31.1 C
Lagos
Friday, May 23, 2025
Home Blog Page 2121

CBD, WHO: Loss of biodiversity impacts human health

0

Healthy communities rely on well-functioning ecosystems. They provide clean air, fresh water, medicines and food security. They also limit disease and stabilise the climate. But biodiversity loss is happening at unprecedented rates, impacting human health worldwide, according to a new state of knowledge review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and World Health Organisation (WHO).

Dr Maria Neira. Photo credit: idf.org
Dr Maria Neira. Photo credit: idf.org

The report, “Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health,” launched last week in Brussels at Green Week 2015, Europe’s biggest annual conference on environmental policy, focuses on the complex and multi-faceted connections between biodiversity and human health, and how the loss of biodiversity and corresponding ecosystem services may negatively influence health. One of the first integrative reviews of its kind, the report brings together knowledge from several scientific disciplines, including public health, conservation, agriculture, epidemiology and development.

“This state of knowledge review is a significant contribution to our understanding of the complex relationships between biodiversity and health,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the CBD. “Increasing our knowledge enables us to develop effective solutions capable of strengthening ecosystem resilience and mitigating the forces that impede their ability to deliver life-supporting services.”

All aspects of human well-being depend on ecosystem goods and services, which in turn depend on biodiversity. Biodiversity loss can destabilize ecosystems, promote outbreaks of infectious disease, and undermine development progress, nutrition, security and protection from natural disasters,” said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “Protecting public health from these risks lies outside of the traditional roles of the Health sector. We are ready to work with other sectors to bring about change.”

Access to sufficient quantity, quality and diversity of foods, clean air, freshwater, medicines and healthcare are not only central to maintaining healthy populations, they are foundational pillars of sustainable development. Meeting these needs while facing the persistent challenges of biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, emerging disease pandemics and shifting disease burdens is not an insurmountable feat, but it does require concerted action, based on robust evidence and coordinated cross-sector solutions. This comprehensive report brings this knowledge to the forefront, demonstrating that biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and ill health often share common threats and pointing toward innovative, mutually-supportive and cross-sectoral solutions.

This contribution is especially timely as governments finalise agreement on the post-2015 development agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and prepare to reach new global commitments to tackle climate change by the end of 2015.

Among the shared threats identified throughout the report, land-use change is identified as an important driver of biodiversity loss with concurrent implications for many of our most pressing public health challenges. For example, land use change through deforestation is a leading driver of disease emergence in humans and is believed to have contributed to the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

While the resulting development of our freshwater and terrestrial resources is also associated with some health benefits, these are unevenly distributed, often to the detriment of our most vulnerable populations and carry unintended consequences. For example, under unsustainable conditions, industrial agricultural practices in many parts of the world may also exacerbate biodiversity loss, pest and disease outbreaks, micronutrient deficiencies, antibiotic resistance and the impacts of climate change on the health. These outcomes are not inevitable. They can be averted through concerted global efforts, by connecting our vast scientific and local knowledge, and developing coherent, cross-sectoral policy priorities toward a healthier, more equitable, sustainable future.

Contributions from over 100 scientists and practitioners working in global public health and biodiversity conservation policy were included in the report, including experts from Bioversity International, COHAB Initiative, DIVERSITAS, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard School of Public Health, the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, IUCN, United Nations University, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

‘Poor Japanese INDC could cost lives, money, jobs’

0

New analysis released at the G7 summit currently taking place in Germany confirms that major economies stand to gain massive benefits as the result of their latest climate action pledges, with laggards Japan and Canada bucking the trend due to their weak plans.

Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. Photo credit: telegraph.co.uk
Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. Photo credit: telegraph.co.uk

A new NewClimate Institute report shows that a Japanese plan in line with a pathway to 100% renewable energy by 2050 would give the country a healthy workforce thanks to cleaner air, new jobs in a booming renewables sector, and huge savings resulting from avoided fossil fuel imports – three things that Japan desperately needs in its current economic malaise.

But the Abe government’s draft offer – also known as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) – towards the new global climate agreement due in Paris this December is so insufficient that it will see – by 2030 – Japan waste 67,000 potential jobs, forfeit USD25 billion annually, and fail to save 15,000 lives each year.

“We are calling on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to take this draft plan back to the drawing board and deliver a vision for the country that taps its renewable energy potential, creates decent jobs and saves the lives of Japanese people at risk from air pollution,” says Kimiko Hirata, CAN Japan coordinator.

“The people want more action, businesses want more action – it’s high time the government tries to regain the country’s lost climate leadership.”

Compared to the forecast impact of current policies, by 2030, Japan’s paltry offer will create zero additional jobs in the renewable energy sector, reduce the country’s fossil fuel import bill by only USD8 billion a year, and save just 1500 lives annually. That’s ten times less than the co-benefits resulting from the more ambitious action plan which civil society organizations are calling for.

As a result of its low ambition, Japan clearly loses out in comparison to its East Asian rival China. Thanks to a groundbreaking bilateral agreement with the US last year, Japan’s neighbor unveiled a plan that would – by 2030 – create around 500,000 decent new jobs and save around 100,000 lives from deadly air pollution every year.

The report shows that Japan’s G7 peers in Europe and America are – like China – set to secure more benefits from enhanced climate action, as they move faster in the ongoing transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies.

“The consideration of the multiple benefits of climate action can significantly influence the ambition level of national governments when formulating their national plans as it links directly to the needs of the people,” says NewClimate Institute’s Niklas Höhne, author of the study.

Japan’s fellow laggard at the table in Elmau, Canada, is also pitching a pathetic climate plan at the G7 this Monday. If the weak Canadian offer had been in line with a 100% renewables pathway by mid-century, it could have secured an enormous 600% increase in lives saved, and 60% more jobs in the renewables sector by 2030, compared to what is likely to happen under the proposed plan.

