed as a halving of emissions, Climate Action Tracker said – minus the creative maths – this was closer to a 22 per cent cut (a target now rated as “almost sufficient” though not our fair share).
And even that won’t require the country to take additional action domestically. (Thus, New Zealand retained Climate Action Tracker’s “Highly Insufficient” rating).
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern did not attend the Glasgow climate summit, citing her duties as the APEC host. (File photo) HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES
New Zealand is still planning to emit roughly the same amount of net emissions between now and 2030 as in the budgets proposed by the Climate Change Commission earlier this year. So now, the Government will just buy a few more carbon credits from other countries.
During the summit, New Zealand also signed up to a number of pledges without taking any major new steps. No new policies will be required for the Government to meet the Global Methane Pledge – because it’s a collective goal to reduce methane by 30 per cent, New Zealand can simply make the cut of 10 per cent it’s already obliged to under the Zero Carbon Act.
Similarly, our new membership in the pledge to end deforestation or in the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance required little extra.
In sum, the Government has done little but spent more money: committing to a larger carbon credit bill, and also increasing foreign aid towards mitigation and adaptation for developing nations – which it bumped up to $325 million each year.
Still, New Zealand behaved better than our trans-Tasman neighbour. Australia refused to boost its NDC, stayed far away from alliances cutting methane and coal, and initially attempted to block declarations on phasing out fossil fuels.
An emotional Mary Robinson, Chair of @TheElders and former President of Ireland slams leaders for not being in crisis mode and blames Saudi Arabia for blocking @skynews#COP26 Today will be very important. pic.twitter.com/BxEcXzGptg
Climate finance was a critical item on this year’s agenda. In return for a commitment to begin cutting emissions, developed countries promised – by 2020 – to deliver $100 billion to developing countries each year.
That deadline was missed, but the COP26 organisers hoped to pull a few additional commitments out of large economies. Early in the talks, the goal appeared to be within reach after the Japanese prime minister agreed to bump his country’s share up by $10b.
Yet with the US arguing their hands were tied by a requirement to get permission from Congress, there were few other large economies to come to the table. As the summit closed, this goal remained unmet.
Australia was a relative Scrooge: prime minister Scott Morrison doubled his contribution – to AU$2b (NZ$2.08b) – whereas New Zealand quadrupled its cash to NZ$1.3b.
As well as meeting the old goal, the talks turned to the next climate finance target.
There wasn’t much progress on setting a new goal for mitigation finance, apart from a call for discussions to begin. Finance in the form of loans – a bugbear of developing countries – wasn’t ruled out. On a brighter note, rich countries are urged to “at least” double the cash put towards adaptation.
Another request of developed countries was for the finance they were owed, under the legal precedent of loss and damage, for the permanent effects that climate change was already having on their lives. In the Pacific, this includes the loss of land to sea level rise and salinisation, plus the loss of GDP from extreme weather events that had become a permanent part of storm season.
Three philanthropies offer £3m to help set up a Glasgow Loss and Damage Finance Facility, nudging developed countries resisting calls to create one https://t.co/5gwTXfsLAG
Developed countries had contributed the lion’s share of the rise in greenhouse gas, and therefore – the argument goes – should have to stump up that share of the costs.
And while developing countries welcomed the help from a proposed network that would offer them technical assistance in dealing with these permanent issues, they also wanted cash for reparations. This was a point of principle for many. In the end, the countries decided that this scheme “will be provided with funds”, though specific numbers will need to be discussed.
Cyclones are coming with increased frequency to Fiji. So too are calls for rich, developed countries to provide reparations. NASA VIA AP
The biggest sticking points
The summit’s to-do list also included the finalisation of the Paris Agreement “rulebook”, which would specify how the landmark 2015 accord would actually work in practice.
A number of sticky issues – including how countries might create and trade carbon credits between one another and what information would be required to be submitted on a regular basis – had failed to be resolved at previous meetings.
One of the most contentious debates revolved around who could claim credit for carbon-cutting projects paid for by others. Many countries – including New Zealand – maintained that the global carbon maths must be balanced: if carbon credits were sold, then the purchasing country (or company) would adjust its emissions tally down and the host country must adjust its tally upwards.
