Climate change

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Netflix still several steps ahead in strategy for wooing subscribers

      by

      Only Frank Underwood could amass as much power in such a short space of time. Nearly eight years after Netflix used House of Cards as the launch of its global empire, the streaming service announced last week that it now had more than 200 million subscribers. The pandemic has hastened the company’s transformation from a debt-laden digital upstart into an essential part of the TV landscape in homes across the world.In 2013, when Netflix’s first original series made its debut, the company had 30 million (mostly US) subscribers. This was six years after it moved from being a DVD-by-post business to a streaming pioneer. Since then it has added 170 million subscribers in more than 190 countries and its pandemic-fuelled results last week sent Netflix’s market value to an all-time high of $259bn.Last year proved to be the best in the company’s history, even as a new wave of deep-pocketed rivals attempt to deprive it of its streaming crown. Accustomed to operating in battle mode, Netflix added a record 37 million new subscribers as lockdown prompted viewers to alleviate housebound cabin fever with fare including The Crown, Bridgerton and The Queen’s Gambit.Last week it reported that in 2020 the amount it earned from subscribers exceeded what it spent – to the tune of $1.9bnBut Netflix’s pioneering low-price, binge-watching approach to driving growth has come at a cost. Year after year the need to spend billions on ever-increasing numbers of films and TV shows in order to keep and attract subscribers has weighed on its balance sheet, if not its share price. With a Netflix subscription a fraction of the cost of a traditional pay-TV service, average revenue per user is low. This is great for growth but means the company has to keep on topping up its content budget to fulfil its binge-watching promise to fans. A few billion here and there has spiralled to $16bn in long-term debt and a further $19bn in “obligations” – essentially payments for content spread out over a number of years.Analysts have been split over Netflix’s grow-now-pay-for-it-later strategy, but the company finally appears to have proved the naysayers wrong. There was a symbolic announcement in its results last week: it reported that in 2020, free cashflow was positive – which means that the amount it earns from subscribers exceeds what it spends on content, marketing and other costs – to the tune of $1.9bn.Part of the reason for this was that Netflix’s content spend fell – from $14bn to $12bn – as a result of production stoppages caused by lockdowns, but it was a turning point nevertheless. It has taken 23 years since its humble beginnings as a DVD rental company in California for the Netflix machine to reach the point of sustainability.The firm’s decision in 2013 to invest heavily in original productions has proved critical – and prescient. It sensed, correctly, that its success would prompt the suppliers that it was licensing shows from to eventually keep them for their own services. In the past 18 months, HBO Max, Sky-owner Comcast’s Peacock and AppleTV+ have joined longer-term rival Amazon Prime Video in vying for subscribers.Reed Hastings, Netflix’s co-chief executive, acknowledges this second wave in the streaming wars, particularly noting the “super-impressive” performance of Disney+, which has become the third global force in streaming behind Amazon. In just 14 months since its launch, the service, powered by franchises including Star Wars TV spin-off The Mandalorian, Marvel films and Frozen 2, has amassed 87 million subscribers four years sooner than forecast. Last month, Walt Disney+ announced a doubling of its content budget and tripled its forecast of subscriber numbers by 2024.However, new rivals have yet to dent the dominance of Netflix, which reported adding 8.5 million subscribers in the fourth quarter, and revealed that 500 TV titles were in the works and a record 71 films would premiere this year. Some doubters had raised concerns that Netflix’s debt-fuelled growth was a financial house of cards. But its foundations look solid now.Nissan’s ‘edge’ over rivals is no vote for BrexitLeaving the EU without a deal would have been an act of economic self-sabotage nearly unrivalled by a developed economy. Carmakers’ relief that a deal was reached on Christmas Eve was palpable. Nissan’s glee became clear last week, with chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta repeatedly declaring that the Brexit deal had given the Japanese carmaker a “competitive advantage”.Nissan had looked through the complex new rules of origin governing trade between the UK and the EU. Parts and finished cars that cross the Channel will not attract tariffs if a certain proportion of their components are from either the UK or the EU. Nissan’s cars already comply with the rules.Crucially, this applies to high-value batteries, which a partner company builds in Sunderland, in a factory next door to Nissan’s. Other companies are not so well-placed and must rely instead on imports from east Asia. For them the Brexit deal has started a scramble to secure batteries from Europe – if they want to sell into the UK – or hope that untested UK companies can build gigafactories to supply them.However, the Japanese carmaker’s statement should not be mistaken for a “vote of confidence”, as Boris Johnson managed to do. Gupta acknowledged that the UK’s departure from the EU had brought new costs, though these were “peanuts” for a company of Nissan’s scale. They may not be so negligible for exporting entrepreneurs, a breed that will probably become rarer as non-tariff barriers increase for would-be traders with the EU.Furthermore, “competitive advantage” is a double-edged compliment. Nissan will gain on UK and EU rivals which do not source batteries locally. Even if it is less of a burden than those carried by competitors, a handicap – in this case increased trade friction with the UK’s biggest market – is still a handicap.A new president is not a panaceaIt would be a mistake to allow the relief that has accompanied Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential election to become something close to euphoria and, consequently, freight the new US president with expectations that are unachievable.The next decade is looking troubled and fractious even now that Donald Trump’s hand is no longer on the tiller of the world’s largest and most powerful economy. From a global perspective, there is the assessment of climate economist Lord Stern that the next 10 years will be crucial if we are to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.China, for 30 years a convenient supplier of low-cost goods to the global economy, is becoming more authoritarian and looking to use its spheres of influence in Asia and Africa to quell complaints by international bodies about the way it treats Uighur Muslims and Hong Kong protesters. To make matters worse, populations in the west and in China are ageing and struggling to provide a decent standard of living for younger members of society.In the UK, Brexit reintroduces a welter of red tape into the trading arrangements this country has with its biggest commercial partner, the EU, and will depress average household incomes over a long period. So despite the relief in many corners of the globe that greeted Biden’s inauguration, there is reason to worry.But there are grounds for hope too. The pressure to address the climate emergency is growing rapidly and politicians all over the world are at last taking notice. The 26th UN climate change conference in Glasgow, scheduled for November, could mark a seismic shift in action. And Biden showed how inclusive he plans to be with his roster of inauguration acts, from the stalwart Republican country singer Garth Brooks to 22-year-old African American poet Amanda Gorman.It was telling that Biden said he wanted to build bridges. It will be difficult, but on the issue of climate change, if on nothing else, that must include China. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Renewing the alliance: the Biden administration and what it means for Australia

