Haiku

Infographic Timeline of Major 2016 Extreme Weather Events_V4

Link Between Climate Change & Extreme Weather. #auspol 

The Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events

All extreme weather events are being influenced by climate change as they are now occurring in a more energetic climate system (Trenberth 2012).

While extreme weather events are a natural feature of the climate system, the atmosphere and surface ocean of today contain significantly more heat than in
the 1950s.

 In fact, the rate of increase in global average temperature since 1970
is approximately 170 times the baseline
rate over the past 7,000 years (Marcott et
al. 2013; Ste en et al. 2016; NOAA 2017b). 

This extremely rapid, long-term rate of temperature increase is being driven by
the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that have accumulated primarily from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

Over the past decade climate scientists have made strong progress in identifying the links between climate change and extreme weather events, based on three main lines of evidence:

› The basic physics that govern the behaviour of the climate system shows that extreme weather events are now occurring in a significantly warmer
and wetter atmosphere, which means the atmosphere contains more energy, facilitating more severe extreme weather.

› Where sufficient  long-term data are available, observations show trends towards more intensity in many types of extreme weather events.

› More recently, ‘attribution studies’ based on detailed modelling experiments explore how climate change has already increased the probability that extreme weather events would have occurred.

Press link for full report: Climate Council

img_2217-10

I Don’t Believe in Climate Change #Auspol #science 

I don’t believe in climate change: A line in the sand

Mark Robinson 

Meteorologist

Tuesday, February 7, 2017, 12:01 PM – I don’t believe in climate change.
Wait! Before you start smashing a nasty reply back to me, keep reading.
As a trained meteorologist, storm chaser who also studied wildlife biology as an undergraduate, I don’t believe in climate change.
I accept the overwhelming evidence for it.
And that’s the critical point. When you’re talking about science, there’s no such thing as believe. There’s an acceptance or a rejection of the evidence presented. I hear far too often, from both side of the “debate” that this person or that person BELIEVES in climate change.
It drives me up the wall.

But it’s also the crux of the issue.

 I have talked to many people about climate change and why I accept the evidence for it. 

One commonality that I find with people who reject the evidence is an almost religiosity in their belief (and I use this term correctly) that the evidence is either not there or has been faked, or manipulated, or… whatever. There’s a long list.


I have no issue talking with people about their point of view.

 I like it. 

It’s my way of getting out of my own echo chamber that’s so easy to fall into. 

The only thing that I ask is that if you want to debate this, bring your science to the table. 

Otherwise it’s bringing a chihuahua to a badger fight. It’s not going to be pretty and it’s not going to last long.

What I continuously find is that the people who want to discuss it have no science, but a metric (expletive)-tonne of belief. 

I get told that the planet’s been cooling for the last 10 years, or that Climategate is still a thing.

 Or that Michael E. Mann’s graph has been debunked. 

Sources for this information are almost inevitably a blog post or a web page. 

It’s almost never credible peer-reviewed journals; which constitute the gold standard for science.

It’s the exact same tactics I practiced in my wildlife biology undergrad, but substitute evolution for climatology. 

 The same lack of real science, the same conspiracy theory tactics, the same Gish Gallops, it’s all there again.
I don’t believe in evolution either.

 I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. 

Scientific truth isn’t something you “feel”. 

It doesn’t depend on your political preferences.
Science is the single most powerful method humans have ever come up with to get as close to “truth” as possible.
And I for one, am not going to let it be destroyed because some people don’t like its conclusions.
This is my line in the sand.

Press link for more: The Weather Network

img_2193-2

A Human Economy? #auspol 

The paper has a larger aim, setting out some initial thinking on the constituent elements of a “human economy approach” that can turn around both inequality and other public bads created by prevailing orthodoxies. Here are the headlines:
A human economy would see national governments accountable to the 99 percent, and playing a more interventionist role in their economies to make them fairer and more sustainable.

A human economy would see national governments cooperate to effectively fix global problems such as tax dodging, climate change and other environmental harm.


A human economy would see businesses designed in ways that increase prosperity for all, and contribute to a sustainable future.

A human economy would not tolerate the extreme concentration of wealth or poverty, and the gap between rich and poor would be far smaller.