But Brazil in particular argued that the host should, essentially, be able to have its climate cake and eat it.
To settle this issue, a proposal to create two types of carbon credits was put on the table. There would be higher-quality credits to be sold to other countries and airlines in an international pact. In addition, there would be a lesser type of credit, offered to private companies.
The host country of carbon cutting projects now holds the power to authorise higher-quality credits. When that happens, the balanced carbon maths (that New Zealand and others want) would be required.
It can also authorise lesser credits. While these would be paid for by someone else, the host country could claim the environmental benefits when it reported its progress towards its NDC.
Experts, including Environmental Defense Fund’s Kelley Kizzier, said this system appeared robust – though it may need keeping an eye on.
It’s debatable how many companies would want these lesser credits, since they may not be able to use carbon-neutral claims, for example.
However, activists were worried that giving host countries authorisation powers might allow them to flout safeguards, such as protections for human rights.
Another area of contention was on old carbon credits, dating back to the predecessor of the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol. Many Kyoto carbon-cutting projects had issued credits that remained available for sale.
Since president Jair Bolsonaro took office, Brazil began to fight for controversial climate provisions in the Paris rulebook. ERALDO PERES/AP
Climate activists hate this idea, criticising these old units as “zombie credits”.
But the host countries of some of these projects – notably Brazil – did not want to lose the value of the units. They argued that the schemes, which were reducing emissions, could collapse without funding.
In the talks, some countries signalled they’d be open to allowing these projects to transition into the new system, but wanted to restrict the number of “carryover credits” issued before 2020, when the Paris Agreement took effect.
A consensus was struck, allowing some old credits to enter the new system. There were a few limitations: the project had to have started after 2013, with the credits issued before 2021, and these could only be used towards a country’s first NDC. This is one compromise likely to receive heavy criticism from climate activists in the coming days.
The purchase of these old credits will weaken, or completely undermine, the NDC of any country that uses them.
Speaking earlier in the week, WWF carbon market expert Brad Schallert said it is risky to allow these credits, even if there’s no appetite for them. They “blow a hole” in the Paris Agreement, he added.
“If no one buys them, then we’d be okay,” he added. “But we have to assume the worst.”
A proposal to limit the number of carbon credits a country can use to achieve its NDC made it into the rulebook. New Zealand negotiators opposed this provision strongly – if set high enough, this could seriously mess with the Government’s plans to outsource up to 68 per cent of its carbon-cutting pledge.
But the work to set this limit won’t start until 2028, meaning it’s more likely to be an issue for the next NDC period, beyond 2030.
What climate activists fought for
Considering the failure of “Global North” countries to produce the $100b on time, one hot-button issue during the summit was a suggestion that every carbon trade should provide a 2 or 5 per cent cut of the proceeds to an adaptation fund, to help vulnerable communities.
It wasn’t just the percentage that negotiators were haggling over, but the types of trade involved. The Paris Agreement specifically links this idea to the international carbon market, so some negotiating teams (including New Zealand’s) thought this shouldn’t apply when countries trade directly with each other. But developing countries argued this would simply be a loophole, and wondered why anyone would design a carbon trading system with one type of credit undermining another.
This debate was also linked to a proposal to gift an “angel’s share” of all credits purchased to the Earth. If rich countries outsource their carbon goals to others, then this would give an additional boost, argued vulnerable countries (which are the keenest to see ambitious climate action). Shares of up to 30 per cent were suggested.
Under one COP26 proposal, a percentage of all carbon credits would be cancelled – and “gifted” to the good of the planet. NASA
In the end, countries settled on 5 per cent for adaptation, and 2 per cent for the planet, for any carbon credits sold on the international market.
But when countries trade credits directly between one another, they are only “strongly encouraged” to provide a share of the proceeds for adaptation and donate another cut to the Earth. This would mean a country such as New Zealand would be named and shamed for not doing this, but wouldn’t be breaking the Paris rules.
One of the passion projects of many New Zealand activists and attendees was to get protections for human rights and the rights of Indigenous people into the Paris rulebook. This would ensure that any projects using foreign funds to reduce carbon emissions would not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.