“Canada’s failure to take its climate protection responsibilities seriously will hurt Canadians in the long-run, as our economy remains over-reliant on dirty oil, as our air remains more polluted than it needs to be, and because sustainable jobs in the renewable energy sector were not created,” says Louise Comeau, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada.

2015 will be the first time all countries present national climate action commitments. Some of these plans will be stronger than others, but collectively they are a signal of intent to end the fossil fuel age, to embrace the dawning renewable energy era, and to build resilient communities free from poverty and inequality.

The climate action plans by the five major economies assessed in the new report – Japan, Canada, EU, US and China – will collectively save 115,000 lives a year, put USD41 billion back in the coffers annually, and create 1 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2030.

If all these governments had presented plans in line with 100% renewables by 2050, the additional benefits of their collective actions would add up to 1.2 million lives saved per year, more than 2 million jobs created, and USD514 billion saved.

Tunji Badejo: How Abiodun got it wrong on Lagos planning

2

My attention was drawn to the publication titled “How Planning Blunders Deface Lagos,” on Democracy Day May 29th, 2015.  The article was written by an urban planner, Tpl. (or Town Planner) Yacoob Abiodun and published in EnviroNews Nigeria an internet-based news magazine on Town Planning and Environment related issues.  The author, Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun, made wide allegations on town planners in Lagos State Public Service as well as Lagos State Government. I am reacting to the allegations made by the author on personal grounds as a proactive, upright, Registered Town Planner in Lagos State Public Service.  This response is personal and not the position of the Lagos State Government.

Olatunji Badejo
Olatunji Badejo

I have decided to address the issues raised by the author on town planning related matters and not personal attacks on town planners in Lagos State Public Service.  The issues raised by Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun are summarised to eight, and they are:

(i)         Lagos State Government is the Chief Culprit breaking her Laws on Urban and Regional Planning and, by extension, the Urban Planners in Lagos State Public Service.  He cited non-establishment of Urban and Regional Planning Appeal Tribunal as stated in the Law.

(ii)        He also cited location of Lagos Ferry Service Terminal at space earmarked as play ground for the residents of Osborne Foreshore Estate Phase II Ikoyi, Lagos.

(iii)       Underhand dealings with members of the public by town planners in Lagos State.

(iv)       He equally alleged that Lagos State planners can approve anything under the sun based on bargaining power.

(v)        Approval of filling station in a residential area at Admiralty Way, Lekki.

(vi)       Approval of Shopping Mall at Jakande’s Roundabout in Lekki without adequate setbacks.

(vii)      In Lagos State, the citizens never have “our plan” but Government plan public participation in planning is perfunctory.

(viii)     Town planners in Lagos State are “arm-chair town planners”.

A critical digest of the report revealed that the author Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun did not proffer any workable solution to physical planning challenges confronting Lagos Mega City and Town Planners in Lagos State Public Service or to the hydra headed town planning blunders he identified in his report. Since Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun did not proffer any solution, I will take him as a very good critic who is demanding attention and relevance.

My reactions to Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun’s allegations are:

(i) That Lagos State violated her Law by not establishing Town Planning Appeal Tribunal. It is unfortunate that a Senior Registered Town Planner reacted negatively to an issue he has limited information on.  Let me set the record straight. In 2009, a list of nominees for appointment as members of the Appeal’s Tribunal was presented to the former governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola, for approval by your colleague and a good friend of yours, the then Honourable Commissioner for Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development in Lagos State.  Within a week the Governor returned the file and requested to know why no female nominee was in the Seven-Man Appeal”s Tribunal. For reasons best known to the presenter, he never returned the file to the Governor. All spirited efforts made by town planners working in the Ministry to ensure that he represents the list or give reasons for non-inclusion of a female nominee in the composition of the Tribunal met a brick wall.

By 2010, a new Urban and Regional Planning Law was in place and, towards the end of the Fashola Administration, finishing touches were being put in place by the Ministry of Justice, on the Town Planning Regulations that will back the 2010 Law. Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun with his wealth of experience should know that the Town Planning Appeal’s Tribunal can only function with these two instruments in place. That is, the law and the regulation. Tpl. Yacoob  Abiodun may throw more light to the reader, that if the Lagos State Town Planning Appeal’s Tribunal is in place today, which regulation will the Tribunal use? In view of these circumstances, where didthe State go wrong or where have the town planners in the State Public Service erred?

(ii) As regards Lagos Ferry Service Terminal located on parcel of land earmarked as playground for the residents of Osborne Foreshore Estate Phase II.  The information given by Tpl Abiodun is not correct. The layout plan of Osborne Phase II was prepared in 2010 by the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development; Urban and Regional Development Department, Ikoyi Zonal Town Planning Office, Lagos. Signed by Tpl Olakunde A. D. for the Director URD, it revealed that the subject site zoned for mixed use and not playground. That is, the site can be used for a combination of residential and commercial or either of the uses. I am sure, Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun knows the Law governing Urban and Regional Planning in Nigeria. If this statement is in the affirmative, he should answer these questions. Was the Osborne Phase II Layout Plan approved in 2010? Who approved it and who should approve it by Law: the Federal or the State? Notwithstanding, the Scheme is owned by the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development, not Lagos State Government. How can Lagos State embark on the construction of Lagos Ferry Service on Federal Land without strong resistance? For the project to be on course without strong resistance, I’m positive that the Federal, State and or the allottee of the parcel of land must have mutually agreed to use the parcel of Land as Lagos Ferry Terminal as against playground in overall public interest. I think it is unethical for a senior Urban Planner to give the whole world wrong information. To the best of my knowledge, the scheme was only prepared in 2010 but not approved by Lagos State. However, the scheme was official and publicly approved in May 27, 2015 along with the review of Ikoyi Victoria Island Model City Plan and the subject site captured.

(iii) Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun also alleged that there are underhand dealings with members of the public by town planners in Lagos State, but failed to mention any particular case or name those involved. This is a serious allegation which Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun must be prepared to explain before Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) Ethics and Disciplinary Committee. Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun equally alleged that Lagos State town planners can approve anything under the sun based on bargaining power. I and many other town planners take total exemption from this allegation and Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun must give an instance or name culprit(s).