      by

      Donald Trump’s final day in office has sparked fresh political debate in Australia about whether Scott Morrison allowed himself to get too close to the outgoing US president. But the focus will soon shift to building bridges with the incoming Joe Biden administration.What will the new administration mean for Australia when it comes to renewing the alliance, navigating tensions with a rising China, dealing with a newly ambitious US approach to climate policy, working together on global trade rules and reforming global bodies?Renewing the allianceBiden and his top advisers have made clear he will restore a more conventional relationship with allies such as Australia – turning the page on Trump’s “America First” approach that was often seen as prioritising the outgoing president’s own instincts and preferences over coordination with partners.Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, has made positive noises about working with the Australian government. He has said Biden would be “eager to develop a really strong relationship” with Morrison. Regardless of any political or policy differences, Sullivan predicts Biden and Morrison will “get off to a strong start” because the former vice-president sees Australia as the kind of partner central to finding successful strategies on a wide range of global issues.That coordination will be helped by the fact that a number of Biden’s senior cabinet appointees and other nominees to key positions are well known to the Australian government. For example, Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, has met and worked with Biden’s secretary of state nominee, Antony Blinken, in the past.But the opposition Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has chided Morrison for not meeting any senior Democrats when he visited the US in 2019 and has argued the incoming administration will have noticed the prime minister’s failure to forcefully condemn Trump for his role in inciting the deadly riots at the US Capitol.Morrison hit back on Wednesday, telling 2GB radio: “If people want to have a crack at me because I worked with the president of the United States, well I think that reflects more on them than me.” He said the alliance was bigger than personalities and would endure: “Whoever the prime minister is and whoever the president is, it’s important that … both of us steward that relationship for the benefit of both of our countries.”Navigating tensions with a more powerful ChinaMorrison has predicted the arrival of the Biden administration could change some of the “atmospherics” in the tense relationship between the US and China. The US-China relationship is seen in Canberra as one of the biggest drivers of the dynamics in our region, so the government will be watching closely. That comes as the Australian government seeks to navigate its own rocky ties with China.Australian officials are pleased with the incoming Biden administration’s signals about greater coordination with allies on issues such as China. While Australian government insiders cite elements of coordination during the Trump administration – and the revitalisation of the Quad that also includes Japan and India – Australia would welcome the prospect of constructive talks on strategy.Still, there is not likely to be any major change in America’s posture of competition with China, given the new bipartisan consensus in Washington for a hard line on Beijing. Blinken may seek to carve out areas of cooperation: he has foreshadowed trying to work with China on issues such as climate change, dealing with health emergencies and preventing the spread of dangerous weapons. But he has also said the US needs to take steps to “deter aggression if China pursues it” and that “we are in a competition with China”. In a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Blinken backed outgoing secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s declaration that China has committed genocide against Uighurs in the Xinjiang region.The Australian government is pleased with some of the key picks who will be influential in shaping China policy, including Kurt Campbell, who served as Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs and was responsible for the US pivot to Asia. Campbell will serve on Biden’s national security council (NSC) as coordinator for the Indo-Pacific.In an article he co-wrote for Foreign Affairs earlier this month, Campbell called for an Indo-Pacific strategy that incorporated “the need for a balance of power; the need for an order that the region’s states recognise as legitimate; and the need for an allied and partner coalition to address China’s challenge to both”.Campbell criticised China over “South China Sea island building, East China Sea incursions, conflict with India, threats to invade Taiwan, and internal repression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang” and said: “This behaviour, combined with China’s preference for economic coercion, most recently directed against Australia, means that many of the order’s organising principles are at risk.”Jake Sullivan, the incoming national security adviser, has reached out to Australia by sending a signal of support in December amid the storm over a Chinese official’s tweet about Australia and a series of trade actions against Australian export sectors.The Australian people have made great sacrifices to protect freedom and democracy around the world. As we have for a century, America will stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally Australia and rally fellow democracies to advance our shared security, prosperity, and values.— Jake Sullivan (@jakejsullivan) December 2, 2020
      Dealing with US pivot on climate actionClimate will be an area that will be tricky for the Australian government to navigate, given it has so far resisted calls to formally commit to net zero emissions by 2050.Former US secretary of state John Kerry will be at the centre of efforts to push countries to lift their level of ambition, having been named as Biden’s special presidential envoy for climate. Biden will act quickly to reverse Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and has vowed to put the US on an irreversible course to net zero emissions by 2050.Sullivan has foreshadowed some difficult conversations with allies regarding climate action – reflecting the importance Biden has placed on helping to spur more ambitious global action. Sullivan has said while Biden would hold heavy emitters such as China accountable for doing more “he’s also going to push our friends to do more as well” because everyone needs to “up their game”. Biden would be respectful with allies, Sullivan said, “but he’s not going to pull any punches on it”.To date, Morrison has played down the appearance of a split on climate policy. Speaking to reports about the initial post-election congratulatory call he had with Biden in November, Morrison said the “specific matter” of a target of net zero emissions by 2050 was not discussed, but he had raised the similarity of their policies on emissions reduction technology.But in remarks since the US election, and after a growing number of Australia’s trading partners committed to the 2050 goal, Morrison has sounded more positive about net zero, arguing Australia aspired to get there “as quickly as possible”. He has also pivoted on Kyoto carryover credits.Trade and economic issuesAustralia will be hoping for a return to predictability on trade and economic issues. Trump caused consternation with allies such as Australia by inking a “phase 1” trade deal with Xi Jinping in early 2020 that committed China to buy vast quantities of goods from the US. That has been likened to a purchasing agreement rather than something consistent with global trading rules. Trump also forced allies to negotiate exemptions on tariffs on steel and aluminium.The Biden team is likely to work with Australia and other countries on seeking reform of the World Trade Organization. Campbell’s Foreign Policy piece said the Biden administration “should pursue bespoke or ad hoc bodies focused on individual problems, such as the D-10 proposed by the United Kingdom (the G-7 democracies plus Australia, India, and South Korea).” Such coalitions, Campbell said, would be “most urgent for questions of trade, technology, supply chains, and standards”.But there is unlikely to be any swift return of the US to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Pacific rim trade pact that Australia and Japan helped rescue after Trump pulled out.MultilateralismAustralian officials are also looking forward to working with the US in multilateral forums. Trump’s instinct was to retreat from such bodies – and Morrison has previously given a nod to such views with his previous speech on “negative globalism”. But the government made clear, after an audit last year, that it would step up its level of engagement in global bodies while seeking reform to ensure they are as effective as possible. Australian officials welcome the understanding from the Biden team that multilateral and big organisations can bring frustrations and take time, but walking away from the space is not the answer. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden to 'hit ground running' as he rejoins Paris climate accords

