Latest news with #InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Spotlight on funding for just transition at Bonn Meetings
Divergences on key issues continued at the ongoing Bonn Climate Meetings, which act as a midway point before the annual climate conference (COP30) scheduled to take place in Belem, Brazil this November, slowing down progress on important issues. Embers glow at night as the Basin Fire burns in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno County, California, on June 26, 2024. (AFP) Developed and developing countries sparred over the provision of finance for adaptation and Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) in the past couple of days. The Bonn meetings will close on June 26. HT reported on June 19 that India and several developing countries have expressed disappointment after a key climate finance discussion was excluded from the Bonn Climate Talks agenda, vowing to raise the issue at November's COP30 summit in Brazil. The dispute centred on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which mandates that developed countries provide financial resources to assist developing nations with both mitigation and adaptation efforts including for energy transition. The exclusion of this discussion from the agenda led to a 30-hour delay before talks could begin. Consultations were taken up on article 9.1 again on Monday, in the context of Just Transition Work Programme. 'Possibly the most heated segment of the day was the consultations by the Subsidiary Bodies' Chairs with parties on the implementation of Paris Agreement Article 9.1 (developed countries' provision of climate finance). Developing countries underscored the inadequacy of current levels of finance, lamenting mounting costs related to loss and damage and the debt burden caused by non-concessional loans,' reported the Earth Negotiations Bulletin of International Institute for Sustainable Development. The Like Minded Developing Countries which includes India, the Arab group of countries, African group, and others lamented developed countries' lack of political will to implement their legal obligation under Paris Agreement Article 9.1 and UNFCCC Article 4.3 (provision of new and additional financial resources by developed countries). They supported a standalone item on Article 9.1 which was opposed by the EU, Environmental Integrity Group (developed country coalition), and Australia among others who pointed to existing finance-related agenda items that include consideration of Article 9.1, such as the Standing Committee on Finance, the Bulletin said. Developed countries also tried to block discussions on advancing the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) and finance consultations for it, according to observers. 'The first week of informal consultations on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)...began with numerous proposals from developing countries on actionable outcomes, amidst continuous attempts from developed countries to limit and block these proposals from advancing the work programme,' the Third World Network said in its bulletin. Developed countries placed more emphasis on having key high-level messages emerging from the dialogues as important outcomes from JTWP this year, and did not agree to any new institutional arrangement that would have additional financial implications, citing that discussion on any new institutional arrangement is premature, and Parties should wait until the review of the work programme in 2026, TWN, an independent non-profit international research and advocacy organisation involved in issues related to the Global South. India, speaking in its national capacity, on June 22 also raised its concerns in the use of language such as 'global or international partnerships' as there is concern on whether one would consider these partnerships as 'just' or not. (India was referring to the Just Energy Transition Partnerships – JETPs). It also raised concerns about the interpretations of just transitions by developed countries reflecting that 'higher ambition is inherently just'. India said it would agree with it if it is rooted in historical responsibilities and equity as we all agreed that this work programme would be implemented in context of Article 2.2 of the PA. (Article 2.2 of the PA states that, 'This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of CBDR- and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.'), the TWN reported. The JTWP was established at COP28 held in Dubai, but its scope and operationalisation are currently being negotiated at Bonn. The aim is to recommend a draft decision for adoption at COP30, to be held in Belém later this year. 'The inclusion of unilateral trade measures (such as carbon border tax) under the JTWP is at the heart of the contestations. G77 and China, the largest developing countries bloc consisting of 134 countries want a discussion on UTM as such measures hinder their ability to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably. Developed countries do not want to discuss that,' said Rudrath Avinashi, Programme Officer, Centre for Science and Environment. 'Additionally, the developed countries want the just transition pathways to be in line with 1.5 degree celsius global temperature goal. As a response, India on behalf of the like minded developing countries have argued that any targets which are global in nature should be rooted in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities,' he added. 'We are here at Bonn not to engage in a rudimentary exercise in negotiating text, but to enact a critical defence of lives and uphold the right of our countries to thrive,' said Anne Rasmussen, Lead ClimateNegotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in a statement on Tuesday. 'Our world has not yet crossed the Paris Agreement 1.5-degree Celsius limit which refers to a 20-year average, but the most recent scientific reports underscore we are in a far worse danger zone than we previously thought. AOSIS calls on all countries to ensure we do not fail in our mission and destroy our citizens' hopes of a sustainable future,' she added.