(iv) The petrol filling station in a residential area at Admiralty Way in Lekki is another infringement cited by Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun. I expected Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun to list in his publication the conditions for citing filling station or where filling stations should be cited. Who are petrol filling stations are meant to serve? Until when he responds to these questions or he comes up with acceptable conditions for location of filling station before I will react. It is important to note that that Admiralty Way Lekki is covered by approved Lekki Scheme I Layout prepared by the New Towns Development Authority (NTDA) which designated the locations of two petrol filling Stations along Admiraty Way . These locations have been planned more than three decades ago as filling stations for over  3,500 residential plots in Lekki Scheme I. Tpl Abiodun may want to enlighten us on this. However, the review of the Scheme is on and Abiodun is free to come up and present superior reason(s) for the best locations of the filling stations. I will refresh the memory of  Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun who  has been living in Lagos for over 40 years and he knows Lagos in and out.  I want him to state the land use of the following planned corridors in the 60s and 70s: Itire Road, Akerele and Western Avenue in Surulere, Herbert Macaulay and Muritala  Mohammed Way in Ebute Metta/Yaba, Igbosere Street in Lagos Island, to mention a few. Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun should make it public when the existing and some relocated filling stations in these corridors have been in operation.

(v) Another infraction is the Shopping Mall at Jakande Roundabout in Lekki with inadequate setbacks. He further raised the traffic congestion the project will cause when it becomes operational. It is only a criminal planner that will approve such a landmark shopping mall without adequate setbacks or clearance on Traffic Impact Assessment.  That, is the extra mile Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority adopts before granting of development permit.  If these two conditions are met before approval of the shopping mall is granted, then the author is either biased or has chosen to mislead the readers.

(vi) Tpl. Yacoob Abiodun further alleged that in Lagos State the citizens never have “our plan” but Government plan with no public participation in planning.  It is only a person who has been out of circulation can hold on to such position. In Lagos State there is no existing Local, Model City or Master Plan without at least two different public fora of the citizens’ and stakeholders participations. These are, consultations of the stakeholders at inception, data gathering, public presentation of the interim report and public presentation of draft final report. The recently signed Agege, Apapa,Lagos Central Mainland, Ikoyi Victoria Island Model City Plans and Badagry Master Plan are examples. These plans were signed in the public where they started.

(vii) Finally, Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun claimed that town planners in Lagos State are “arm chair” town planners. Yes, Tpl. Yaccob Abiodun is “right” because the last Administration in Lagos State makes them comfortable, in their offices, exposed them to best practices, monthly interactive session with the Chief Executive of the State, budgetary provision for physical planning and placed square men in square holes. These are the reasons why Lagos is regarded as the State of Excellence. The Akinwunmi Ambode Administration is also leaving no stone unturned on physical planning, by focusing on improving quality of living, ease of doing business and wealth creation in the state.

By Tpl. Badejo, Hakeem Olatunji (Director, Town Planning, Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority)

G7 Summit: David Cameron may leverage on party’s climate message

0

David Cameron should use the Conservative Party’s positive record on tackling climate change and promoting clean energy to press for more action on these issues at the G7 Summit in Germanywhich started on Sunday, June 7 2015, said Lord Howard of Lympne.

British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Photo credit: news.bfnn.co.uk
British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Photo credit: news.bfnn.co.uk

Michael Howard said: “The General Election was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister. In winning it, he pledged his commitment to securing a strong new global climate agreement later this year and this weekend the G7 summit provides an ideal opportunity to advance his case.

“Bringing in policies to tackle climate change and promote clean energy, as the Conservatives have done, is good for growth, good for jobs, and good for the environment, which is a powerful message that the Prime Minister can take to the G7.”

Dr Camilla Toulmin, Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said that other countries would be looking to the G7 for leadership.

Dr Toulmin said: “A constant feature of David Cameron’s premiership has been as a champion of international development, including unwavering support for Britain’s overseas aid contribution.

“By common consent, securing a healthy and prosperous future for all the world’s people – rich and poor – depends on finding an effective response to climate change.

“The G7 Summit is an ideal opportunity for Mr Cameron to show that he is as serious and consistent in his commitment to tackling global poverty and climate change as he has been on the delivery of UKAid.”   

 Lord Howard and Dr Toulmin are members of the Advisory Board of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a UK-based non-profit initiative supporting informed debate on energy and climate change.

WED 2015: Waste not, want not – Achim Steiner

0

In this editorial to observe the World Environment Day 2015, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), submits: From Wasted Economy to Wasted Planet: Why Changing Our Consumption Patterns is a Choice We Must Make!

Achim Steiner of UNEP
Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP

As we sit down to lunch or dinner on this World Environment Day, it is important to consider this: one-third of all food produced globally each year – 300 million tonnes – is wasted. This waste costs the global economy a staggering one trillion dollars a year.

Industrialised regions account for almost half of the total. The food we discard is still fit for human consumption and could feed more than 800 million people in the world today.

This is just the tip of the waste iceberg, and serves as a proxy for the ‘ecological footprint’ of our entire global economy. Our global food system is responsible for 80 per cent of deforestation and is the largest single cause of species and biodiversity loss.

It is also responsible for more than 70 per cent of freshwater consumption. A beef burger on your lunch plate could require an incredible 2400 litres of water to produce. Would you like fries with that? Add a another 100 litres, not to mention the impact of pesticides and non-degradable packaging.

Bon appetite.

Here is the startling truth: Our global consumption is already one-and-a-half times the Earth’s carrying capacity. If current population and consumption trends continue, humanity will need the equivalent of two Earths to support itself by 2030.

With the global population forecast to reach nine billion by mid-century, demands on these depleting resources will only compound, exacerbated by increasing pollution, conflicts over resources, and the effects of an atmosphere being rapidly heated by human greenhouse gas emissions, all of which could substantially lower global GDP. Record droughts, floods, choking air pollution and species threatened with extinction have become a regular feature in our daily news.

