Climate Change

Capacity Building, Mining, Climate Change

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand.   Panelists Andy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network. Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want. Moderator: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA.   RECORDING   Presentations 1. Introductory presentation:   2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore:   REFERENCE Material A Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy minerals Impactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation.   A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by users of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To account for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to support their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies accountable for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.  

Read more
Capacity Building, Climate Change, Human Rights

The GCF Watch international webinar series: The GCF Watch platform and an overview of 2021

Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources. GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF. In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists.   Panelists Florencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform. Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021. Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch.   recording   PRESENTATIONS 1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): Presentation in French   2. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Presentation in French  

Read more
Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

International pressure to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia

Many Latin American governments continue to promote extractive activities—including the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing—as a means of economic revitalization in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend contradicts the international commitments adopted by these countries to reduce emissions and mitigate the global climate crisis. A United Nations report, to be released this month, is expected to state that reducing methane emissions will be critical to avoid the most extreme effects of global warming. The report is based on recent data showing that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, despite the pandemic bringing much of the global economy to a halt. This information complements scientific evidence that methane emissions from oil and gas production—one of its major human-related sources—may be higher than previous estimates. This increase has been associated with the leakage and flaring of methane from fracking operations. Although methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it has a relatively short life cycle in the atmosphere, meaning that reducing its emissions could help the world meet our climate goals more quickly. Colombia is an example of how the push for fracking contradicts the urgent need to combat the climate crisis and its damages. Although it is not legal to carry out fracking operations in the country because its regulation is temporarily suspended, the government has not stopped the development of pilot projects of this technique and continues to anchor its energy policy on hydrocarbons. At the same time, there is a national and international push to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia. While the Council of State makes a final decision on the regulation, two legislative initiatives are underway: one that seeks to prohibit the implementation of fracking nationwide, and another that would prohibit the exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons by any technique. In the framework of the parliamentary treatment of both bills, which are expected to be unified, authorities from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) participated in public hearings, in which they called on Congress to approve the legislation that would allow Colombia to move toward a fair and low-emission energy transition. The case for protecting people and the climate In his intervention, David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, referred to the climate crisis as "serious and unprecedented", highlighting that its impacts on human rights "disproportionately affect poor, vulnerable and marginalized people." In the same vein, Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, expressed concern about "the Colombian State's intention to consider funding and supporting fossil fuel fracking," considering its potential impact on human rights and sustainability. He emphasized, "new investments in fracking are incompatible with the protection of human rights." For his part, Renato Zerbini, chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—a body, composed of 18 independent experts, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties—stressed that hydraulic fracturing "is closely related to multiple and ongoing human rights violations, as it causes irreversible environmental impacts and severe social affectations." Thus, the use of the technique violates the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, to which Colombia is a party, Zerbini pointed out. In general, the extractive industry "increases the risk for environmental defenders, territorial occupation and the impact on the rights of the communities surrounding the projects," added Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights. In sum, the representatives of the international organizations reported on the unfeasibility of fracking in climatic, social and even economic terms: "When the real costs of fracking are taken into account, it becomes evident that these far exceed the alleged economic gains," emphasized Orellana. They referred to the international obligations of the Colombian State in terms of human rights and climate change, contained in various instruments. Among those, they cited Advisory Opinion 23/17 on human rights and environment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; General Comment 36 on the right to life, contemplated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the Joint Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change that five human rights bodies issued in 2019. The statement expresses that "failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities that contribute to such harm, could constitute a violation of States' human rights obligations." The common recommendation: ban fracking At the conclusion of their interventions, the international authorities expressed their support for a law banning fracking throughout the Colombian national territory: David Boyd argued,"to address the climate crisis, Colombia must urgently pursue a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in light of its obligations under constitutional law, international human rights law and the right to a healthy environment." He concluded, "the government of Colombia must pass a law to ban fracking." Marcos Orellana pointed out that "the Congress of the Republic of Colombia has the opportunity to raise its gaze towards the future and preserve the legacy of its megabiodiversity." In that sense, he pointed out, "the protection of the right to live in a toxic-free environment inspires my respectful call for Congress to adopt a law banning fracking." Soledad Muñoz said that "the approval of a bill whose purpose would be to put an end to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional oilfields, prohibiting practices such as fracking, would represent a valuable measure of environmental protection, the reduction of socio-environmental conflicts and compliance with the commitments emanating from the Paris Agreement and the Inter-American (Human Rights) System itself." Continuing to base local economies on the extractive industry and promoting fracking only increases the dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, deepening the causes of the climate crisis and the damage it does to the most vulnerable among us.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roadmap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in terms of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province.   Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.  