Canada Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Canada Standard
'Serious Omission' in G7 Wildfire Charter Leaves Climate Change Unnamed
Leaders of the G7 countries have agreed to cooperate on efforts to manage the impacts of devastating wildfires, in Canada and around the world, but held back from naming climate change as a primary cause of the problem. The leaders are calling it the Kananaskis Wildfire Charter-and they're pitching it as a groundbreaking commitment for G7 leaders, reports The Canadian Press. But a former Canadian diplomat said the G7 will have to be more explicit about the climate crisis if it hopes to stay relevant. "To maintain its status as a leading body, the G7 must return to its longstanding tradition of having climate change as an important item on its agenda, and find a way to do so even when there's not a consensus at the table," Patricia Fuller, president and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), told The Energy Mix. The charter, published on the final day of the summit Tuesday, includes a pledge to mitigate and respond to the impact of fires on human health-an apparent reference to volumes of wildfire smoke that have travelled oceans and crossed borders in recent summers. The countries say they will reduce the risk of extreme fires through sustainable forest management and Indigenous land management techniques, such as controlled burning. "The world has experienced record-breaking wildfires across every forested continent over the past decade, often overwhelming available national resources and requiring governments to request assistance from other countries," it states. "These increasingly extreme wildfires are endangering lives, affecting human health, destroying homes and ecosystems, and costing governments and taxpayers billions of dollars each year," the leaders wrote. The G7 resolved "to boost global cooperation to prevent, fight, and recover from wildfires by taking integrated action to reduce the incidence and negative impacts of wildfires and ensure our readiness to help each other, and partners, when needed." Leaders also committed to collecting and sharing data and finding better ways to provide timely access to basic firefighting equipment. The charter was endorsed by guest participants from Australia, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea in addition to the G7 countries. The declaration comes as Canada battles yet another devastating wildfire season and almost one year after flames ripped through Jasper, a town 250 kilometres north of Kananaskis, the Rocky Mountain tourist community that hosted the summit, CP writes. Going into the summit, there was no expectation that climate change would be named out loud in the final declaration-or that there would be any final declaration at all, with Donald Trump in the room to block substantive agreements. Prime Minister Mark Carney's published priorities ahead of the summit made scant direct reference to past G7 commitments in areas like power sector decarbonization, methane controls, forest and land degradation, and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies-a promise the countries made in 2016 and were supposed to deliver on by this year. The summit ultimately produced a chair's summary from Carney as G7 President, as well as statements on critical minerals, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies for computing, sensing, and communications, migrant smuggling, and transnational repression. The chair's summary says the G7 leaders and guest participants-including UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and World Bank President Ajay Banga-"discussed just energy transitions as well as sustainable and innovative solutions to boost energy access and affordability, while mitigating the impact on climate and the environment." Fuller said it was noteworthy that the climate and energy references came in the section of the chair's summary that reported on the G7's interactions with guests. "That speaks to the point that if the G7 is to maintain leadership as a global institution, it needs to be addressing issues that are of concern to the wider world, and climate change is a concern to all countries," she told The Mix. "It's certainly a concern to these large developing nations, important players on the global stage, that are experiencing very extreme impacts of climate change." As Canada and other G7 countries build stronger relationships with the Global South, "part of doing so is showing leadership on addressing climate change and advancing the energy transition, as a means of increasing energy security, diversifying energy sources, and increasing affordability," she added. "On these questions of security and affordability, there's a very broad consensus. But what is not being brought into the space as much as it should be is the importance of renewable energies in achieving those