A human economy would work equally as well for women as it does for men.


A human economy would ensure that advances in technology are actively steered to be to the benefit of everyone, rather than meaning job losses for workers or more wealth for those who own the businesses.

A human economy would ensure an environmentally sustainable future by breaking free of fossil fuels and embarking on a rapid and just transition to renewable energy.

A human economy would see progress measured by what actually matters, not just by GDP. This would include women’s unpaid care, and the impact of our economies on the planet.

img_2103-1

We must not give up the fight on climate change! #auspol 

Canada (And Australia) must not give up the fight on climate change
Thomas Homer-Dixon is a professor in the Balsillie School of International Affairs and the faculty of environment at the University of Waterloo.
Those of us concerned about climate change generally inhabit an old-fashioned reality-based world. Scientific research and evidence drive our concern. Although we wish the climate problem would vanish – because, among other things, we want our kids and grandkids to have a safe future – that motivation doesn’t override what science tells us. And science tells us that climate change is a grave threat to humanity.


Now we also have to face the reality that Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States is calamitous for the fight against climate change. Because Mr. Trump and his key cabinet nominees are deeply committed to promoting carbon-based energy industries, they’re not inclined to believe that climate change is a pressing danger or even, in the case of some of nominees, real. The president-elect himself is ignorant of basic science and has an almost postmodernist contempt for facts or anything resembling the truth. He operates within and through a discourse of authority and force, not a discourse of reason.


For Mr. Trump, evidence either doesn’t matter or it can be created at will, which means he’s largely unreachable through evidence-based argument. His magical reality is unfalsifiable. Ice could completely disappear from the Arctic, forests in the U.S. West could erupt in fire, and a Category 5 hurricane could smash his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to toothpicks, and it wouldn’t make any difference to his views on climate change. (While campaigning in California, Mr. Trump denied the state is suffering from a severe drought.)

Immediately after his inauguration, Mr. Trump and his cabinet will launch a full-scale assault on the national and international apparatus of climate policy and on the institutions of climate science within the U.S. Climate scientists will likely be muzzled, threatened, and purged, research programs curtailed and shut down, and climate data locked up or destroyed.
Meanwhile, surging populist movements are weakening the capacity and resolve of the European Union, the world’s other main actor in the climate-change fight. Yes, there are some positive developments: California and some other U.S. states are pressing ahead with carbon reductions, cities around the world are adopting meaningful climate plans, and China is rolling out renewable energy at a breakneck pace (although its coal consumption has recently bounced upward). Overall, though, the scene is vastly bleaker than when the Paris Accord was announced – just a year ago.

So what’s Canada to do? It might seem that it’s time for everyone, including Canada, to bolt for the exits. The Trudeau government’s remarkable achievement of a national climate policy, with broad agreement of the provinces, now appears thoroughly anomalous. Sure enough, folks who want Canada to curtail its efforts are repeating their favourite argument: Canada’s overall contribution to warming is so small that our emission cuts can’t make any real difference. So we shouldn’t do much, they say, and we certainly shouldn’t impose carbon prices, until the U.S. and China make big cuts.
The argument is logically flawed because if Canada’s emissions are trivial, and therefore its cuts won’t make a real difference, then the same must be true – even more so – for individual provinces, states, cities, industries, and households. So why, in the end, should anyone anywhere in the world make any cuts at all?
The argument is morally bankrupt, too. It excuses our bad actions by pointing to others who are doing worse things. We’d never say to our child: “It’s okay to shoplift that chocolate bar, Johnny, because other people are stealing a lot more.”
Yet some people are comfortable with the same moral reasoning when it comes to our carbon emissions, even though these emissions are relentlessly stealing our children’s future well-being.
In the end, it’s a simple moral principle – the Golden Rule – that tells us not to give up the fight against climate change. The Rule says we should treat people as we’d want to be treated if our situations were reversed. If we were our children – or if we were members of generations born later this century – we’d want today’s adults to be doing everything reasonable to stop climate change dead in its tracks.
In a world losing its grip on reality, it’s worth keeping such true principles in mind.

img_1822-5

COP22 in Marrakesh: A Critical Nuts-and-bolts Carbon-cutting Summit #auspol 

The Paris Agreement is without question an historic achievement.

