Glasgow COP26
- This topic has 169 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 30 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It is not worth the paper and peoples continue placing their hopes in governments and leaders. Profit is the first priority and they don’t care about the death of millions of human beings Are we masochists?
“coal’s last gasp is not yet in sight”, despite countries agreeing at the Cop26 UN climate summit last November to a “phase down” of coal.
The continuing use of coal comes despite ever starker warnings from scientists in the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that the world would far exceed the 1.5C limit without rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The international aviation industry has failed to meet all but one of 50 of its own climate targets
In 2007 Virgin Atlantic set a target of a 30% reduction in CO2 per revenue tonne kilometre (CO2/RTK) by 2020, which the company later described as “a big target and we’re sticking with it”, according to the report. In a 2014 sustainability report, with a reduction in CO2/RTK of only 8% from baseline, the airline admitted: “We’re nearly halfway through our target period and know we have to pick up the pace.”
But when Virgin’s 2020 annual report was published, it no longer mentioned the 2020 target. The following year, a press release from the company announced a new target of 15% gross reduction in CO2/RTK by 2026.
Advertisement
The researchers conclude that climate target setting is in effect a smokescreen for business as usual. Such targets “appear to function principally as a tactic for giving an impression of progress and action to address aviation’s environmental impacts to the public and policymakers, in order to prevent any policy barriers to ongoing growth in the industry”, the report says.
It includes a quote from Steve Ridgway, Virgin’s chief executive in 2007, who said: “It is important that the airline industry is being seen to do something.”
Oil drilling bonanza promises to earn Guyana roughly $150bn over the life of the oilfields, estimated at 30 years. For good or ill, that represents a huge change in fortune for a country of 800,000 people, where more than 40% live below the poverty line of $5.50 (£4.20) a day. [if it ever trickles down – ajj]
“All of those that have exploited their oil resources to develop their countries should not be telling Guyana ‘leave your oil in the ground’,” Arjoon says.
“Norway is always used as the best example of a nation that utilises oil, and it is said that they have the best model for natural resources. So why should Guyana be any different? Who is to say that little Guyana, which has been blessed with so much abundant resources including oil, should not take advantage?”https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/12/exxon-oil-deal-guyana-climate
39 nations and financial institutions that signed the statement promised to end “direct public support” for the fossil fuel sector by the end of 2022 have only six months left to meet a collective commitment made at last year’s United Nations Climate Conference to end public financing of fossil fuels.
Stuart Kirk, HSBC’s head of responsible investing in charge of a team responsible for analysing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks has been suspended after he gave a presentation in London entitled “why investors need not worry about climate risk”, in which he made light of major flooding risks, and complained about having to spend time “looking at something that’s going to happen in 20 or 30 years”.
“Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years?…”
Stuart Kirk, HSBC’s head of responsible investing in charge of a team responsible for analysing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks has been suspended after he gave a presentation in London entitled “why investors need not worry about climate risk”, in which he made light of major flooding risks, and complained about having to spend time “looking at something that’s going to happen in 20 or 30 years”.
“Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years?…”
Caroline Dennett, a senior safety consultant has quit working with Shell after 11 years, accusing the fossil fuel producer in a bombshell public video of causing “extreme harms” to the environment.
She claimed Shell had a “disregard for climate change risks” and urged others in the oil and gas industry to “walk away while there’s still time”. She said she had quit because of Shell’s “double-talk on climate”.
Dennett accused the oil and gas firm of “operating beyond the design limits of our planetary systems” and “not putting environmental safety before production”.
She said: “Shell’s stated safety ambition is to ‘do no harm’ – ‘Goal Zero’, they call it – and it sounds honourable but they are completely failing on it.
“They know that continued oil and gas extraction causes extreme harms, to our climate, to our environment and to people. And whatever they say, Shell is simply not winding down on fossil fuels.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/23/shell-consultant-quits-environment-caroline-dennett
Paradoxically, green policies could lead to increased environment damage
Banks that have signed up to a global climate pledge can still invest unlimited amounts in coal mining and coal power, despite promises to tighten the rules on their lending.
Green campaigners have slammed the loopholes as “greenwashing”, after updated criteria for banks involved in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) were unveiled on Wednesday.
These loopholes would allow banks to continue to make new investments in coal until this time next year.
Should they have been surprised? We weren’t.
Banks that have signed up to a global climate pledge can still invest unlimited amounts in coal mining and coal power, despite promises to tighten the rules on their lending.
Green campaigners have slammed the loopholes as “greenwashing”, after updated criteria for banks involved in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) were unveiled on Wednesday.
These loopholes would allow banks to continue to make new investments in coal until this time next year.
Should they have been surprised? We weren’t.
Change of government in Australia but no change in policy. It will be business as usual
Labor will not support a moratorium on fossil fuel projects because doing so would have a “devastating impact on the Australian economy”.
Change of government in Australia but no change in policy. It will be business as usual
Labor will not support a moratorium on fossil fuel projects because doing so would have a “devastating impact on the Australian economy”.
USA boasts of one billion tree to be planted
https://apnews.com/article/wildfires-fires-forests-trees-plants-de0505c965c198a081a4b48084b0e903
This report places reforestation in perspective
https://www.dw.com/en/is-reforestation-the-answer-to-storing-carbon-dioxide/a-62466216
India’s plan to auction abandoned coal mines to private firms to meet rising energy demand. The government announced the reopening of 20 coal mines and called on private operators to run them, with a bidding process now underway.
https://news.trust.org/item/20220726082237-arihb/
Experts have called the plan short-sighted and out of touch with the green and fair transition the country should be aiming for, saying renewable sources would be a cheaper and quicker fix for India’s needs.
https://apnews.com/article/climate-and-environment-bca94ba396ba954cba3560e5f2f9fd6e
Broken promises on money for poor nations to tackle climate change
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.