With COP29 being referred to as a ‘financial COP’, much of the focus on the various agenda items was on the contentious question of who owes what to whom. Crucially, the meeting was meant to advance negotiations on a new collective quantitative goal (NCQG) for climate finance for the post-2025 period, which will be agreed in Baku.
But despite the ‘quantification’ in the name of the goal, developed countries have refused to address the important question of how much is owed and how much is needed.
The 2020 target of $100 billion per year (extended until 2025) remains unmet, with most of the funds claimed by the Global North being donated in the form of loans or funds diverted from other foreign budgets.
Likewise, despite the long and hard fought fight to secure a new loss and damage financing mechanism at COP27, the money currently promised remains empty, with less than 0.2% of the climate change-related losses suffered by countries in the Global South each year.
Climate finance is key. It is closely linked to the UNFCCC’s core principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and has been central to breaking the deadlock since negotiations began.
But instead of concrete financial commitments and commitments, carbon markets are increasingly being used as climate finance, with some countries on the front lines of the climate crisis increasingly desperate to secure 5% of market revenues under the Paris Agreement. Others are preparing to fill long-standing gaps in adaptation finance, and sell off their rich ecosystems in some form of carbon credits.
The practical limitations of new terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) plans, as well as the social and environmental damages, are becoming apparent, not to mention the scale of their impact on the climate. One of the most widely known CDR technologies, bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), would require twice as much land as is currently farmed on Earth, making the ocean the next frontier for such applications.
The ocean covers more than 70% of the Earth’s surface and is already our greatest ally in the fight against climate change. But surprisingly, the highly speculative and dangerous theory of manipulating the oceans to sequester and store more carbon is increasingly being incorporated into the climate policy landscape.
We see this in the opaque language inviting parties to expand ‘ocean-based mitigation measures’ included in the Global Inventory Decision in Dubai last year, and more clearly in the explicit inclusion of hazardous ocean CDR methods in ongoing projects. There is debate over the Article 6 Directive, which identifies ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement and algae cultivation/biomass sedimentation for potential inclusion, through various iterations.
And, what is concerning, we saw this at the Oceans and Climate Change Dialogue in Bonn this year. The Dialogue, which began with the theme, “The need to strengthen understanding and action on oceans and climate change,” is now in its fourth year and has been pushing forward research and development on ocean CDR under the theme, “Technical requirements for ocean climate action, including financial linkages.”
The problem for those who want to plunder and economicize the oceans in the name of climate change mitigation is that the UNFCCC and other equally important UN conventions have good reason to impose restrictive regulations on such activities.
The Convention on Biological Diversity in fact While the London Convention/London Protocol, which regulates marine pollution, made clear its intention to potentially add four categories of marine geoengineering to the ocean fertilization ban in 2008, a moratorium on all geoengineering has been in place since 2010.
Most importantly, commercial factors are a key factor in limiting field experiments in both systems. This is an inherent element of any ocean-based CDR envisioned for carbon markets, voluntary or not.
But the fact is that none of the marine geoengineering approaches, called CDR, do anything to address the root causes of climate change, and none of them have proven to effectively capture or store carbon in perpetuity.
This is a very dangerous thing that will hinder the real action we know is needed to rapidly reduce greenhouse gases, starting with an urgent and phased phase out of fossil fuels. Moreover, this has the potential to cause great harm to the delicate balance of the oceans, which are already under severe stress from over-exploitation, pollution and global warming, with potentially serious consequences for marine biodiversity, food chains, fisheries and even the natural capacity of the oceans. may result. Sequesters carbon.
At least 40 offshore geoengineering experiments spanning a variety of theories and technologies are currently underway or planned, many of which have a clear commercial element and are likely to violate international agreements. Some of these already face very practical problems. Such as the postponement of Planetary Technologies’ planned ocean alkalinity enhancement trial in Cornwall. There, community resistance led to an independent assessment that exposed serious flaws in the plan, and biomass cultivation and subsidence began. up Running Tide announced only last week that it was closing its significantly advanced operation, citing a lack of demand for its carbon credits on the voluntary market.
But ultimately, as a range of civil society organisations have made clear in multiple ocean and climate dialogues and in a statement last month endorsed by over 100 organisations, the Paris Agreement carbon market, which so clearly legitimises such a highly speculative and dangerous approach, cannot ignore the international agreements that limit it and must uphold the precautionary principle.
As we head to COP29 in Baku and the IPCC begins work on its 7th Assessment Cycle later this year, the voices of civil society, indigenous peoples, coastal communities and fishermen around the world must be heard. The oceans play a vital role in sustaining life on Earth. It is clear beyond doubt that the oceans cannot be sold.
mary church I am the Geoengineering Campaign Manager at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and a member of Hands-Off Mother Earth! (Home) Alliance.
IPS ONE Office
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