World leaders authored the first-ever blueprint to broadly tackle climate change. 

The agreement was ratified globally with unprecedented haste and achieves the force of law this week, on November 4th, four years earlier than anticipated.
Meanwhile, more than 100 countries, including the U.S., China and India, agreed last month to dramatically limit the future use of hydroflourocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas used in air conditioners. Another climate victory was hailed.

But those headed to COP22 will emphatically tell anyone listening: Folks, we’re not there yet. We’re not even close. So COP22, the Conference of the Parties — running from November 7-18 — will need to top Paris in many very practical ways.

Creating an operations manual for curbing climate change

Marrakesh negotiators must get nuts-and-bolts meticulous about exactly how the world’s nations will reduce carbon emissions; how we will adapt to more extreme weather events; where we will reduce deforestation and promote reforestation; how we will inspire innovative clean-energy solutions; and, maybe most importantly, how we will raise the trillions necessary to make the singularly vital planet-saving goal of Paris happen — keeping global temperatures from rising another 0.5 degree C by 2100.

“We need an operational manual for the Paris Agreement,” Nick Nuttal, spokesman for the UN Climate Conference says from Bonn, Germany. “This is where Marrakesh needs to make a lot of progress. How will developed and developing countries report what they are doing? Transparency is key. We need to trust that your NDCs [nationally determined contributions] are being achieved.”

If these initial voluntary carbon emission cuts — pledged in Paris — are not achieved, and then quickly toughened, particularly by developed nations, then the world faces the growing wrath of a destabilized climate system. Faster sea-level rise. More drought. More ferocious hurricanes and typhoons. And more climate-change refugees fleeing uninhabitable tropical regions, coasts and low-lying island nations.

Climate scientists agree that this is the price of waiting two decades to marshal the political will to approve the Paris Agreement, which commits 195 nations to a vastly reduced carbon future.

As a range of officials make clear, the pathway to that future remains undefined and unbuilt, thus raising the stakes in Marrakesh.

The role of forests

Nancy Harris is the research manager for the World Resources Institute’s Global Forest Watch. In Paris, forests and their preservation through carbon offset programs like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) were recognized as crucial in absorbing and storing CO2 emissions in order to buy time while the world moves rapidly from burning fossil fuels to alternative energy sources.

“It’s really nice to be working in global forests right now,” WRI’s Harris says from Washington, D.C. “The recognition of forests as a climate-change mitigation strategy — reducing emissions and increasing carbon sinks — is more visible. But right now it’s all talk, and progress is being made too slowly.”

Indonesia, for example, whose vast rainforests have been decimated for oil palm plantations over the past two decades, is waking up to the realization that its remaining forests can be worth a lot if left standing through forest-protection incentives like REDD+.

“Indonesia is in line to get a lot of money,” says WRI colleague Fred Stolle, “but it has to get its act together. A billion dollars is sitting there for them. But the country doesn’t have the political will [at present] to tackle deforestation. The hope is that the next generation in Indonesia will have the willpower to do something.”

At the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, CEO Phil Duffy leads a group of scientists committed to forest preservation.

They’ve developed advanced techniques for measuring the amount of carbon stored in a particular forest to establish its value to qualify for REDD+ funding. The system works like this: a developed country such as Norway pays a developing country like Brazil or Peru to protect a swath of rainforest otherwise slated for clear-cutting for ranching, soy plantations or maybe mining. Early demonstrations with REDD+ have shown promise in Brazil — but scientific techniques for the precise measuring of forest carbon stores, like those being developed at Woods Hole, are vital to REDD+ success.

The threat of thawing permafrost

Duffy says his organization will be pressing two pragmatic goals in Marrakesh: identifying denuded or degraded tropical lands for reforestation, and promoting agricultural techniques such as no-till farming to retain and increase the carbon content of croplands.

He admits that this push by Woods Hole for more natural carbon sinks is extremely ambitious, especially in light of previous failed efforts. The recent Bonn Initiative and the New York Declaration on Forests pledged to regrow hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests globally, Duffy recalls: “Big deal. Everyone signed, high-fived and went home. Little has happened. Meanwhile, we are on target, yet again, for the hottest year on record.”