While some may dream of colonising other planets, we cannot escape the conclusion that on this Earth, ‘business-as-usual’ cannot maintain our 21st century lifestyles, let alone trying to lift a billion people out of absolute poverty and accomodate an additional one to three billion middle class consumers.

Our only choice to grow our economies is to radically increase what economists call ‘productivity’ – doing more with less. We must shift patterns of both our production and consumption from our current linear economic system of extraction, production, consumption and waste, to a inclusive green economy that mimics natural processes where is there is no concept of ‘waste’ – just food for another organism or process.

A green economy can improve human well-being and social equity while significantly reducing environmental risks, costs, and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy is low-carbon, resource-efficient and socially inclusive. In terms of productivity, a green economy ‘decouples’ economic growth from the rate of natural resource consumption, and thus environmental degradation.

The good news is that this is already happening in parts of the global economy, although not nearly fast enough. Today, 65 countries have embarked on green economy and related strategies. This includes many countries engaged with the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) to shift investment and policies towards clean technologies, resource-efficient infrastructure, well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good governance.

As an input to virtually every human product or process, energy is a proxy for impacts and progress. In just a few decades, the renewable energy sector has grown almost exponentially and accounted for nearly half of all installed electrical generating capacity in 2014, excluding large hydro. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that boosting energy efficiency alone could not only provide a 10 per cent reduction in global energy demand by 2030, but also save $560 billion.

In all, harnessing existing technologies and appropriate policies to increase resource productivity would liberate $3.7 trillion globally each year that is otherwise wasted. These currently wasted funds could be invested in substantial health, education and development objectives.

One of the keys to productivity and decoupling environmental damage from GDP is to make prices tell the environmental truth. Again, the energy sector shows how important this can be. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the total cost of public subsidy to fossil fuels amounts to more than 5 trillion dollars a year when direct and indirect subsidies are counted.

Getting price signals right, educating consumers and making policies that foster a green economy are not only desirable, they are essential. How well we succeed will determine whether the ‘Anthropocene’ is an age when more than 9 billion people have access to food, energy and security without compromising the vital life support systems of our planet.

Group alleges Australian climate policy are ‘lies and statistics’

0

According to the Climate Action Network (CAN) International, the Australian Government has serious questions to answer on its climate policies and ambition ahead of Paris as well as their role in pushing ahead to open up vast coal reserves, which the environment watchdog claims will blow the global carbon budget.

Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Photo credit: papundits.wordpress.com
Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Photo credit: papundits.wordpress.com

“They are still yet to formally put forward their INDC. Today (Thursday 4 June) in Bonn, the Australian Government has been asked to ‘please explain’ by a large number of their key trading partners and historical allies- including China and the US. But how do their responses stack up against reality?” demands CAN International, as it ponders where the nation sits on climate, environmental and energy action and policy.

Criticising Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the group highlights a range of comments, statements and quotes in an apparent bid to buttress its point.

What progress has Australia made towards the achievment of its quantified economy- wide emission reduction target?
Australian Government: “The Australian Government is firmly committed to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The centrepiece of the Government’s emissions reduction efforts is the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund that commenced purchasing emissions abatement in April 2015. Accompanying the Fund will be the safeguard mechanism to ensure emissions reductions purchased in this way are not undone elsewhere in the Australian economy.”

·    When the government abolished the carbon price in 2014, it was replaced with Direct Action – primarily a taxpayer-backed Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).

·    However, the fund is unlikely to achieve even a 5% emissions reduction by 2020. The first ERF auction held in April 2015 was hailed as a stunning move by the government. Assuming the cost for carbon emissions remains at the average of almost AUD$14 per tonne of CO2 as paid in the first auction, the $1.89 billion budgeted will buy another 135 million tonnes of emissions.

But even assuming all the 47.3 million tonnes bought in the first auction are delivered, and the price per tonne of carbon remains the same, then the total emissions reduction bought by the ERF will be around 182 million tonnes of CO2. This is 54 million tonnes (or about 23%) short of Australia’s overall target. However it is likely that this first auction has already picked most of the “low-hanging fruit.”

·       As Mr. Abbott explained, the ERF is not actually about a 5% target: “The bottom line is we will spend as much as we have budgeted, no more and no less. We will get… as much emission reduction as we can for the spending we have budgeted.” 

·    There is also no timeline for the reductions. In fact, much of the 47 million tonnes bought in the first round of auctions won’t be delivered until after 2020.

·     Almost all of the abatement to be delivered before 2020 from the first auction appears to be from projects that were already in place sometime before the ERF came along, or rely on a one-off land clearing permit regime.

·     Manufacturers, miners and electricity generators (equivalent to more than 60% of Australia’s emissions) won’t have to reduce their emissions and may in fact be able to increase them, which could cancel out the emissions reductions. Direct Action’s “safeguards mechanism” has been watered down to the extent it effectively safeguards against industry having to do anything. A government issues paper said baselines for emissions would “reflect the highest level of reported emissions for a facility over the historical period 2009-10 to 2013-14”. If companies exceeded the baseline calculated that way, they could have their emissions averaged out of the next three years, or apply for a baseline “expansion”, or apply for an exemption, for example after a natural disaster.

·      Elaine Prior, a senior analyst at the global investment bank Citigroup said: “It appears to us that the mechanism, as described in the consultation paper, is unlikely to impose any significant costs or constraints on companies … it also appears unlikely to make any significant positive contribution to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts.”

 

What is Australia’s level of ambition post-2020?

Australian Government: Australia has an existing national renewable energy target, a “national energy productivity plan” and national building and appliance energy standards.

·      Australia’s recent ‘discussion paper’ does not mention a two degree goal, instead citing the IEA ‘new policies scenario’ which could result in upwards of 3.6 degrees warming.

