. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Jessica Corbett from Common Dreams

Critics of the “COP of false solutions” said that instead of much-needed funding, developing nations got “a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit.”

It was early Sunday by the time the United Nations climate summit wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan after running into overtime to finalize deals on carbon markets and funding for developing countries that were sharply condemned by campaigners worldwide.

"COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it's not trash that's burning—it's our planet," declared Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law. "And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."

Recalling last year's conference in the United Arab Emirates, Oil Change International global policy senior strategist Shady Khalil highlighted that "the world made a deal at COP28 to end the fossil fuel era. Now, at COP29, countries seem to have been struck with collective amnesia."

"With each new iteration of the texts, oil and gas producers managed to dilute the urgent commitment to phase out fossil fuels," Khalil said. "But let's be clear: Rich countries' failure to lead on fossil fuel phaseout and to put the trillions they have hoarded on the table has done more to imperil the energy transition than any obstructionist tactics from oil and gas producers."

This year's conference began November 11 and was due to conclude on Friday, but parties to the Paris agreement were still negotiating the carbon market rules, which were finalized late Saturday, and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance.

"The carbon markets in Article 6 of the Paris agreement were pushed through COP29 in a take-it-or leave-it outcome," said Tamra Gilbertson of Indigenous Environmental Network, decrying "a new dangerous era in climate change negotiations."

As Climate Home Newsreported, they establish two types of markets: "The first—known as Article 6.2—regulates bilateral carbon trading between countries, while Article 6.4 creates a global crediting mechanism for countries to sell emissions reductions."

The outlet pointed to expert warnings that "the rules for bilateral trades under 6.2 could open the door for the sale of junk carbon credits—one of the weaknesses of the previous crediting mechanism set up by the U.N. known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)."

Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch said in a statement that "the package does not shine enough light on an already opaque system where countries won't be required to provide information about their deals well ahead of actual trades."

"Even worse, the last opportunity to strengthen the critically weak review process was largely missed," he continued. "Countries remain free to trade carbon credits that are of low quality, or even fail to comply with Article 6.2 rules, without any real oversight."

As for Article 6.4, “much lies in the hands of the supervisory body" that's set to resume work in early 2025, said Crook's colleague, Federica Dossi. "To show that it is ready to learn from past mistakes, it will have to take tough decisions next year and ensure that Article 6.4 credits will be markedly better than the units that old CDM projects will generate."

"If they are not, they will have to compete in a low-trust, low-integrity market where prices are likely to be at rock bottom and interest will be low," Dossi added. "Such a system would be a distraction, and a waste of 10 years worth of carbon market negotiations."

Some campaigners suggested that no matter what lies ahead, the embrace of carbon markets represents a failure. Kirtana Chandrasekaran at Friends of the Earth International
said that "the supposed 'COP of climate finance' has turned into the 'COP of false solutions.' The U.N. has given its stamp of approval to fraudulent and failed carbon markets."

"We have seen the impacts of these schemes: land grabs, Indigenous peoples' and human rights violations," Chandrasekaran noted. "The now-operationalized U.N. global carbon market may well be worse than existing voluntary ones and will continue to provide a get out of jail free card to Big Polluters whilst devastating communities and ecosystems."

Chandrasekaran's colleague Seán McLoughlin at Friends of the Earth Ireland was similarly critical of the conference's finance deal, asserting that "Baku is a big F U to climate justice, to the poorest communities who are on the frontlines of climate breakdown."

"COP29 has failed those who have done least to cause climate change and who are most vulnerable to climate breakdown because the process is still in thrall to fossil fuel bullies and rich countries more committed to shirking their historical responsibility than safeguarding our common future," he said. "Now it's back to citizens to demand our governments do the right thing. We must keep demanding the trillions, not billions owed in climate debt and a comprehensive, swift, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. The struggle for climate justice is not over."

(continued in right column)

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

(Article continued from the left column)

Campaigners and developing nations fought for $1.3 trillion in annual climate finance from those most responsible for the planetary crisis. Instead, the NCQG document only directs developed countries to provide the Global South with $300 billion per year by 2035, with a goal of reaching the higher figure by also seeking funds from private sources.

The deal almost didn't happen at all. As The Guardiandetailed Saturday: "Developed countries including the U.K., the U.S., and E.U. members were pushed into raising their offer from an original $250 billion a year tabled on Friday, to $300 billion. Poor countries argued for more, and in the early evening two groups representing some of the world's poorest countries walked out of one key meeting, threatening to collapse the negotiations."

While Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, celebrated the NCQG as "an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country," Chiara Martinelli, director at Climate Action Network Europe, put it in the context of the $100 billion target set in 2009, which wealthy governments didn't meet.

"Rich countries own the responsibility for the failed outcome at COP29," Martinelli
said. "The talk of tripling from the $100 billion goal might sound impressive, but in reality, it falls far short, barely increasing from the previous commitment when adjusted for inflation and considering the bulk of this money will come in the form of unsustainable loans. This is not solidarity. It's smoke and mirrors that betray the needs of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis."

Also stressing that "it's not even real 'money,' by and large," but rather "a motley mix of loans and privatized investment," Oxfam International's climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, called the agreement "a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit."

"The terrible verdict from the Baku climate talks shows that rich countries view the Global South as ultimately expendable, like pawns on a chessboard," Dabi charged. "The $300 billion so-called 'deal' that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous—a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown."

Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who is in Baku, took aim at not only rich governments, but also the host, saying that "the Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency's ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy."

Cleetus' group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.

"The United States—the world's largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies," Cleetus warned. "While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there's no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time."

"Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void," she stressed. "Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change."

Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it "should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster."brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy.”
Cleetus’ group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.

“The United States—the world’s largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies,” Cleetus warned. “While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there’s no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time.”

“Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void,” she stressed. “Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change.”

Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it “should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from The United Nations

The UN chief on Thursday issued an urgent call to action to better protect billions around the world exposed to crippling effects of extreme heat, as global temperature rise continues unabated.

The appeal comes against the backdrop of record temperatures and deadly heatwaves – from the United States to Africa’s Sahel and Europe to the Middle East – that have killed several hundred people this summer.

During the Hajj, for instance, scorching heat claimed over 1,300 pilgrim lives.

“Billions of people are facing an extreme heat epidemic – wilting under increasingly deadly heatwaves, with temperatures topping 50 degrees Celsius around the world. That is 122 degrees Fahrenheit – halfway to boiling,” Secretary-General António Guterres said at a press conference at UN Headquarters in New York.

“The message is clear: the heat is on. Extreme heat is having an extreme impact on people and planet. The world must rise to the challenge of rising temperatures.”

Mr. Guterres also underscored the need to step up protections for workers.

Over 70 per cent of the global workforce, or 2.4 billion people, are at substantial risk of extreme heat, according to new report from the UN International Labour Organization (ILO).

The situation is particularly dire in the Africa and Arab regions, where more than 90 per cent and 80 per cent of workers are exposed, respectively. In Asia and the Pacific  – the world’s most populous region – that figure is three in four workers (75 per cent).

(article continued in right column)

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

In addition, heat stress at work is projected to cost the global economy $2.4 trillion by 2030, up from $280 billion in the mid-1990s. 

Protect workers

“We need measures to protect workers, grounded in human rights,” Mr. Guterres stressed.

“And we must ensure that laws and regulations reflect the reality of extreme heat today – and are enforced.”

Boost resilience

He also underscored the need to strengthen resilience of economies and societies, citing impacts such as infrastructure damage, crop failures, and increased pressure on water supplies, health systems, and electricity grids.

Cities are particularly vulnerable, experiencing heating at twice the global average rate.

To address these challenges, Mr. Guterres called for comprehensive and tailored action plans based on scientific data are essential for countries, cities and sectors.

“We need a concerted effort to heatproof economies, critical sectors and the built environment.”

Fight the disease

The UN chief reiterated that it is crucial to recognize the myriad symptoms beyond extreme heat, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires and rising sea levels.

The core issue is the reliance on fossil fuels and climate inaction, he stated, stressing that governments, especially G20 nations, the private sector, cities and regions, must urgently adopt climate action plans to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Alongside, countries must urgently phase-out fossil fuels and end new coal projects.

“They must act as though our future depends on it – because it does.”

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Jeffry Sachs* in the Transcend Media Service

The world’s geopolitical system is not delivering what we want or need.  Sustainable development is our declared goal, meaning economic prosperity, social justice, environmental sustainability, and peace.  Yet our reality is continued poverty amidst plenty, widening inequalities, deepening environmental crises, and war.  To get back on track, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has wisely called for a Summit of the Future (SOTF)  at the United Nations on September 22-23, a call that has been endorsed by the 193 UN Member states.