This was identified as a problem under the pre-2020 Kyoto credit system. The New Zealand negotiating team said it lobbied strongly for these rights to be included and the proposed rules to be as tough as could be.
This was successful: projects will need to demonstrate how they will protect these rights, both in the initial design of the scheme and in regular reports. The push to get an independent body to assess grievances was also successful.
How much should developed nations pay for damages due to climate change? It’s a major #COP26 flashpoint, and these @nyt charts dive into 170 years of CO2 emissions that show a huge rich/poor divide that’s not going away after Glasgow. https://t.co/TBH8xchx2R
A fight to get 197 countries to agree to some joint commitment calling time on fossil fuels was a major bone of contention at the 11th hour. To avoid annoying countries that export a lot of fossil fuels, the Paris Agreement doesn’t mention them at all.
As Saturday began, the proposed joint summary from all countries called for accelerated efforts to “phase out” both unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The US pushed to keep in the qualifiers “unabated” and “inefficient”, which weaken the proposal. It would, for example, allow coal power stations with carbon capture. The efficiency of subsidies is also a subjective assessment.
On the final day, China, India, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa and Venezuela voiced their opposition to this call.
India even argued that developing countries are “entitled” to use fossil fuels. The country’s negotiators proposed the watered-down “phase down” replace “phase out” related specifically to coal power.
This didn’t go down well: the Swiss negotiator pointed out the amendment would make it harder to reach 1.5C, and received a long round of applause. COP26 president Alok Sharma, who set out to “consign coal to history”, became visible upset when discussing the concession.
In the end, the wording was reluctantly passed – so the package of wider measures could be as well.
While hardly progressive, fossil fuels still took a small hit, and the call could pave the way for stronger language at future COPs.
Let's remember that despite this watered-down language, this is the first COP decision to mention coal (even "phase down"), and fossil fuel subsidies. #COP26
All in all, the sheer volume of competing interests means COP26 was unlikely to be capable of producing an agreement that any single person would prefer.
There will be a lot of interpretation of what it got wrong. But getting nearly 200 countries to collectively move, even on this existential issue, is a mammoth undertaking. For just a day or two, that needs to be celebrated.
The judgement of the world, particularly the young, was on negotiators’ minds. On Friday (Saturday NZ time), European Union climate chief Frans Timmermans held up a photo of his grandchild, and shared his concern about the young child’s future.
A day later, Tuvalu Climate Minister Seve Paeniu shared a photo of his three grandchildren. “Glasgow has made a promise to secure their future – that will be the best Christmas gift that I will present to them.”
Google announced a suite of new features that it says will help people who use their platforms make more sustainable choices. The new services focus on reducing planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions and are primarily found on Search, Maps, Travel, and Nest.
But before we get into the details of how their new tools work, a quick note of context; some environmental advocates have called out companies for shifting responsibility for the climate crisis onto individual consumers. Holding big corporate polluters accountable for their emissions far outweighs any one consumers’ individual impact. And Wednesday’s announcements from Google aren’t really designed to reduce the company’s own carbon footprint.
That being said, there’s no time to lose to the prevent the climate crisis from getting worse, and every bit of emissions-savings helps. For those who might want some new tools to rein in their own emissions, here’s a breakdown of what Google just announced.
HOLDING BIG CORPORATE POLLUTERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR EMISSIONS FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY ONE CONSUMERS’ INDIVIDUAL IMPACT.
SEARCH
Sometime this month, Google plans to switch up the way results for “climate change” appear in its Search platform. Users will be led to a dedicated results page with “high quality climate-related information,” according to Google. It plans to source content from reputable authorities on the subject, including the United Nations.
The company also says it wants to make it easier for consumers to see more eco-friendly options when shopping on Google. By “early next year,” when users based in the US search for car models and manufacturers, Google will also show results for hybrid and electric vehicles. When searching for a particular electric vehicle, users will also find nearby charging stations that are compatible with the model.
Similarly, Google users in the US should begin to see suggestions Wednesday for more energy efficient home appliances when shopping online. That applies to searches for furnaces, dishwashers, water heaters, stoves, and dryers.