      by

      Joe Biden is set for a flurry of action to combat the climate crisis on his first day as US president by immediately rejoining the Paris climate agreement and blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, although experts have warned lengthier, and harder, environmental battles lie ahead in his presidency.In a series of plans drawn up by Biden’s incoming administration for his first day in office, the new president will take the resonant step of bringing the US back into the Paris climate accords, an international agreement to curb dangerous global heating that Donald Trump exited.The Democrat, who will be sworn in on Wednesday, is also set to revoke a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a controversial cross-border project that would bring 830,000 barrels of crude oil each day from Alberta, Canada, to a pipeline that runs to oil refineries on the US’s Gulf of Mexico coast. The president-elect is also expected to reverse Trump’s undoing of rules that limited the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas drilling operations.“Day one, Biden will rejoin Paris, regulate methane emissions and continue taking many other aggressive executive climate actions in the opening days and weeks of his presidency,” said Paul Bledsoe, who was a climate adviser to Bill Clinton’s White House, now with the Progressive Policy Institute.Bledsoe said Biden’s nominees to tackle the climate crisis, spearheaded by the former secretary of state John Kerry, who will act as a climate “envoy” to the world, is “by far the most experienced, high-level climate team US history. They intend to hit the ground running.”The aggressive opening salvo to help address the climate crisis, which Biden has called “the existential threat of our time”, is set to include various executive orders to resurrect a host of pollution rules either knocked down or weakened by the Trump administration.The US will convene an international climate summit in Biden’s first few months in the White House and is set to join a global effort to phase out the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are used in refrigeration and air conditioning and contribute to the heating of the planet.Biden has also vowed to support federal government scientists beleaguered by years of climate change denial and sidelining of politically inconvenient science by the Trump administration.“It will be a starkly different approach to the Trump administration on almost every front,” said Helen Mountford, vice-president for climate at the World Resources Institute. “Science will once again guide America’s policymaking and inauguration day will mark a new era for climate ambition in the US. He will have a lot on his plate but there’s no doubt that Biden intends to make a full court press on climate change.”However, climate experts point out that simply re-establishing Barack Obama’s climate policies will not be enough to help the world avoid the worst ravages of heatwaves, flooding and mass displacement of people.“It’s not sufficient for where the science says we need to be and it’s not sufficient because we’ve lost critical time over the last couple of years,” said Brian Deese, Biden’s nominee for director of the National Economic Council. Planet-heating emissions dipped in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic but are already surging back to previous levels despite the UN warning countries must at least triple their emissions cuts promised under the Paris deal.Biden has pledged to cut US emissions to net zero by 2050 and has a $2tn plan he claims will create millions of new jobs in energy efficient retrofits for buildings and clean energies such as solar and wind. These ambitions have been bolstered by Democrats’ slender control of the US Senate, although several of the party’s senators, such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who once shot a piece of climate legislation with a gun in a TV campaign advertisement, are wary of big-spending climate bills. US lawmakers have been divided and inert on climate legislation for a decade, despite polls showing record bipartisan support for climate action among the American public.The outcome of the political wrangling will be most keenly felt by poorer people and people of color who disproportionally live near sources of air and water pollution such as coal-fired power plants and highways. Biden has promised to help these communities but will need to “put his money where his mouth is”, said Mustafa Santiago Ali, a former senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency.“Folks will be more focused on the greenhouse gas side of the paradigm, which is maybe a quarter of the work,” Ali said. “There needs to be a comprehensive federal strategy for environmental justice. We have to rebuild trust with communities that we took decades to build up and then was broken. The bogeyman, which is Trump, may be gone but we still need to focus on dismantling that structural environmental racism. Trump just threw more gasoline on what was already there.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in UK Politics

      How Brexit deal could force UK and EU to stick to tougher climate targets

      by

      Since Christmas Eve, when Boris Johnson finally secured a post-Brexit trade deal, politicians, trade experts and journalists alike have pored over the agreement, working out what it will mean for the future of travel, fishing and the trading goods for those in the UK and the EU. But among its 1,255 pages, the final text also sets a precedent for climate – by specifically outlining both parties’ commitments to tackle the crisis as a key condition for future cooperation, experts tell The Independent.“This trade deal contains the most ambitious climate language I’ve seen in any trade deal,” Dr Markus Gehring, a sustainable development lawyer and expert at the Centre for European Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge, tells The Independent. “The EU has a history of including references to the Paris Agreement, but this deal takes it one step further and makes it a make-or-break issue.”The Paris Agreement is an international deal made in 2015 aimed at keeping global warming well below 2C above pre-industrial levels, with an aim of holding temperatures at 1.5C. As part of their commitments to tackle the climate crisis, both the UK and the EU have pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
      These pledges are outlined in the text of the new agreement, which says “each party reaffirms its ambition of achieving economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050”. The Brexit deal is the first trade agreement ever to feature climate targets in this way.  Nick Mabey, founding director of the climate think tank E3G, tells The Independent: “The inclusion of climate change as an ‘essential element’ of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement makes it a top level geopolitical and economic issue for both sides, and will be a precedent which should extend to other agreements with the US and China.”The deal’s fine print also dictates that not taking sufficient action to reach net zero would be in direct breach of the trade agreement, Dr Gehring says.
      “A material breach now also includes breaching your climate ambition,” says Dr Gehring.
      “In my view this is the most significant element. It means if either of the two sides, the EU or the UK, completely deviate from their climate objectives, the entire agreement could be suspended or even terminated, depending on the seriousness of the breach.”
      In other words, the Brexit deal puts a “political and economic price” on reneging on climate action, says Mr Mabey. This will increase the “bindingness” of the Paris Agreement and prevent “any attempt to attack climate action” by a “dwindling group of UK climate deniers”, he adds.
      The text of the deal suggests that such a breach could lead to “immediate tariff consequences, subject to an expert and tribunal process”, says Dr Gehring. “Trade consequences for not reaching your climate target is a novelty and, in my view, a very positive step,” he adds.However, there are other sections of the agreement that are less encouraging, he says. For example, the deal appears to make no assessment of how changes to trade could impact existing environmental protections in the UK.
      “The main concern is when you liberalise a lot of trade, it can have a detrimental effect on environmental protection or conservation objectives,” he says. “Only a precise impact assessment can tell you exactly what this impact will be. I think the public has the right to know that.”
      For example, the introduction of a new product through the trade deal could have an impact on local wildlife, he says.
      Environment impact assessments are usually the norm for new trade agreements, says Dr Gehring. However, it is possible that “the UK is so keen to strike all sorts of trade deals that they see impacts assessments as a major delay factor”, he adds.
      It is also still not clear how the UK and EU will cooperate on carbon pricing after the UK leaves the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, a flagship element of the bloc’s climate policy, the experts say. The country’s replacement for pricing CO2, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, is due to come into force on New Year’s Day. More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US to hold world climate summit early next year and seek to rejoin Paris accord