·    The government will set a post-2020 emissions reduction target without a policy. Its discussion paper asks what policies might be implemented to achieve a new target that are “complementary” to Direct Action. Direct Action may not have enough money to meet even the 5% target, and all analysis suggests it would be extremely difficult to “scale up” to a higher target.

·      In May 2015, the Government cut Australia’s large-scale renewable energy target of 41,000 gigawatt hours of annual renewable energy production by 2020 to 33,000 gigawatt hours. Bloomberg New Energy Finance says investment in Australian projects will fall from an expected $20.6 billion by 2020 to $14.7 billion.

·     The government is not including climate change in long-term planning exercises. The recent intergenerational report even claimed that some economic effects of climate change “may be beneficial – where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output, while others may be harmful”.

 

Does Australia have special circumstances?

Australian Government: Australia has special “national circumstances”, as “for the foreseeable future, Australia will continue to be a major supplier of crucial energy and raw materials to the rest of the world … At present, around 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are met through carbon-based fuels. By 2040, it is estimated that 74% will still be met by carbon-based sources.”

·       Australia is already one of the largest per capita emitters on the planet and is refusing to pull its weight.

·    Australia’s justification for it’s special circumstances is based on “new policies scenario” of the International Energy Agency’s world energy outlook 2014, which was a baseline calculation of what would happen if countries implemented only the policies announced at that time, a scenario which would pave the way for at least 3.6C of global warming.

Abbott Government – Highlights on climate and energy

Prime Minister Abbott was elected PM in September 2013 and quickly started dismantling Australia’s climate change framework, including:

  • Moving to become the first country in the world to abolish the legislated price on carbon emissions
  • Shutting down the Climate Commission, an independent panel of experts that provided information on how climate change is affecting the country
  • Drastically reducing funding to the United Nations Environment Programmme (UNEP)
  • Has successfully managed to massively reduce the country’s mandated 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET), bringing a number of major renewable energy companies and projects to their knees
Abbott also denied any link between bushfires and climate change and accused Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, of “talking through her hat.” Both Figueres and Al Gore criticised Abbott on climate.

 Abbott opted not to send a representative to the COP 19 UN conference in Warsaw, a move described by former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo de Boer as “puzzling”.

 He appointed climate sceptic Dick Warburton to review Australia’s renewable energy target, in a move widely seen as first steps to weakening the target.

In a play out of the FIFA playbook, the Australian government has spent $100,000 on travel to lobby against UNESCO over the Great Barrier Reef listing in an attempt to protect their interests of coal development in the Galilee Basin.

Not only does the Coalition not vote against climate science, it blatantly ignores it. As many lesser developed countries have already pledged their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the Abbott government seems to be endeavouring to do what the Howard government managed under the Kyoto Protocol. That is, to plead special consideration and avoid responsibility.

Meanwhile, the Coalition has directed $4m to fund an Australian climate consensus centre fronted by political scientist and climate change contrarian Bjorn Lomborg. The University selected turned down the offer of funding after an outcry from students, academics and the public.

In an attempt to qualify for renewable energy subsidies under the RET, the Australian government plans to allow the burning of native forest biomass. Not only will this burnt forest power be forced into direct competition with genuinely renewable forms of energy generation (wind and solar), but it will reduce the renewable energy certificates available for genuine low or no emission technologies by up to 15%.

In its recent budget, the Abbott government has yet again cut funding to climate research, with the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility a new addition to the list of climate and energy agencies to be halted in 2017. This government has already cut hundreds of millions of dollars from climate science, international climate finance and clean technology research programs. Critics say this sets Australia’s climate change action policies back to the 1990s.

The government is instead pushing ahead with a “Direct Action” policy, widely criticised as ineffective.

Australia is one of the leading countries opposing limits on coal finance in international discussions. A recent report reveals foreign governments have given Australia more than $4 billion to fund coal projects since 2007. In addition to global funding, Australian taxpayers have put up $1.4 billion to subsidise coal mines and power plants via the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, a government bank that enables the finance of Australian projects in other countries.

Abbott attempted (and failed) to take climate change off the G20 agenda in 2014.

The United Nations world heritage body condemned Australia’s approval of the dredging and dumping of millions of tonnes of sludge for new coal ports in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.

In an unprecedented move, the Abbott government applied to have sections of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area delisted by the United Nations, incorrectly claiming it had been degraded.

The Federal government’s recent Energy White Paper is yet another indication of the massive missed opportunity to incentivise renewable technology, instead aligning Australia’s future in old, polluting technology.

Abbott’s personal approval rating has plummeted after just 18 months of rolling out and doing their best to destroy these meaningful climate and energy policies.

Abbott was recently criticised for a bizarre video he released on YouTube, in which he linked a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of WWII D-Day to his government’s policies, including cutting the taxes on carbon emissions and mining and saying that Australia is “open for business.”

John Oliver did a brilliant summary of Abbott gaffes, well worth watching as a backgrounder, describing him as “hard-line, right wing” and “religiously anti-immigration.

 

A range of Tony Abbott comments:

  • “We don’t support, as a government, and as a Coalition, further lock ups of our forests. We just don’t support it. We have quite enough national parks, we have quite enough locked up forests already, in fact, in an important respect, we have too much locked up forest.”
  • “Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic [sic] global warming.”
  • “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”
  • “The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.”
  • “Coal is vital for the future energy needs of the world. So let’s have no demonisation of coal. Coal is good for humanity. Coal is essential for the prosperity of the world. Energy is what sustains our prosperity, and coal is the world’s principal energy source and it will be for many decades to come.”
  • “It sounds like common sense to minimise human impact on the environment and to reduce the human contribution to increased atmospheric-gas concentrations. It doesn’t make much sense, though, to impose certain and substantial costs on the economy now in order to avoid unknown and perhaps even benign changes in the future.
  • “The climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now […] Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.”
  • “These so-called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let’s not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life.”
  • “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?”
  • “It is prudent to do what we reasonably can to reduce carbon emissions. But we don’t believe in ostracising any particular fuel and we don’t believe in harming economic growth.”