What worries a scientist like Duffy more than anything is thawing permafrost in the Arctic. Human carbon emissions have now warmed the earth to the point that we have begun triggering the melting of permafrost — which contains vast sums of methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.

If this thawing is not reversed, those soils will release tons upon tons of once-locked carbon into the atmosphere, acting as if scores of coal-fired power plants were operating in the Arctic.

“The climate experts on the National Security Council wanted a briefing on the Arctic,” Duffy says. “I told them about the permafrost. I walked away feeling very discouraged. Not because they didn’t believe me. They did. It’s just that the policy responses were nowhere near adequate to the scale of the problem. We really need to build more public interest on this issue in terms of what needs to be done.”

Money, influence and accountability

Beyond the COP buzz words of “mitigation” and “adaptation” lies a relatively new one: “loss and damage”, a reference to on-going and future climate change harm in countries with virtually no carbon footprint — damage that cannot be dodged or adapted to. Think Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (one of the most intense on record), Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, and the ongoing drought in Malawi.

“The area of ‘loss and damage’ was a huge breakthrough in Paris,” Julie-Anne Richards with Climate Change Advocacy tells me from London. “Many [developed countries] wanted to push it into [the] adaptation [category] so they didn’t need to pay for it. That failed. It’s part of the [final Paris] Agreement, but only on paper. Now we have to make the breakthrough real.”

Richards says there needs to be a new and separate fund, stuffed with billions of dollars, to assist countries suffering climate change related loss and damage. The Green Climate Fund, for example, which aims to raise $100 billion by 2020, is reserved only for mitigation and adaptation efforts.

“We are looking at insurance opportunities,” Richards says. “When a hurricane hits the Caribbean and winds go over a certain speed, a country will automatically be able to make an insurance claim. Haiti will get a pay-out from the (5-year-old) Caribbean Risk Insurance Facility because of Hurricane Matthew. But this whole area is brand new, and insurance companies are already saying things like sea-level rise are uninsurable.”

At Marrakesh, Richards insists, funding for loss and damage must be a high priority.

One way to help assure that governmental promises get converted into real action, is for NGOs to closely monitor the negotiating process. With the urgency for progress so high, and with little time to waste, such monitoring at COP22 could be intense. Corporate Accountability International is an NGO with newly official observer status, and will be on the scene in Marrakesh as a watchdog. It will be ready to pounce on entities it believes have undermined progress in UN climate summits for more than 20 years — the fossil fuel industry and business lobbyists with close ties to transnational corporations.

“Groups like the Business Roundtable and World Coal Association, the very industries the UN has tried to rein in, are now seeking to undermine the Paris Agreement,” Tamar Lawrence-Samuel, an attorney with Corporate Accountability International, tells me from Boston. “They will have direct access to negotiators in Marrakesh. As accredited business-interest NGOs, they will have legitimacy and access.

“This is a direct threat to the very spirit and mission of the Paris Agreement. Their only role should be to provide transparent information so that they can be properly regulated,” she says.

Some fear that the fossil fuel lobby will act aggressively to weaken the negotiated results at COP22, especially because the summit will lack the media spotlight that shone so brightly on Paris.

Lawrence-Samuel’s group will be doing its own lobbying in Marrakesh. Corporate Accountability will push for a conflict of interest policy that she hopes will blunt the influence of any groups that have a financial stake in the Paris Agreement being weakened, not strengthened. No such guiding mechanism now exists within the Paris Agreement.

Nick Nuttall, the UN spokesman in Bonn, is neutral on the lobbying question, and hopeful: “The secretary of OPEC came to us a few weeks ago for an honest discussion about the future,” he tells me. “OPEC consists of parties of the UN [Climate Conference] whose countries have ratified the Paris Agreement. Oil producing countries are looking at a future that is low carbon. There will be a transition.”

Certainly forward-thinking OPEC nations — especially those in North Africa and the Middle East — have much to gain from an effective Paris Agreement; if the rising heat brought by climate change isn’t abated, then their home regions could become inhabitable by mid-century, according to a 2016 study.