      by

      The US will hold a climate summit of the world’s major economies early next year, within 100 days of Joe Biden taking office, and seek to rejoin the Paris agreement on the first day of his presidency, in a boost to international climate action.Leaders from 75 countries met without the US in a virtual Climate Ambition Summit co-hosted by the UN, the UK and France at the weekend, marking the fifth anniversary of the Paris accord. The absence of the US underlined the need for more countries, including other major economies such as Brazil, Russia and Indonesia, to make fresh commitments on tackling the climate crisis.Biden said in a statement: “I’ll immediately start working with my counterparts around the world to do all that we possibly can, including by convening the leaders of major economies for a climate summit within my first 100 days in office … We’ll elevate the incredible work cities, states and businesses have been doing to help reduce emissions and build a cleaner future. We’ll listen to and engage closely with the activists, including young people, who have continued to sound the alarm and demand change from those in power.”He reiterated his pledge to put the US on a path to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and said the move would be good for the US economy and workers. “We’ll do all of this knowing that we have before us an enormous economic opportunity to create jobs and prosperity at home and export clean American-made products around the world.”António Guterres, the UN secretary general, said: “It is a very important signal. We look forward to a very active US leadership in climate action from now on as US leadership is absolutely essential. The US is the largest economy in the world, it’s absolutely essential for our goals to be reached.”Donald Trump, whose withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement took effect on the day after the US election in November, shunned the Climate Ambition Summit. Countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Mexico were excluded as they had failed to commit to climate targets in line with the Paris accord. Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, had sought to join the summit but his commitments were judged inadequate, and an announcement from Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, of a net zero target just before the summit was derided as lacking credibility.The Climate Ambition Summit failed to produce a major breakthrough, but more than 70 countries gave further details of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement goal of limiting temperature rises to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational 1.5C limit.Many observers had hoped India might set a net zero emissions target, but its prime minister, Narendra Modi, promised only to “exceed expectations” by the centenary of India’s independence in 2047. China gave some details to its plan to cause emissions to peak before the end of this decade but stopped short of agreeing to curb its planned expansion of coal-fired power.The UK pledged to stop funding fossil fuel development overseas, and the EU set out its plan to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels.Alok Sharma, the UK’s business secretary, who will preside over UN climate talks called Cop26 next year, said much more action was needed. “[People] will ask: have we done enough to put the world on track to limit warming to 1.5C and protect people and nature from the effects of climate change? We must be honest with ourselves – the answer to that is currently no,” he said.When Biden’s pledge to bring the US to net zero emissions by 2050 is included, countries accounting for more than two-thirds of global emissions are subject to net zero targets around mid-century, including the EU, the UK, Japan and South Korea. China has pledged to meet net zero by 2060, and a large number of smaller developing countries have also embraced the goal.The task for the next year, before the Cop26 conference in Glasgow next November, will be to encourage all the world’s remaining countries – including oil-dependent economies such as Russia and Saudi Arabia – to sign up to long-term net zero targets, and to ensure that all countries also have detailed plans for cutting emissions within the next decade.Those detailed national plans, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), are the bedrock of the Paris agreement, setting out emissions curbs by 2030. Current NDCs, submitted in 2015, would lead to more than 3C of warming, so all countries must submit fresh plans in line with a long-term goal of net zero emissions. The US will be closely watched for its plans.Nathaniel Keohane, a senior vice-president at the Environmental Defense Fund, said: “The [Climate Ambition] Summit captured and reflected the momentum of recent months, but didn’t push much beyond it. The world is waiting for Biden to bring the US back into the Paris agreement, and will be looking for how ambitious the US is willing to be in its NDC.” More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Alok Sharma facing ‘impossible ask’ juggling Cop26 presidency with Brexit and Covid duties, says Amber Rudd