 Comments from a cross-section of politics, NGOs, academics, firefighters, health professional, religious leaders etc in response to The Abbott Government’s stance on climate and energy.

Australian Greens Deputy Leader and climate change spokesperson, Senator Larissa Waters:

“Other countries, including the US and China, have asked very valid questions about the inadequacy of the Abbott Government’s Direct Action program and lowly emissions reduction target. In response, the Abbott Government has come up with a whole lot of spin and hot air in an embarrassing attempt to cover up its shameful inaction on climate change.”

The Climate Institute Deputy CEO, Erwin Jackson:

“The government’s response to other countries questions on the effectiveness of its domestic pollution reductions policy lack transparency and try to avoid accountability. The government appears to be inflating the impact of its actions to 2020 without providing any estimate of the pollution reductions it will deliver. Its responses raise more questions than it answers.”

Friends of the Earth Activist, Cam Walker:

“The renewables industry has been brought to the brink of collapse because of the extreme opinions of key players in the Coalition government and this reduced target will mean fewer jobs and investment in regional Australia, and less action on climate change than the original target,”

GetUp Campaigns Director, Paul Oosting:

“It’s hard to believe the government that said we’re open for business is now sending renewables investors packing. The RET’s been a big success for the country, doubling renewable electricity generation and reducing wholesale electricity prices. It’s time to balance out the multi-billion dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry with support for the fledgling, but fast growing renewables sector.”

 The Australian Forests and Climate Alliance (AFCA) Member, Frances Pike:

“Decades of over-logging of public native forests has led to environmental degradation of vast tracts of native forest, loss of water yields from catchments and rain-making capacity.  Australia now faces a wildlife crisis in many regions, and loss of habitat from logging is a major cause. The last thing we now need is forests being degraded and destroyed as a source of power production” said Ms Pike.  

 Solar Citizens National Director, Claire O’Rourke:

“Australians have been betrayed by the Abbott government’s pandering to the big power companies at the expense of ordinary families who are struggling with the cost of living. The Prime Minister’s repeated attacks on solar have put jobs and investment at risk and undermines the cheap, clean, sun-powered future Australians want.”

 Greenpeace Australia Reef Campaigner, Shani Tager:

“UNESCO now joins a long line of scientists, banks, organisations and individuals who are deeply worried about the Reef’s health. The Australian government can’t talk about protecting the Reef while aggressively supporting the licensing of mega-mine and expansion of coal ports along the Great Barrier Reef coast.”

 Former Leader of the Liberal party, Chair of AODP.net Dr John Hewson (Tony Abbott was a former staffer of Dr Hewson):

“The economic, environmental and health risks of climate change are very real. Prime Minister Abbott would be smarter to back Obama, who is likely to lead the international response to climate change, as a priority, for the rest of his presidential term.”

Former international oil, gas and coal industry executive, former chair of the Australian Coal Association and the former CEO of the Institute of Company Directors, Ian Dunlop:

“The omens are not good. The federal government remains in total denial that climate change will have any material impact on Australia’s future. Sensible climate policy has been dismantled, replaced with token gestures. Climate change does not feature in the policy reviews underway, with ludicrously Orwellian efforts being made to remove any reference to it throughout government.”

 350.org Australia CEO, Blair Palese:

“As the world moves rapidly away from coal, oil and gas and toward clean energy, Tony Abbott’s lack of leadership on climate change has Australia shirking its global responsibility on the most important issue of our time. As the country with the most to gain by the take up of solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy, Abbott’s belief that ‘coal is good for humanity’ is relegating Australia to the energy dark ages.”

 Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO, David Ritter:

“The Abbott Government has consistently failed the responsibility test on climate change, leaving Australia as an embarrassing laggard in a world that is moving to act.  Both the Australian people and the world deserve better than this from the Australian Government on climate change.”

 Delegate of United Firefighter’s Union QLD, Queensland, Dean McNulty:

“Firefighters are right on the front lines of the climate threat. We need a leader who will stand and face the climate challenge with our international colleagues, not a leader who runs away.”

 Oxfam Australia Climate Change Advocacy Coordinator, Dr Simon Bradshaw:

“Climate change is the single biggest challenge in the fight against poverty and hunger. Our region is home to some of the most vulnerable nations on earth, many of which are already struggling with shifting rainfall, sea level rise and more extreme weather. The Australian Government is both swimming against the tide of international action and working against the needs of poor people in developing countries. Renewable energy, not coal, is the key to reducing poverty and supporting inclusive economic growth throughout the developing world.”

 Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA) President, Dr Liz Hanna:

“Health and medical professionals are increasingly sounding the alarm on the Australian government’s backward steps on action to tackle climate change, given the serious health impacts for people in Australia and around the world from failing to cut emissions. This, compounded by the Abbott government position on promoting the coal industry, is inconsistent with its duty to prevent further climate change and avoiding known risks to health and wellbeing.”

 Australian Religious Response to Climate Change President, Thea Ormerod:

“In a globalised world, it is morally unacceptable for the leaders of individual countries to take a stand which would frustrate a global deal on climate change. It is all the more reprehensible when such a stand serves the interests of the wealthy, and will come at the human cost of the poor and future generations.”

 The Climate Institute CEO, John Connor:

“Government and business figures have often opposed climate and energy initiatives on the basis that Australia shouldn’t “go it alone”. This budget shows that if there’s anywhere we’re at risk of going alone, it’s backwards.” This latest budget locks in the benefits that polluters now can to continue polluting for free, while loading up taxpayers and a supposedly stressed budget with the task of paying for emissions reductions.”

Australian Conservation Foundation Energy Analyst, Tristan Knowles:

“It’s hard to believe a government of an advanced developed nation in the second decade of the 21st Century can release a vision for an energy future that pays so little attention to climate change. The energy white paper could have provided a roadmap for a sustainable energy future, but instead it was merely a rubber stamp on Australia’s old dinosaur industries and further proof that the current government has its head in the sand on energy policy.”