“The oil industry has a lot of engineering know-how that could be really useful in a carbon-reduced economy, like wave power and other wonderful inventions for the clean-energy sector,” Nuttal concludes. “To leave them out of the discussion is not very positive. We need all sectors of the economy on board in developing a low-carbon pathway to the future.”

Press link for more: Justin Catanoso pulitzercenter.org

IMG_1106-0

How does climate change fit within the Sustainable Development Goals? #Auspol

On Friday in New York, countries will adopt a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that will guide global development up to 2030.

The SDGs take the form of 17 goals, accompanied by 169 targets that give precise information about what should be achieved.
They do not skimp on ambition. If countries succeed in meeting the goals, by 2030 there will be an end to poverty, hunger, child labour, AIDS and various other problems that blight millions of lives globally.

UN is calling the “post-2015 development agenda”. “Sustainable development” – a notoriously difficult term to define – becomes impossible unless global temperature rise is tackled, according to the final document:
“Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.”
Not only has climate change been given its own, dedicated target, but it is also integrated into almost all of the other goals. Many of the targets directly reference the need to tackle climate change and its impacts in some form or another.
What was the process?
Governments instigated the process of designing the SDGs in June 2012, when they met in Brazil for the Rio+20 conference, 20 years after the original 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
Here, it was decided that there should be a new set of goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – a more modest set of eight goals that are set to expire in 2015. These would continue to build on Agenda 21, the 700-page guidebook for development adopted by the UN in 1992.
The MDGs registered many successes: the number of people living in extreme poverty declined by more than half; more than 6.2m malaria deaths were averted; and development assistance from developed countries increased by 66%, according to the 2015 progress report.
However, it also points out that there are limitations to their achievements, with progress patchy across regions, and hundreds of millions of people still living in extreme poverty.
The SDGs aim to fill this gap, and this time they are stressing that no one should be left behind. The SDGs also elevate the issue of environmental sustainability, which was missing from the MDGs.
How are they different from the MDGs?
There are high hopes that the SDGs will be more successful than the MDGs. Bernadette Fischler, executive advisor at WWF UK, who followed the negotiations, tells Carbon Brief that the process was more open and inclusive this time around. She said:
“The Millennium Development Goals were really put together by a bunch of middle-aged, white guys somewhere in the basement of the UN, basically, at the exclusion of other parties. It took the MDGs about five years to take off, also because there was quite a bit of pushback.
“Countries, especially developing countries, were a bit suspicious of this agenda, and that was completely different to the SDGs. With the SDGs, everybody was part of the creation of the agenda, which is maybe why it’s such a broad and inclusive agenda.”
The SDGs are also different qualitatively to the MDGs, offering a more systemic approach to tackling the world’s problems, says Kitty van der Heijden, director of the World Resources Institute Europe.
This should also help to frame the new goals, not just as something for the developing world, but for everyone. She said:
“It is a truly global action agenda, whereas the MDGs were largely about an agenda for the south, with the role of the north just being the funders. This agenda is as much about what happens there in the south, as about what happens here in the developed economies. This is not about development cooperation like the MDGs, but it is about a structural transformation of our economy in all countries, for all sectors and for all people, and the great thing is it will be adopted universally.”
Climate change
The SDGs cover a range of topics, but it is hard to ignore the way in which climate change is woven throughout the 17 goals.
The thirteenth goal in the SDGs sees governments pledging to: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”
This is accompanied by five underlying targets. These are:
13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
(Note that the first three are targets for the goal; the fourth and fifth, labelled with letters, provide direction about how to implement the targets. This applies throughout the SDGs.)
The document acknowledges that the UNFCCC, the agency responsible for overseeing the international climate deal this December, remains the driving force within the UN for pushing action on climate change. During the negotiations, some parties expressed concerns about how the SDG and UNFCCC processes would operate in parallel, without interfering with each other.
There is also a goal dedicated to energy. This is a pledge to: “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.”
This, too, comes with five associated goals. These are:
7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology
7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their respective programmes of support
However, references to climate change don’t stop at these goals. The need to tackle rising emissions and prepare communities for the impacts of climate change is embedded throughout the document, sometimes directly and sometimes obliquely.
The first goal, for instance, is to end poverty. But this includes a target to reduce the exposure and vulnerability of the poor to climate-related extreme events.
The second goal is to end hunger. One of the targets involves ensuring that food production systems are able to adapt to climate change.
The goal relating to education includes a target that all learners should be educated in sustainable development and how to live a sustainable lifestyle.
These are just a few examples of the many places in which climate change is woven throughout the SDGs.
Press link for more: Sophie Yeo | carbonbrief.org