Google, however, did not announce any changes to searches on YouTube, which is a big platform for misinformation and lies about climate change. Of the top 100 videos that pop up when searching for “global warming,” 20 percent of views are for videos rife with misinformation, according to one recent analysis by nonprofit Avaaz. Google has also not met its own employees’ demands that it cancel contracts with fossil fuel companies or stop funding and lobbying for candidates that derail climate action.
MAPS
Starting Wednesday, people in the US can see which driving routes are the most fuel-efficient when using Google Maps. (The company originally announced in March that this feature was on the way.) Fuel efficiency cuts down on both gas costs and tailpipe pollution. When the most fuel-efficient route is also the fastest, Google Maps will default to that option. If the fuel-efficient route is slower, the app will show users their options so that they can make an educated decision on which to choose. Users in Europe will be able to do the same starting in 2022, according to Google.
That will, in theory, help individual Google Maps users reduce their CO2 emissions. A passenger vehicle typically releases just under five metric tons of CO2 a year. And a person in the US, which has one of the highest rates of per capita emissions in the world, might be responsible for about 18 metric tons a year. Google, on the other hand, unleashed 12,529,953 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2019. That’s roughly equivalent to more than 2.73 million passenger vehicles’ pollution in a year.
Google’s new Lite Navigation for cyclists. GIF: Google
TRAVEL
When searching for flights through Google, starting Wednesday, users will now be able to see the carbon dioxide emissions associated with each flight. They’ll even be able to see how their seat choice affects their individual carbon footprint. Taking a seat in business or first class increases the amount of pollution you’re responsible for, since they take up more space and therefore a larger share of the plane’s emissions. Choosing a more fuel efficient itinerary can actually cut CO2 pollution from a given route by as much as 63 percent, recent research found.
The City of Houston has committed to 100 percent renewable energy. Mayor Sylvester Turner announced that the city has teamed up with NRG Energy to power all municipal operations with renewable energy beginning in July.
Through the partnership, the City of Houston will receive 1,034,399 MWh of renewable electricity from a utility-scale solar facility each year. The contract with NRG is set to last seven years and is projected to save the city a total of $65 million during its duration.
The transition to renewable energy is part of Houston’s recently released Climate Action Plan. Mayor Turner, along with the City’s Office of Sustainability, released the Houston Climate Action Plan in honor of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day.
“This announcement is a shining example of how the Houston Climate Action Plan is already in motion. Expanding our renewable energy investment through our partnership with NRG helps us build a more sustainable city and save over $9 million per year on our electric bill,” said Mayor Sylvester Turner. “Together, we are leading by example and showing how to reduce emissions in the Energy Capital of the World.”
Houston is no stranger to the impacts of climate change. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey pummeled Houston. The Category 4 hurricane caused widespread devastation and $125 billion in damage. According to Houston’s Office of Sustainability, the Climate Action Plan is a key element of the Hurricane Harvey recovery effort. The City of Houston aims to reduce emissions and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
“Houstonians have experienced the effects of climate change. Hurricane Harvey was larger, slower, and had 40 percent more rain than it would have if it had occurred 100 years ago. In Houston, spring arrives three weeks earlier than it did even a generation ago and our already hot summers keep getting hotter,” stated Turner.
“Houston is a global city and climate change is a global challenge, which is why as a member of C40 Cities Global Climate Leadership Group and Vice Chair of U.S. Climate Mayors, I am committed to doing our part to make Houston carbon neutral by 2050 in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Turner.
“We can’t fix the problem overnight—but if we take bold, transformative action to lead our city down a more sustainable path, we’ll leave behind a better Houston, and a better world, for future generations.”
This story originally appeared in The Planetary Pressand is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
In January 2020, the World Economic Forum will call on companies to raise their ambitions for climate action at the Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters under the theme “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” The meeting’s 50th edition will bring together over 3,000 participants from around the world. For the fourth year, it will also be climate neutral.
So what exactly does being climate neutral mean?
For one thing, we do everything we can to reduce emissions in the first place. This involves looking at everything: from our use of materials and resources (this year, we are actually changing the configuration of the Congress Centre layout to use less carpet), to the food we serve (more local, seasonal and plant-based than ever before) and transportation (our fleet of cars and buses is 90% hybrid or electric this year).