goals." The G7 previously committed to triple renewable energy deployment and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements, and "these are goals the G7 needs to continue to work on," Fuller said. "It also needs to make good on its commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, which are an impediment to an energy transition that can achieve these goals of security and diversification." Before the summit, news analysis suggested the wildfire references in what ultimately became the Kananaskis Charter would serve as a proxy for explicit climate commitments. When Canadian officials first began planning the meeting last year and knew they had to deal with the possibility of a Trump presidency, they understood "that if they start with the standard stuff on climate change, Donald Trump and his people would get out their red pens and just say 'no way,'" John Kirton, founding director of the G7 Research Group, told Globe and Mail freelancer Arno Kopecky. "So then, what is your strategy? And wildfires was the answer." The difference, Kopecky wrote, was that while Trump refuses to listen to climate science, he's seen a rash of wildfires since he returned to the White House in January, and his country is now receiving smoke from the blazes in Canada. "So Donald Trump's got a reason to be seen to be doing something about it," Kirton said. The end result-a wildfire charter with no reference to climate change-drew sharp criticism from several expert observers. Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said Canada "cratered to the lowest common denominator" to appease the U.S. president and failed the test of climate leadership, CP writes. "They're missing the whole point in that we're seeing more fires, a longer fire season, more intense fires, more severe fires, because the climate is changing due to human activities," said fire and climate professor Mike Flannigan of Thompson Rivers University. "It's a serious omission, and that's being very polite." The wildfire charter "misses the most important, and most controversial point, about wildfires around the globe: that increasingly they are made so much more frequent and dangerous to human life and infrastructure by climate change," agreed Stephen Legault, senior program manager, Alberta climate at Environmental Defence Canada. "To have a serious conversation about wildfire necessitates a discussion about climate change." Source: The Energy Mix
Canada News.Net
5 days ago
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
'Serious Omission' in G7 Wildfire Charter Leaves Climate Change Unnamed
Leaders of the G7 countries have agreed to cooperate on efforts to manage the impacts of devastating wildfires, in Canada and around the world, but held back from naming climate change as a primary cause of the problem. The leaders are calling it the Kananaskis Wildfire Charter-and they're pitching it as a groundbreaking commitment for G7 leaders, reports The Canadian Press. But a former Canadian diplomat said the G7 will have to be more explicit about the climate crisis if it hopes to stay relevant. "To maintain its status as a leading body, the G7 must return to its longstanding tradition of having climate change as an important item on its agenda, and find a way to do so even when there's not a consensus at the table," Patricia Fuller, president and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), told The Energy Mix. The charter, published on the final day of the summit Tuesday, includes a pledge to mitigate and respond to the impact of fires on human health -an apparent reference to volumes of wildfire smoke that have travelled oceans and crossed borders in recent summers. The countries say they will reduce the risk of extreme fires through sustainable forest management and Indigenous land management techniques, such as controlled burning. "The world has experienced record-breaking wildfires across every forested continent over the past decade, often overwhelming available national resources and requiring governments to request assistance from other countries," it states. "These increasingly extreme wildfires are endangering lives, affecting human health, destroying homes and ecosystems, and costing governments and taxpayers billions of dollars each year," the leaders wrote. The G7 resolved "to boost global cooperation to prevent, fight, and recover from wildfires by taking integrated action to reduce the incidence and negative impacts of wildfires and ensure our readiness to help each other, and partners, when needed." View our latest digests Leaders also committed to collecting and sharing data and finding better ways to provide timely access to basic firefighting equipment. The charter was endorsed by guest participants from Australia, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea in addition to the G7 countries. The declaration comes as Canada battles