IMG_0902

Islamic Declaration Blasts Short-Sighted Capitalism, Demands Action on Climate

Ahead of UN summit in Paris, new document presents the moral case for Muslims and people of all faiths worldwide to mobilize against fossil fuel addiction and global warming.

Just as scientists announced July was the hottest month in recorded history, and ahead of a major climate summit in Paris later this year, an international group of Islamic leaders on Tuesday released a public declaration calling on the religion’s 1.6 billion followers to engage on the issue of global warming and take bold action to stem its worst impacts.

Released during an international symposium taking place in Istanbul, the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change is signed by 60 Muslim scholars and leaders of the faith who acknowledge that—despite the short-term economic benefits of oil, coal, and gas—humanity’s use of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming which increasingly threatens “a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans.”

The declaration states there is deep irony that humanity’s “unwise and short-sighted use of these resources is now resulting in the destruction of the very conditions that have made our life on earth possible.”
“Our attitude to these gifts has been short-sighted, and we have abused them,” it continues. “What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?”

As with the papal encyclical, the Muslim scholars take special note of how global capitalism—namely the “relentless pursuit of economic growth and consumption”—has fostered an energy paradigm that now threatens the sustainability of living systems and human society.
With a focus on the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP21) talks in Paris, the declaration urges leaders to forge an “equitable and binding” agreement and called on all nations to:

Aim to phase out greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere;

Commit themselves to 100 % renewable energy and/or a zero emissions strategy as early as possible, to mitigate the environmental impact of their activities;

Invest in decentralized renewable energy, which is the best way to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development;

Realize that to chase after unlimited economic growth in a planet that is finite and already overloaded is not viable. Growth must be pursued wisely and in moderation; placing a priority on increasing the resilience of all, and especially the most vulnerable, to the climate change impacts already underway and expected to continue for many years to come.

Set in motion a fresh model of wellbeing, based on an alternative to the current financial model which depletes resources, degrades the environment, and deepens inequality.

Prioritise adaptation efforts with appropriate support to the vulnerable countries with the least capacity to adapt. And to vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples, women and children.

When it comes to wealthier nations and the oil-rich states of the world, the declaration called on them to specifically:
Lead the way in phasing out their greenhouse gas emissions as early as possible and no later than the middle of the century;

Provide generous financial and technical support to the less well-off to achieve a phase-out of greenhouse gases as early as possible;

Recognize the moral obligation to reduce consumption so that the poor may benefit from what is left of the earth’s non-renewable resources;

Stay within the ‘2 degree’ limit, or, preferably, within the ‘1.5 degree’ limit, bearing in mind that two-thirds of the earth’s proven fossil fuel reserves remain in the ground;

Re-focus their concerns from unethical profit from the environment, to that of preserving it and elevating the condition of the world’s poor.

Invest in the creation of a green economy.

Additionally, focusing on the corporate sector and business interests who profit most from exploitative activities and the current burning of fossil fuels, the declaration argues those institutions to:
Shoulder the consequences of their profit-making activities, and take a visibly more active role in reducing their carbon footprint and other forms of impact upon the natural environment;

In order to mitigate the environmental impact of their activities, commit themselves to 100 % renewable energy and/or a zero emissions strategy as early as possible and shift investments into renewable energy;

Change from the current business model which is based on an unsustainable escalating economy, and to adopt a circular economy that is wholly sustainable;

Pay more heed to social and ecological responsibilities, particularly to the extent that they extract and utilize scarce resources;

Assist in the divestment from the fossil fuel driven economy and the scaling up of renewable energy and other ecological alternatives.

Such a rounded and full-throated declaration was met with applause by climate campaigners, anti-poverty advocates, and social justice voices from around the world.

Press link for more: John Queally | commondreams.org