We will keep on looking for ways to reduce our environmental footprint. For everything that we cannot eliminate, we offset by investing in schemes that reduce emissions levels in the atmosphere.
We have been calculating and offsetting all emissions to the Annual Meeting – including staff and participant air travel – by funding certified offsetting projects around the world since 2017. Beyond carbon emission reduction, these initiatives also create jobs and improved living conditions. For example, one of the projects selected to offset the 2018 meeting was Rwandan Boreholes, whichhas already provided 50 million litres of water to over 68,000 people and saved 85,000 tonnes of wood that would have been used to boil water for purification.
To offset the 2020 Annual Meeting, the Forum has decided to continue supporting two key projects: the Jacundá project in the Amazonian “Arc of Deforestation” known for its disappearing tropical forest, which protects an area of 95,000 hectares of native forest and sustainably produced rubber, açai and brazil nuts, and the Biogas for Greener Farms, which uses methane generated by the processing of manure in biogas digesters as energy and the residue as fertiliser for local farms in Switzerland.
Here are some other examples of offsetting projects supported by the Forum in collaboration with South Pole, a leading provider of global climate solutions.
Waste Composters
Although composting human waste, manure, or landfill is hardly new, reducing its carbon emissions is a more recent concern. Biogas digesters recycle the output of composting to have a twofold benefit: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enabling the production of green energy. Benefits include maintaining soil fertility and supporting food safety.
Composting New Dehli ensures that solid waste from fruit and vegetable markets in Delhi, India, doesn’t end up in landfills and transforms 73,000 tonnes of it into about 200 tonnes of compost every year. In Cambodia, the National Biodigester programme not only treats waste then used as fertilizer by over 18,000 farms but also replaces biomass stoves, saving 150,000 tonnes of wood since 2006.
Cook Stoves
Conventional stoves are inefficient and produce indoor smoke – the equivalent of burning 400 cigarettes per hour. Cook stoves, which have fewer fumes and require less energy and wood, provide health, energy and environmental benefits.
In India, where it’s estimated that toxic fumes from conventional cookstoves cause 500,000 premature deaths per year, The Breathing Space Cook Stove has already provided efficient cookstoves to over 200,000 families. In Mali, Katene Clean Cookstoves created 400 jobs in a local stove manufacturing factory and planted 2,400m2 of trees to counter desertification in a country that is more than half covered by the Sahara.
Communities gathering firewood in China’s Mamize Nature Reserve in Sichuan province threaten the surrounding biodiversity and the habitat of giant pandas, an issue the WWF Mamize Firewood-Saving Cook Stove Project has been working to address.
Small interventions on cooking stoves, such as improved ignition rates, can also benefit users financially – Highveld Air Quality – NFS project in South Africa, for example, saves users about $30 a year.
Hydro
Sustainable hydro plants are the most efficient way to generate electricity, but their cost is often a barrier to their construction. In Brazil, Incomex Hydro has set up three hydro plants, which produce clean energy and reduce over 83,000 tonnes of CO2 per year – that’s the equivalent of electricity use for 14,000 houses.
On a bigger scale, China’s Huóshui Grouped Small Hydropower has been supplying energy for over half a million rural Chinese homes every year and has supported the community with sustainable agricultural workshops for over 170 people, social initiative funding, and an educational programme about environment protection in which about 200 students have taken part.
Wind Power
Another renewable source of energy that can satisfy the world’s increasing demand is wind power. In Viet Nam, where economic growth and power demands are outpacing supplies, Bac Lieu Wind Farmset up the first large-scale coastal wind power project of the country.
In India, Mitcon wind plants have been supplying the national grid, creating employment, and supporting women entrepreneurs. Argentina’s economic difficulties from the early 2000s generated an energy crisis and an inability to meet power demands in sustainable ways. Today, Rawson windfarm works in Patagonia, one of the windiest regions of the world.
Reducing emissions remains the first priority of the Forum’s sustainability efforts for the Annual Meeting 2020, which form part of the boarder institutional sustainability strategy. Offsetting is used to neutralize the emissions that could not be avoided, in a way that fosters sustainable development in Switzerland and abroad.
Aylin Elci, Communications Officer, World Economic Forum Geneva
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22903827/SWG_litenav.gif)