yet another devastating wildfire season and almost one year after flames ripped through Jasper, a town 250 kilometres north of Kananaskis, the Rocky Mountain tourist community that hosted the summit, CP writes. Going into the summit, there was no expectation that climate change would be named out loud in the final declaration-or that there would be any final declaration at all, with Donald Trump in the room to block substantive agreements. Prime Minister Mark Carney's published priorities ahead of the summit made scant direct reference to past G7 commitments in areas like power sector decarbonization, methane controls, forest and land degradation, and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies-a promise the countries made in 2016 and were supposed to deliver on by this year. The summit ultimately produced a chair's summary from Carney as G7 President, as well as statements on critical minerals, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies for computing, sensing, and communications, migrant smuggling, and transnational repression. The chair's summary says the G7 leaders and guest participants-including UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and World Bank President Ajay Banga-"discussed just energy transitions as well as sustainable and innovative solutions to boost energy access and affordability, while mitigating the impact on climate and the environment." Fuller said it was noteworthy that the climate and energy references came in the section of the chair's summary that reported on the G7's interactions with guests. "That speaks to the point that if the G7 is to maintain leadership as a global institution, it needs to be addressing issues that are of concern to the wider world, and climate change is a concern to all countries," she told The Mix. "It's certainly a concern to these large developing nations, important players on the global stage, that are experiencing very extreme impacts of climate change." As Canada and other G7 countries build stronger relationships with the Global South, "part of doing so is showing leadership on addressing climate change and advancing the energy transition, as a means of increasing energy security, diversifying energy sources, and increasing affordability," she added. "On these questions of security and affordability, there's a very broad consensus. But what is not being brought into the space as much as it should be is the importance of renewable energies in achieving those goals." The G7 previously committed to triple renewable energy deployment and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements, and "these are goals the G7 needs to continue to work on," Fuller said. "It also needs to make good on its commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, which are an impediment to an energy transition that can achieve these goals of security and diversification." Before the summit, news analysis suggested the wildfire references in what ultimately became the Kananaskis Charter would serve as a proxy for explicit climate commitments. When Canadian officials first began planning the meeting last year and knew they had to deal with the possibility of a Trump presidency, they understood "that if they start with the standard stuff on climate change, Donald Trump and his people would get out their red pens and just say 'no way,'" John Kirton, founding director of the G7 Research Group, told Globe and Mail freelancer Arno Kopecky. "So then, what is your strategy? And wildfires was the answer." The difference, Kopecky wrote, was that while Trump refuses to listen to climate science, he's seen a rash of wildfires since he returned to the White House in January, and his country is now receiving smoke from the blazes in Canada. "So Donald Trump's got a reason to be seen to be doing something about it," Kirton said. The end result-a wildfire charter with no reference to climate change-drew sharp criticism from several expert observers. Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, said Canada "cratered to the lowest common denominator" to appease the U.S. president and failed the test of climate leadership, CP writes. "They're missing the whole point in that we're seeing more fires, a longer fire season, more intense fires, more severe fires, because the climate is changing due to human activities," said fire and climate professor Mike Flannigan of Thompson Rivers University. "It's a serious omission, and that's being very polite." The wildfire charter "misses the most important, and most controversial point, about wildfires around the globe: that increasingly they are made so much more frequent and dangerous to human life and infrastructure by climate change," agreed Stephen Legault, senior program manager, Alberta climate at Environmental Defence Canada. "To have a serious conversation about wildfire necessitates a discussion about climate change."
