Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

UK will press governments to stick to climate pledges, says Cop26 president

UK will press governments to stick to climate pledges, says Cop26 president

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.”

 


 

Source The Guardian

Want to be a greener food shopper? We ask experts for their advice

Want to be a greener food shopper? We ask experts for their advice

We want to make the right decisions when we shop, but with so many different options on offer, how are we supposed to work out which one is best for the planet?

Guardian Money asked four experts. They are: Tim Lang, emeritus professor of food policy at City University, London’s Centre for Food Policy; Clare Oxborrow, senior sustainability analyst at Friends of the Earth; Isabella Woodward, researcher at the ethical comparison website The Good Shopping Guide; and Caroline Drummond, chief executive of Leaf (Linking Environment And Farming.

 

Is it greener to drive to a supermarket or book a delivery?

Tim Lang It depends on how much you buy. Practically, it’s hard to know what that delivery van’s impact is. If you own your own van and fill it on one trip, the carbon expended becomes proportionately smaller per food item than if you drive to the shop and buy little. The best strategy is to walk or cycle: you are taking exercise, putting the embedded energy in the food you eat to good use, and not polluting with your car. Electric cars simply push the pollution elsewhere – to the generating source..

 

Friends of the Earth There are so many factors. For deliveries, there are several questions. First, where is the food coming from – is it a warehouse? A shop? And how far away? Do they use refrigerated vans which use a lot of energy? Many supermarkets are switching to electric vans, so it’s important to check what’s available locally. The fact remains that travelling to the supermarket by foot or bike is the best choice, or opting for public transport.

Leaf For a van to deliver to some remote places, it may not be greener, but that driver could be the only person an individual living in a remote area has seen for the whole week … It is really important to understand the balance and trade-offs between impact on the environment, alongside economic viability and social acceptability and, indeed, health.

 

Food deliveries have an impact on the environment – but some say there are economic or social benefits. Photograph: Kathy deWitt/Alamy Stock Photo

 

Is organic always better?

Tim Lang Not always. Organic has the huge advantage of not being associated with pesticide use. In July I saw at a UK supermarket organic spring onions grown in Mexico. That is ludicrous. In truth, consumers get next to no information on the multiple forms of impact our food has. That’s why I, and many people, call for a new “omni-label” system that provides the range of information: not just environmental but health, social and economic data. We don’t know, for example, how much of what we spend actually gets to the primary producer.

Friends of the Earth Organic is the gold standard … so if you can afford it, it’s a great option. When it comes to meat and dairy, it will almost always be the best environmental choice in a supermarket. It does cost a bit more, but buying less and swapping some meat in dishes with other protein-rich foods like lentils will make it go further.

The Good Shopping Guide Overall, organic crops are better for nature and the biosphere. Organic farming minimises the use of pesticides, which have a potentially adverse impact on wildlife and the soil. Additionally, pesticides can be harmful to agricultural workers. However, it is important to balance this against food miles. Organic products shipped from thousands of miles away may be more harmful to the environment. Therefore, we recommend buying locally grown organic ingredients wherever possible.

 

Switching away from single-use plastic can make a real difference. Photograph: David Forster/Alamy Stock Photo

 

Can packaging cut food waste?

Tim Lang Plastic wrapping is often good news for retailers as they know it slows down the rotting process, but it is terrible for consumers and the environment. I always say: good food goes bad.

Friends of the Earth Wrapping fruit and veg in plastic can mask the fact that it’s no longer fresh. And fruit and veg left in airless plastic packaging will often go mouldy quicker than loose items without the needless wrapping. Considering that packaging is responsible for 70% of our plastic waste, there’s a huge difference to be made. It’s always better to buy loose fruit and veg, making sure they’re as fresh as possible. Stored correctly, they can last longer, too.

Leaf Packaging has certainly created an opportunity to stretch our seasons and storage for fresh fruit and veg; however, fossil fuel-based plastics and single-use plastics that are non-recyclable need to be phased out. The more we can stretch the time that fruit and veg are tasty, nutritious and assured of their growing quality, the better. Canning, freezing, packaging, storage, use of LED lights and growing capability all provide that opportunity.

 

Morrisons offers sturdy paper bags at checkouts, as it looks to ditch all its plastic ‘bags for life’. Photograph: Morrisons/PA

 

Which bags should I use?

Tim Lang If you walk to the shops, invest in a good trolley. Trolleys are trendy. Plastic bags are bad news full stop, but the avalanche continues, and it’s hard to avoid them unless you get into the habit of carrying your own bag.

Friends of the Earth Those designed to be reused tend to have a lower environmental impact than single-use plastic bags but, importantly, they must be used a sufficient number of times. For cotton bags, 50-150 times; paper bags, four-eight times; durable plastic bags like bags for life, 10-20 times. Cotton bags can be used for years, and can be washed and reused. So if you take the long view, cotton is best and more durable than plastic, particularly if it’s organic, unbleached fibre.

The Good Shopping Guide There are pros and cons to all types of shopping bags. The main problem is that many people use them once and discard them after. Regardless of what material they are, single-use bags are always unsustainable. Whichever bags you prefer to use, remember to bring them to the shop with you.

Leaf I am a big fan of the cotton tote bag. We have seen a lot of movement away from people always expecting a new plastic carrier bag when shopping, and our next step is to strive to ensure the bags we use are long-lasting, sustainably sourced and robust.

 

Cutting down on meat is one way to help the environment. Photograph: Ed Brown/Alamy

 

What’s the top thing a shopper should do to help the planet?

Tim Lang Cut down on meat. Eat it less often and buy high-quality meat such as pasture-fed. Less but better.

Friends of the Earth Livestock production has an enormous environmental impact, contributing 14.5% of the world’s planet-warming emissions. The industry is also a key driver of deforestation and the loss of important habitats, not to mention the huge amount of water and fertiliser needed, or the amount of waste produced in the process. That’s why buying and eating less meat and dairy is one of the best ways to reduce our own environmental impact.

The Good Shopping Guide Be aware of the ethical issues. This not only relates to which supermarket you use, but also which brands you are buying. We independently assess companies on their practices towards the environment, animals and people, providing a score out of 100 for each brand.

Leaf Naturally, seek out and purchase Leaf Marque produce. Quality fruit and veg grown with care for the environment, enhancing biodiversity, improving our soil health and water quality, and grown by farmers committed to more regenerative, climate-positive farming systems. Plus, go and visit a farm to see what farmers are doing to address climate change challenges.

 


 

Source The Guardian