      by

      Alok Sharma is facing an “impossible ask” juggling his duties as Cop26 president and secretary of state for business, Amber Rudd has said.
      The former home secretary and climate minister said she did not see how Mr Sharma could make the upcoming UN climate talks a “success” while also trying to run the business department at a time when the UK is facing a pandemic and an imminent exit from the EU.
      Speaking at a press briefing alongside Laurent Fabius, the president of Cop21 held in Paris, she said: “When I look at the work that Laurent Fabius did, I don’t think he was trying to run business in the UK in the time of the pandemic, trying to reassure businesses as we leave our largest trading bloc, [and] trying to put together legislation to ensure there isn’t queues at the border.
      “It seems to me an extraordinary ask of Alok Sharma that he can put in the effort, the work, the thought, the corralling of different interests and make Cop a success while doing all those things. I don’t know who thinks that’s possible? It just seems an impossible ask.”
      She added: “I recognise the absurdity of potentially changing COP president, but if not now, when?”
      The UK is due to host the next round of UN climate talks, known as Cop26, next year in Glasgow. The talks will be pivotal for raising ambition on tackling the climate crisis, experts say.
      Mr Sharma was appointed president of the talks in February after the former president-to-be Claire O’Neill was axed from the role.  Yesterday, Ms O’Neill told a parliamentary committee that Boris Johnson’s government had “no sense” of the seriousness of hosting the UN climate talks while she was still in her post.“There just did not seem to be any sense of what we were actually doing,” Ms O’Neill told an evidence hearing held by the business, energy and industrial strategy (Beis) committee.
      “This is a deadly serious diplomatic moment on which the future trajectory of CO2 depends. And I don’t think that sense of gravitas had percolated through.”
      She added that she had been advised to “sue for unfair dismissal” and for “gender bias” due to there being “few women” involved in the running of Cop26.
      Speaking today, Ms Rudd said: “I thought that Claire O’Neill was an inspired choice as president for Cop, and I was very sad when she resigned, or fell under the destructive gaze of Dominic Cummings, shall we say, and left.”
      She added that the cut to overseas aid announced in the chancellor’s recent spending review suggested that the government was not taking its role as host of Cop26 “seriously enough”.“A country that really understood the seriousness and the honour and the responsibility of hosting Cop26 next year would not be cutting its international aid right now,” she said.
      “As a former secretary of state, when you need additional money for something that is this government’s priority, in this case Cop26 … being able to have access to the overseas development aid money … was a huge help to be able to deliver on commitments to help other countries industrialise.”Her comments come a day after a senior Conservative politician told BBC News that somebody with a bigger profile was needed to successfully lead the climate talks.Tobias Ellwood, the former Foreign Office minister who chairs the Commons defence committee, told BBC News: “It’s got to be the likes of David Cameron, William Hague, somebody of that order that is familiar with the international scene.”Ms Rudd ruled herself out of taking up the role at today’s press briefing, which was organised by the non-profit Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit.The briefing on Cop26 and the upcoming Climate Action Summit on 12 December also included comments from Prof Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) and Adair Turner, senior fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).A government spokesperson said on Tuesday: “As Cop26 President, Alok Sharma is coordinating efforts to drive action on climate change across the globe ahead of the UK hosting the Cop26 climate conference next year. This includes engaging directly with over 40 governments as well as attending dozens of major international events virtually to bring the world together to focus on tackling climate change.“The world is responding to the immediate and acute challenges posed by coronavirus, but we recognise that the climate crisis has not taken time off. The UK, along with the UN and France, will host the Climate Ambition Summit later this month to give countries a platform to make commitments.”  More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Climate crisis: Boris Johnson’s government had ‘no sense of what we were doing’, says ousted Cop president