The Citizen
27-05-2025
- Health
- The Citizen
Rooibos, tea or coffee? What South Africans like to drink
When it comes to hot beverages, different demographic groups in South Africa tend to choose between coffee and various types of tea, including Rooibos. What do South Africans like to drink when they take a break? Some of us cannot do without the early morning pick-me-up coffee, but other drink only tea. And if they drink only tea, which kind of tea do they prefer? Eighty20 spills the tea on what South Africans like to sip by looking at the data. Andrew Fulton, director at Eighty20, says while coffee may be the go-to morning pick-me-up for many, tea remains the true global favourite, second only to water as the most consumed beverage in the world according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 'In South Africa, it is common to ask if people want Rooibos or regular when offering a cup of tea, and this shows how popular Rooibos is. Grown exclusively in the Cederberg region of the Western Cape, this naturally caffeine-free tea has become a global favourite. Just like Champagne, only products from this region can proudly carry the Rooibos name.' The data shows that over 22.6 million South African adults enjoy Rooibos, green tea or traditional tea every day. And they do not only stick to just one type of tea, Fulton says. Almost 30% of traditional tea drinkers also sip some Rooibos daily, and almost half of them pair their tea habits with a daily cup of coffee. Fulton says for brands this is a clear signal that tea time is all the time and for grocers, it is also important to look at complementary products, such as sugar. South Africans consume on average 4.2 teaspoons of sugar in tea, coffee, beverages or cereal per day. ALSO READ: Why experts recommend Rooibos for better health Who drinks what when it comes to coffee, tea and Rooibos tea? Coloured and Afrikaans-speaking people in the Western Cape and Free State consume considerably more, while isiXhosa and isiZulu speakers in the Eastern Cape and KZN consume considerably less. This table shows what South African consumers drank yesterday and how many chose tea or coffee. ALSO READ: Five tips to make the best cup of tea Where tea comes from When it comes to traditional tea, China is in the lead, producing nearly half of the world's tea, followed by India, Kenya and Sri Lanka (formerly known as Ceylon until 1972, a term still used interchangeably in South Africa for traditional tea). Fulton points out that tea is a massive industry, with global production valued at $17 billion, while the industry employs approximately 13 million people worldwide. Kenya is famous for its high-quality black tea, with its tea sector contributing over a quarter of the country's annual export earnings and providing employment to nearly 2 million people. South Africa's tea market is also brewing strong, projected to hit $447.29 million in revenue by 2025 with a steady annual growth of 3.07%. Joko tea and Glen tea are the market leaders for traditional teas in South Africa, while Freshpak remains the top pick for over half of all Rooibos drinkers. ALSO READ: 10 surprising facts about Rooibos More people are drinking tea Fulton says the consumption of traditional tea is increasing in East Asia, Africa and Latin America, but declining in Europe and North America. In North America, herbal teas and other ready-to-drink beverages are becoming more popular. 'This trend also positively affects our local tea substitute, Rooibos. The global Rooibos tea market is estimated to be worth approximately $1.3 billion in 2023, thanks to Rooibos Limited, the largest producer and distributor of Rooibos tea, exporting to 50 countries worldwide. What is the difference between traditional tea and Rooibos? Traditional teas like black, green and Oolong all come from the Camellia sinensis plant, but Rooibos tea is different. It is technically not a true tea but a tisane, a caffeine-free herbal infusion made by steeping plant materials in hot water. According to Fulton, people are switching to Rooibos all over the world, not only because it is a delightful drink but also due to its numerous health benefits. 'This naturally caffeine-free beverage is rich in antioxidants, helps to reduce blood pressure and improves cholesterol levels, soothes an aching stomach and can help to clear your skin.' ALSO READ: Rooibos industry paid R12 million to Khoi and San community in historic move What the data shows about tea drinkers There is also tea drinking demographics that show how much people all over the world love a cuppa. Using data from MAPS, a survey of 20 000 South Africans conducted by the MRF, Eighty20 a consumer analytics and data science agency, shows that women, Indians and Asians are over-indexed for all types of tea. The data also shows that Rooibos tea drinkers have marginally higher personal and household incomes than people who drink traditional tea, but the average household income of people who prefer green tea is nearly twice that of other tea drinkers. Green tea drinkers are also younger and better educated. Fulton says looking at the Eighty20 National Segmentation groups, poorer segments, such as the Humble Elders and Mothers of the Nation, tend to drink traditional tea, while Comfortable Retirees prefer Rooibos tea and the Heavy Hitters and Middle Class opt for green tea. This table shows the preferences of the different groups: 'Tea remains a cultural staple and commercial powerhouse in South Africa, with over 22 million adults drinking it daily. The growth of Rooibos tea locally and globally signals a shift in consumer preferences towards healthier, caffeine-free alternatives, offering valuable opportunities for brands looking to connect with evolving lifestyles and demographics,' Fulton says. NOW READ: Is coffee a luxury? Jacobs Coffee explains the price increase