Former Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator for Tasmania, Christine Milne:

“The depth of this government’s denial is alarming. They’re condemning Australia to economic dislocation, to being way behind the rest of the word, and to making life harder and more dangerous for everyone in our region, as extreme fires and storms intensify […] The Abbott government does not accept the science, continues to support coal expansion and can’t see that they will be left behind as plenty of countries commit to a fossil fuel free world.”

Daniel Spencer Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC):

“The Great Barrier Reef has lost 50% of its coral cover over the last 30 years, in large part due to climate change. It’s a warning sign that carbon-intensive fossil fuels must remain in the ground. Citizens and investors alike are sending a clear message that the world has to move beyond coal. Australia should be leading this shift by creating jobs in clean energy instead of trying to build unviable coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef.”

 

HOMEF on WED 2015: Restore the environment, build well-being

0

In its message to mark the World Environment Day 2015, the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) submits that currently dominant humankind’s view of the gifts of nature is at the root of many of the crises confronting the world today

Nnimmo Bassey, Director, HOMEF
Nnimmo Bassey, Director, HOMEF

When future generations look back on our actions today, it is likely that they will evaluate harshly our irresponsible relationship with natural resources. Unfortunately, we will not be granted the excuse of ignorance. Despite access to so much information about the consequences of our consumption patterns, we still consume resources at a rate that is destructive to the planet and the people in it. Today, the world’s population is climbing quickly away from 7 million, and Nigeria’s 170 million people are pursuing this number unrestrained.

Every year, the United Nations sets aside the 5th of June as World Environment Day (WED), to create a tornado of awareness across the world on environmental issues. For each WED, a specific theme is chosen and stakeholders in over 100 countries create a network of positive environmental actions. WED is the vehicle that pools together tiny drops of environmental action to form a mighty ocean to drive environmental policies, campaigns and changes throughout the planet.  The theme for WED 2015 is “Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care.” The sharp and concise theme is not trivial because beneath the simplicity lies a very important note of caution; we have only one planet and it is our minimum responsibility to curtail our culture of consumption.

This year’s World Environment Day theme could not have been better chosen concerning the state of planet today. We cannot ignore the fact that the well-being of humanity, the environment and economies ultimately depend on ways we manage the planet’s resources.

Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) believes that currently dominant humankind’s view of the gifts of nature is at the root of many of the crises confronting the world today, including economic, climate, food and social disruptions. Conflicts continue to rage because of misguided economic ideologies and of power struggles for dominance and for selfish appropriating the abundant but finite gifts of nature.

“Until we see what we term natural resources as actually the gifts of Nature that require a stewardship relationship we will continue on the destructive and obviously unsustainable path,” says Nnimmo Bassey, Director of HOMEF. “Today we call to mind also that the United Nations has declared 2015 the Year of the Soil.  The soil is indeed the base of culture and life generally. Our attitude to the soil contributes immensely to our well-being. Degraded soils support degraded lives. Thus when citizens are forced to live in degraded soils and environments their right to life and well-being is heavily degraded. We only have to think of the pollutions in the Niger Delta, the lagoons of Lagos, abandoned tin mines of Jos and the deadly mining wastes of Zamfara to see the enormity of the problems.”

The thinking that Nature can only be appreciated when she is given monetary value, or when transformed for utility, is a way of thinking that has diminished cooperation and solidarity and has rather built systems of competition, destruction and marginalisation of the powerless. The Earth is a living entity and not an inanimate mineral to be used, abused and damaged. Our contribution to an alternative view is documented in our publication, Re-Source Democracy (available at http://www.homef.org/sites/default/files/pubs/resource-democracy.pdf ).

On this day, HOMEF calls for concerted efforts by the new government in Nigeria to tackle the restoration of our environment as a crucial way of building well-being as well as a new vision of citizenship. A safe environment will help to put Nigerians back to work and kindle the spirit of innovation, solidarity, care, respect and dignity of labour. As we celebrate the World Environment Day, let’s pause and show some care for the Earth and for one another.

WED 2015: CEGDEC tutors kids on eco-friendly lifestyles

0

Conservative Environmental Growth and Development Centre (CEGDEC) commemorated World Environment Day 2015 on Wednesday, June 3 with the pupils of Oke-Afa Junior and Senior Comprehensive College, Jakande Estate, Oke-Afa, Isolo, Lagos. The yearly event, an initiative of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) since 1972, was held to raise global awareness of the need to take positive environmental action.

Page-1The environmental education and awareness-raising programme was held to achieve a cleaner, greener, and brighter world. Examples on living sustainable lifestyles were cited from the everyday routine an average Nigerian student lives. Information kits given included taking positive actions and adopting an eco-friendly life. As agents of positive change to the environment, actions like doing an inventory of daily energy usage, consuming habits, reliance on unsustainable products and ways to curb the unsustainable activities must be done, said Mrs. Maryam Olayeni, the CEGDEC executive director. Taking public transportation or better still making a choice to take a walk often is a way to reduce our carbon footprint, she added.

Olayeni continued: “Before acquiring so much waste, it is necessary to first consider where the waste ends. Therefore, consider the habit of 3Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle, and then choose to make it a part of your daily life. 

“A simple gesture of acquiring permanent shopping bags rather than acquiring so much polythene bags from shopping at different times should be encouraged. Using energy saving bulbs and turning off light in an empty room is a way of sustainable lifestyle.

“More importantly, it is necessary to get involved in conservation, restoration, or local eco-community project. The students were admonished to get involved in planting trees, saving trees, saving water and living in clean environment. ‘Greening up’ the environment will translate to a fresh home and to fresh city, fresh country and on the whole fresh world.”

As part of co-curricular activities, some of the students were already part of Climate Change Club. It was however concluded that, all students should be involved as everyone should be an agent of positive change the environment needs.