      by

      Boris Johnson’s government had “no sense” of how seriously it needed to take hosting the upcoming UN climate talks, the former UK Cop president has said.Claire O’Neill, the former energy minister who was axed from the role of Cop president in January, told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that cabinet ministers had acted “like amateur hour” in the build-up to the talks, which are to be held in Glasgow next year.She said that a former chief adviser to the prime minister had told her that he did not believe Cop26 needed a president – despite it being a UN statutory role.“There just did not seem to be any sense of what we were actually doing,” she told an evidence hearing held by the business, energy and industrial strategy (Beis) committee.
      “This is a deadly serious diplomatic moment on which the future trajectory of CO2 depends. And I don’t think that sense of gravitas had percolated through,” she added. “I like to think it’s starting to now.”
      Ms O’Neill also told the committee that both Mr Johnson and former prime minister Theresa May were “very, very positive about the idea of hosting the Cop”.But “Beis civil servants did not want to host the Cop and neither did the treasury and that took a lot of persuading”, she said. Their reluctance to host the talks was linked to a perception that it would be too difficult for the UK to take the leading role as a “powerful northern country”, she added.The issues of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic have so far prevented cabinet ministers from devoting the required attention to the upcoming climate talks, Ms O’Neill said.
      “It really is a whole of government effort if we want to deliver something ambitious,” she said.
      “To his credit, the current prime minister does get involved, what I think has been lacking is a sense of this being job number one for the government because, of course, both with Brexit and Covid, there are other extremely important jobs that need to be taken care of.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Scott Morrison's climate language has shifted – but actions speak louder than words