National Observer
01-05-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Canada needs a true National Energy Program
It's time to build. That was Mark Carney's message to Canadians during the election campaign, and it ought to be one of his top priorities as he continues his job as prime minister. That means more housing, more healthcare and more (heck, any) high-speed rail. But it also means more energy — and more of the infrastructure that moves and manages it. That's right: it's time for the Liberals to build another national energy program. Done properly, this one can enhance national unity rather than undermining it. It can help heal the rifts being exploited in Alberta by Danielle Smith and her not-at-all-merry band of separatists. It can lay the foundation for the sort of national economy (and national economic mindset) that Carney has talked about repeatedly. And it can help Canada meet its climate goals and grow its economy at the same time. It should begin with a national electricity grid, one that improves our collective resilience, increases the volume of electrons available for decarbonization and lowers costs in the process. As the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted in a December 2024 report, this would stimulate economic activity across the country, from Quebec's planned build-out of hydroelectricity to Atlantic Canada's near limitless wind potential, Ontario's fleet of nuclear reactors and Alberta's massive wind and solar capacity. Rather than buying electrons from the United States, as tends to happen now, we can buy them from each other instead — and create tens of thousands of new jobs in the process. It would also, in time, save Canadian households and businesses billions of dollars. As the Canadian Climate Institute's own report shows, reaching net-zero electricity by 2050 will mean a 12 per cent decrease in average household energy spending, with 70 per cent of households saving an average of $1,500 per year. A new national energy program wouldn't just be about renewable energy, though. As Carney said during the campaign, 'it's time to build new trade and energy corridors working in partnership with the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples.' Those corridors can help us unlock the enormous value contained in the ground across the country, whether it's critical minerals in Ontario and Quebec or oil, gas, uranium and potash on the prairies. In a world that will be defined over the next three decades by an energy transition, we have everything needed to fuel its progress. This is not the sort of blank cheque for fossil fuel development that so many in the Conservative world are calling for, though. There can be no attempts to ram pipelines through resistance in the way that defined the Harper government's colossal (and costly) failures on this file. Instead, those new trade and energy corridors should be designed with the express purpose of empowering the adjacent communities in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec to benefit from the resources that might flow through them. New oil and gas pipelines, if there is private sector interest in building them — no sure thing given collapsing oil prices and the prospect of another OPEC-driven price war — must be built with the national interest foremost in mind. That means displacing foreign and US oil imports and increasing our energy independence ought to be a higher priority than accessing global markets. It also means that there can be no new infrastructure connecting Canada's oil and gas with the United States, as Premier Smith and other Conservatives have continued to propose. Pierre Trudeau did it first. Mark Carney can do it right. Why it's time for a true National Energy Program, and what it could mean for Canada's future. And yes, all of this has to be done with an eye on climate change. Maybe that means a more deliberate attempt to get oil and gas companies off their wallets on emissions reductions, both through support for carbon capture and storage projects and the strengthening of the existing industrial carbon price. If the Carney government is willing to eliminate the emissions cap, as I suggested it should in an earlier column, it could both lower the political temperature and force the Alberta government to the negotiating table. Its price for any deal on that ought to be the elimination of all the provincial red tape and regulations that are being used to deliberately suffocate Alberta's wind and solar industry. A national energy program for the 21st century wouldn't be without its critics. It would provoke howls of outrage from the people — mostly in Alberta or the pages of Postmedia publications — who practically live to complain about anything a Liberal government does. And it would invite comparisons to the first National Energy Program, one that has been effectively misrepresented and weaponized by Conservative politicians for over four decades now. It's not without its risks, in other words. But the potential rewards make that risk worth taking. A new national energy program would create a clear sense of common purpose, support the creation of jobs and economic activity across the country and help advance Canada's interests and aspirations on climate change. It would, in the most literal sense of the term, be an act of nation-building — one that might be more needed than ever.