In conclusion, she submitted: “Today is a great day to sign up and get involved with people who are doing rather than talking or reading. There are many activities that can be done to live in harmony with the environment rather than to personally impact on the planet. Also take time to help others to learn from you.”

Tanzania records catastrophic decline of elephant populations

0

There has been a catastrophic decline of elephant populations in Tanzania over the past decade, the country’s Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Lazaro Nyalandu, has disclosed. According to him, the latest estimates of elephant populations have seen numbers plummeting from an estimated 109,051 in 2009 to 43,330 in 2014. Government officials said that it was highly likely that the decline was caused by poaching for ivory.

A poached elephant. Photo credit: kiregodal.com
A poached elephant. Photo credit: kiregodal.com

“The government’s figures show Tanzania lost tens of thousands of elephants over the past decade,” said Steven Broad, TRAFFIC’s Executive Director. “It is incredible that poaching on such an industrial scale has not been identified and addressed before now.”

This news confirms concerns raised by TRAFFIC in 2013 in a report from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), which pointed to a profound shift in ivory smuggling routes to Tanzania’s Indian Ocean ports of Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar as the principle exit points for vast quantities of ivory. 

Latest information compiled by TRAFFIC from seizure records indicates that more ivory – at least 45 tonnes – has flowed from Tanzania to international markets in Asia than any other African country since 2009. Forensic analyses have confirmed that seizures made in Uganda and Kenya have also involved ivory originating from Tanzania.

A breakdown of elephant numbers across the country presented by Nyalandu showed some smaller elephant populations had increased significantly, notably the elephant population in the famed Serengeti, which rose from 3,068 to 6,087 animals. However, beyond the most heavily visited, northern circuit tourist locations, elephant numbers were significantly down.

Of particular concern is the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem, where an estimated 8,272 elephants were found in 2014, compared to 34,664 in 2009, according to government figures. Surprisingly, relatively few elephant carcases were spotted during surveys that would account for the decline and wildlife officials were at a loss to explain the discrepancy.

Nyalandu did announce a suite of measures to protect the country’s elephants, including recruitment of an additional 500 rangers this year in addition to the 500 extra already hired by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in 2014, better support for existing rangers and a doubling of ranger numbers in the key elephant stronghold of Ruaha-Rungwa, plus closer co-operation with neighbouring Zambia on anti-poaching measures.

Tanzania was already under pressure to address elephant poaching and illegal trade from its fellow members of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Along with a number of other African and Asia countries, Tanzania was required to develop an Ivory Trade Action Plan to guide its protection and enforcement efforts.

“While the measures announced this week by the Tanzania government are welcome, there is a real risk that it could be a case of too little too late for some elephant populations”, said Broad.

“Tanzania has been haemorrhaging ivory with Ruaha-Rungwa the apparent epicentre and nobody seems to have raised the alarm; it is clearly essential that the government establish exactly how this has been allowed to take place, while taking urgent and incisive action to bring the situation under control.”

US, EU accused of neglecting land use sector emissions in INDCs

0

As countries prepare to finalise a climate agreement in Paris in December, global leaders like the United States and the European Union are releasing intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), which are country specific action plans that outline how they intend to reduce global warming emissions. An analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) evaluated how the INDCs from the U.S., the EU and Mexico address land use emissions, which include those from agriculture and forestry. UCS found that the U.S. and EU INDCs fall short in describing what they will do to reduce land use emissions, but that Mexico’s contribution ambitiously addresses emissions from this sector.

Doug Boucher, director of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. Photo credit: ucsusa.org
Doug Boucher, director of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. Photo credit: ucsusa.org

“With land use sector emissions accounting for 25 percent of all global warming pollution, it is essential that countries with the potential to reduce emissions in this sector – like the U.S., EU, and Mexico – clearly commit to doing so in their INDCs,” said Doug Boucherdirector of UCS’s Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative. “If we want to stay under two degrees, then we need to tackle emissions on all fronts, including the land use sector.”

The report, “The Land Sector in the First INDCs: Intended Climate Contributions of the United States, the European Union, and Mexico,” examined and compared the INDC’s in terms of transparency, ambition, accounting standards and proposed actions.

This analysis follows up on an earlier UCS report, Halfway There,” which found that of the eight countries that make up 57 percent of all land use emissions, the U.S. has the greatest potential for emission reductions in the land use sector. Unfortunately, the U.S. INDC does not include actions to address emissions from agriculture and forestry.

Another area for concern within the U.S. INDC is language suggesting that the U.S. plans to exclude emissions from natural disturbances. This exclusion clause could create perverse incentives against improving forest management.

“It is disappointing to see the U.S. neglect to address emissions from agriculture and forestry – especially when the potential for reductions is so considerable,” said Boucher.

The EU INDC similarly does not contain action or mitigation plans to address land use emissions, but includes vague language referencing land use emissions. The EU INDC mentions that policies on how to include land use emissions will be established as soon as “technical conditions allow.” The INDC does not however go into detail about what these technical conditions are or why they are preventing the EU from planning to reduce land use emissions.

This is despite the fact that a recent EU study found that small dietary changes to eliminate some high emissions foods, such as beef, could reduce agricultural emissions by 28 percent. Again, the potential to realize emissions reductions from the land use sector is being overlooked.

“While the U.S. and the EU INDCs offer cause for concern, Mexico’s emissions reduction target genuinely addresses the land use sector,” said Boucher. “Mexico is a true leader in this sense.”

Mexico’s detailed emissions reduction plans specifically mention action to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030, increasing reforestation, restoring ecosystems, and improving agricultural sustainability. As a developing country, Mexico only has so many resources to implement this action plan without foreign assistance. The country pledged to reduce pollution by 25 percent on their own and by 40 percent if offered international financing.

“Emissions from land use represent a significant piece of the problem and must be addressed if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” said Boucher. “Moving forward, the U.S. and the EU should take a page from the Mexico playbook and amend their INDCs to account for land use emissions.”

×