      by

      Scott Morrison’s language about Australia adopting an emissions reduction target of net zero by 2050, and about climate action more generally, is starting to warm up. The recent shift in the prime minister’s language invites two questions: is there a pivot under way, and is the shift real?The story so farWe know the Coalition’s history on climate policy. The Abbott government repealed Labor’s climate price, attempted to gut the Renewable Energy Target and abolish agencies driving a transition to low emissions energy. Morrison while treasurer brandished a lump of coal in the parliament, telling his opponents not to be “scared”. For much of this year, the Coalition has ignored persistent entreaties from environmentalists and major business groups to adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2050 (at the latest), and to use the economic recovery from Covid-19 to lock in the transition to low emissions. Morrison has never ruled out adopting a net zero target but has created the impression the government wasn’t interested – an impression reinforced by the government’s declaration that it would pursue a “gas-led recovery” after the pandemic.When and why did the language change?In the couple of weeks before the US presidential election on 3 November, Japan, China and South Korea adopted pledges taking them closer to net zero. Morrison also had a private conversation with the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, in which net zero was raised. Leaders were anticipating the likely election of Joe Biden. The Democrat had promised to end the backsliding of the Trump era and revitalise international climate negotiations, starting with bringing the US back into the Paris deal. Biden’s appointment of John Kerry as his climate envoy after winning the election is a further signal of seriousness. From the moment Biden was projected as the likely winner, Morrison’s language began to change. It became noticeably warmer. Morrison now says Australia wants to “reach net zero emissions as quickly as possible”.What about 2030?Before we get to 2050, Australia has an emissions reduction target for 2030, and the government will be under pressure to update that commitment with a higher level of ambition in the next round of international climate talks.Australia’s current target is a 26%-28% cut below 2005 levels, and the government has been planning to meet that (not very ambitious) target using carryover credits from the Kyoto period. Official government emissions projections released in December last year found Australia was not on track to meet the 2030 target unless it used the credits. Australia’s use of the Kyoto-era concessions has been strongly opposed by a large number of nations in international climate discussions, and experts say there is no legal basis for their use under the Paris agreement.After Biden’s victory, Morrison used a speech to business leaders to signal, hey presto, magic happens: Australia might not deploy the accounting trick to help meet the 2030 target after all. The prime minister said: “My ambition is that we will not need them and we are working to this as our goal, consistent with our record of over-delivering.” The hint from Morrison was that new projections, expected to be released in December, will show Australia is on track to meet the promised cut without carryovers.How can that happen?In part, because the Australian government has not been great at forecasting future emissions and tends to substantially change its estimates each year.Estimating future emissions is difficult. Each year, officials make assumptions about what will happen in 50 areas of the economy and come up with projections of how much will be emitted. For more than a decade, they have significantly over-estimated how much CO2 the country will emit in the years ahead before revising down the projections, sometimes significantly.The biggest miscalculation has been in electricity generation. Renewable energy has come into the grid much faster than the government expected – the national 2020 renewable energy target was met ahead of time, state targets in Victoria and Queensland have started to have an impact and the cost of solar and wind energy continues to drop, making investment more attractive. Officials also overestimated how much grid electricity the country would use – demand has fallen, in part due to nearly a third of homes now having solar panels.For reasons that are not clear, the official projections have assumed there would be less renewable energy in the system than the models used by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which runs the power grid. Addressing this will bring future projections down.There are other anomalies. The projections do not factor in drought, which in recent years has reduced emissions from agriculture as farmers have had to substantially reduce cattle and sheep numbers.Officials last year revised down the emissions forecast for the next decade by 344m tonnes. If a similar readjustment were to happen this year, it could lead to the government saying it was now on track to meet its modest 2030 target without the carryover credits.Has anything else changed that could affect the projections?The only new policy of note from the Morrison government this year has been its low-emissions technology roadmap. Released in September, it claimed developing five new technologies could “avoid” 250m tonnes of emissions a year by 2040.There was been no explanation of how that number was reached, and with the arguable exception of “clean” hydrogen, the government