The core idea of the Summit of the Future is that humanity is facing a set of unprecedented challenges that can only be solved through global cooperation.  The crisis of human-induced climate change (especially the warming of the planet) cannot be solved by any one country alone.  Nor can the crises of wars (such as in Ukraine and Gaza) or the geopolitical tensions (between the US and China) be settled by one or two countries alone.  Each country, even the major powers including the US, China, Russia, India, and others are part of a complex global structure of power, economics, and politics that requires truly global solutions.

The Summit will revolve around 5 core topics, all of them related to multilateralism, meaning the system by which nations co-exist with the rest of the world.  These topics are: (1) the goal of sustainable development; (2) the goal of peace; (3) the control of new technologies such as artificial intelligence; (4) the empowerment of young people and future generations; and (5) reform of the UN architecture.

The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), which I direct on behalf of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, has issued a statement summarizing the view of leading academics around the world about the reform of the multilateral system.  The SDSN statement on the SOTF  is Chapter 1 of the SDSN’s 2024 Sustainable Development Report.

On the goal of sustainable development, the core challenge is global finance.  Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – including the fight against poverty, hunger, disease, and environmental degradation – requires sizable public investments.  The main priority public investment areas including education, health care, zero-carbon energy, sustainable agriculture, urban infrastructure, and digital infrastructure.  The problem is that the poorer half of the world — the low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries – lack the access to financing they need to achieve the SDGs.  The most urgent reform of the global system these countries need is access to long-term, low-cost financing.

On the goal of peace, the core challenge today is great-power competition.  The US is in competition with Russia and China.  The US aims for primacy in Europe over Russia, and primacy in Asia over China.  Russia and China resist the US.  The result is war (in Ukraine) or risk of war (in East Asia).  We need a stronger UN-led system in which great-power competition is governed and restrained by the UN Charter rather than by militarism and power politics.  More generally, we are past the era when any single country can or should aspire to primacy or hegemony.  The major powers should live in peace and mutual respect under the UN Charter, without threatening each other’s security.

On the goal of technology, the main challenge is to ensure transparent and responsible governance of the new advanced technologies, including biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and geo-engineering.  Such powerful technologies cannot continue to be managed in secrecy by the militaries and powerful corporations.  They need to be governed by honesty, transparency, and responsibility to the public.

(article continued in right column)

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

Sustainable Development Summits of States, What are the results?

(Article continued from the left column)

On the goal of youth and future generations, the major challenge is to ensure that every child can achieve his or her potential through a high-quality education.  Education is essential for a decent job and a life of dignity.  Yet hundreds of millions of children, especially in the poor countries, are either out of school or in sub-standard schools that are not teaching the skills needed for the 21st century.   Without a quality education, these children will face a lifetime of poverty and under-employment or unemployment.  We need a new global financial arrangement to ensure that every child, even in the poorest countries, is given the opportunity for a decent education.

On the goal of reforming the UN system, the key is to give more power to UN institutions and to make them more representative.  The UN today depends too much on a few powerful countries, most on notably the US.  When the US doesn’t pay its dues to the UN, for example, the whole UN system is weakened.  We need to strengthen the UN system by ensuring that it is properly and reliably financed through a new system of international taxes – for example, on CO2 emissions, shipping, aviation, and financial transactions – rather than the contributions of individual governments.

We also should make the UN institutions more representative of the world of 2024 rather than the world of 1945, when the UN was established.  India, for example, should become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.  India is the world’s most populous country, the third largest economy, and a nuclear power as well.  In 1945, India was still a British colony, and so was not given its proper place in the UN system at that time.

Another core recommendation of the SDSN is to introduce a UN Parliamentary Assembly as a new chamber alongside the UN General Assembly (UNGA).  The UNGA gives each member state one vote, with the power of that vote in the hands of the executive branch of each government.  A UN Parliament would represent the peoples of the world rather than the governments.

Most importantly, the Summit of the Future is an invitation to intensive global brainstorming on how to make our deeply interconnected world fit for sustainable development in the 21st century.  It is a great challenge that should be welcomed and joined by people all over the world.  A great debate will open in September and then continue for years to come.
– –

* The author, Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as Special Adviser to three UN Secretaries-General [Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism. Sachs was also an advisor to the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as to the first president of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin.

– – – – – –

If you wish to make a comment on this article, you may write to coordinator@cpnn-world.org with the title “Comment on (name of article)” and we will put your comment on line. Because of the flood of spam, we have discontinued the direct application of comments.