has not yet committed significant new funding to develop the technologies. It is unclear how this policy could reasonably change the projections in a meaningful way.More noteworthy is that, while the federal government has tried to slow the influx of solar and wind by neither continuing nor replacing the renewable energy target, the states keep stepping in to fill the gap.The big one is the NSW plan to underwrite 12 gigawatts of new wind and solar over the next decade – a development that will be banked by Canberra as “progress” in terms of projected national emissions reductions, but also criticised by the federal energy minister, Angus Taylor, because it might bring forward the closure of coal plants, which is of course a necessary development if you are a government now wanting to trumpet a downward trend in emissions. You know it makes sense.Would a lower emissions forecast be good news?Lower emissions would, of course, be great. But if it happens it isn’t something we should get too excited about, for two reasons.The first should be pretty obvious – the government will not have actually done anything yet. These are projections, not actual emissions.Before Covid-19 hit, Australia’s national emissions remained stubbornly flat under the Coalition, having dipped only about 2% in the more than six years since it was elected. They will be lower this year due to the pandemic, but that is not something the government can claim credit for, and it may not continue.The second reason is, as mentioned above, Australia’s target is nothing to crow about. It was a fudge from the beginning. The size of the cut – 26%-28% – was just a lift of the US commitment under the Paris agreement, with one notable difference – the Obama administration promised that target for 2025, while the Australian government pushed it back to 2030.Getting to net zero emissions, as scientists say is necessary, isn’t just about the end goal. It’s about how much you emit as you get there. To play its fair part in meeting the goals of the Paris agreement, Australia can only emit so much over the next three decades.Advice to the government in 2015 suggested playing its part would require a cut equivalent to between 45% and 65% by 2030. A recent analysis by analysts at the Climate Action Tracker found Australia’s fair share over that timeframe was 66%. The current target does not get the job done.So will the government do more on climate?It is not impossible, but it is far from guaranteed.There will be pressure on Australia over the next year not only to set a target of net zero by 2050, but to go further by 2030 than promised. The US under Biden will be required to set a new target for that date and other major countries are expected to do the same. Dropping the plan to use carryover credits will not be enough to satisfy their expectations.Apart from saying we can meet our (lowball) 2030 target without a Kyoto-era accounting trick (cue applause) there’s no sign at the moment the government is working up a higher 2030 target. It is working on a long-term climate strategy, which was a commitment under the Paris agreement. It was due this year, but has been pushed back to before the next major climate summit in Glasgow late next year. It is expected, but not guaranteed, to include modelling of what future action on climate will mean for Australia.There are a couple of other policies in the works. The government has dumped a long-promised electric vehicle strategy and replaced it with the promise of a “future fuels” plan on hydrogen, electric and bio-fuelled vehicles, but it is not expected to deliver significant new commitments to accelerate an emissions cut.Potentially more significantly, it has also said it will look at the safeguard mechanism, a Tony Abbott-era policy that was supposed to limit emissions from big industrial sites. So far, the scheme has barely justified its existence. Companies have mostly just been allowed to increase their CO2 limit, known as a baseline, and pollute more.Presumably recognising this is not sustainable, the government earlier this year said it accepted a recommendation from a review headed by former Business Council of Australia president Grant King that the mechanism should be changed so that companies would be rewarded for cutting emissions below their baseline if they were undertaking “transformative” projects and not just producing less or shutting down. It sounds like a step back towards carbon pricing – rewarding cuts and, if the Coalition can stomach it, finally penalising increases in emissions.Would the government go back to carbon pricing?Morrison should use his political capital and his internal authority to drive a substantive change – but he won’t want to lose his job over it. Part of what’s going on with Morrison’s shift in language is the prime minister testing how much he can get away with: how positive can he sound about emissions reduction before the right of the Liberal party starts having a tantrum, or before the National party has a public meltdown because someone has whispered coal is not good for humanity after all? Think of Morrison as inching along a dimly lit ledge several stories above the ground.But the rest of the world isn’t waiting for the Coalition to get its act together. Action on emissions is picking up elsewhere and at some point Australia will have to deal with rising CO2 from big industry and transport. In the meantime, as the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO recently reported, climate change is already here and extreme weather events are getting worse. More