Read more
Oceans, Climate Change

Fact Sheet: SPAW Protocol (Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife)

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and its Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol) establishes that Contracting Parties have the obligation to regulate the protection of the vulnerable species and ecosystems of the region. The revised criteria for the nomination of species (1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10) determines the need to include essential species for vulnerable ecosystems - such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses - in the species lists of Annexes II and III of the SPAW Protocol. The national or regional measures imply in a different way protection processes, biological monitoring of species, fishing recovery zones; analysis of catch data, health status of ecosystems, population dynamics and size; closed periods; and regulation of the capture, possession, transport, trade or total prohibition of the use of the species. In 2018, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) prioritized the evaluation of herbivorous fish and currently the Species Working Group carries out the evaluation of parrotfish through the integration and analysis of scientific and regulatory data. Eleven of the 17 countries that have signed the Protocol have generated regulatory measures on herbivorous fish. Some regulatory experiences are in force, others are not, and there are those that came into force recently.       Download the Fact Sheet in English Download the Fact Sheet in Spanish Download the Fact Sheet in French  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Oceans, Mining

7 AIDA Advances of 2020

It was a year unlike any other. This new reality makes our victories and daily accomplishments all the more sweet. So we’re especially proud to report on the progress we've made toward a healthy environment and climate justice in Latin America. 1. Safeguarding the High Seas More than 99% of the global high seas—waters beyond national jurisdiction—are unprotected. To remedy this, over the past year we have led Latin American representation in the High Seas Alliance, collaborating with governments to negotiate an ambitious United Nations treaty to protect these waters and key migratory species of sharks, whales, turtles and tuna. The high seas are both essential to long-term ocean health and a critical carbon sink that helps mitigate climate change.   2. Influencing Divestment in the Amazon For nearly a decade we have worked to halt Brazil’s Belo Monte dam, which has displaced thousands of indigenous people and devastated hundreds of rare species. This year, our testimony led the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest state-owned fund, to exclude one of the dam’s main financers, Eletrobras, from its portfolio because of environmental and human rights violations caused by the dam. This is a notable step toward justice for affected communities. 3. Defending Páramos from Mining We continued to protect páramos in Colombia and Ecuador from mining. These biodiverse, high-altitude forests and wetlands are critical carbon sinks that also provide fresh water for millions of people and habitat for endangered species. Our team contributed legal and technical expertise, and, in the case of Santurbán in Colombia, helped build capacity among local attorneys who are now leading the lawsuit to protect this páramo. 4. Protecting Environmental Defenders Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. This year, AIDA brought together more than 70 prominent environment defenders from 14 countries across Latin America to share current information about risks and effective strategies for defense. Participants discussed their challenges, identified gaps in knowledge, and developed new approaches for protecting themselves and their territories. 5. Halting Extractive Energy Development Our ongoing legal and technical expertise was critical to halting fossil fuel expansion. We continued litigation to uphold the moratorium on fracking and, helped prevent further coal mining expansion in Colombia, supported communities in Chile affected by coal power plants, and led efforts to hold International Financial Institutions accountable for funding harmful hydropower Guatemala and Colombia. This work is key to promoting the just transition toward truly clean energy. 6. Preserving Marine Biodiversity in Patagonia The Chilean Magallanes region is home to some of the largest whales and dolphins and one of the most pristine areas on our planet. The greatest environmental threat for this region is the salmon farming industry. Building on our past work, we used the law to halt expanded salmon farming and expose the harms the industry brings. Our work closed one salmon farm and set a precedent for the closure of seven others, all of which are under review by Chilean courts. 7. Strengthening Indigenous Land Management in Colombia In coalition with four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, we continued protecting their lands from illegal mining. Facing hundreds of proposed projects, we helped implement legal strategies demanding a new territorial management plan that recognizes the traditional governing authority of the indigenous. We also helped strengthen community capacity through workshops on environmental protection.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Five years after the Paris Agreement, climate justice is more urgent than ever

On December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was reached. Five years later, its effective implementation is more important than ever. One of the agreement’s most significant advances was to reiterate that States must, "when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.” This aspect is one of the outstanding issues, and also one of the great opportunities, of the Paris Agreement. In 2015, I had the privilege of participating in the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the agreement was adopted. Thanks to the live broadcast, I saw the last hammer blow of this historic summit on my phone while on the train to the airport. I traded celebratory hugs with dozens of colleagues for arriving a day earlier to celebrate with my family. It was worth it. After all, my contribution had concluded a few hours earlier. Over the five years prior, and with full intensity during the COP21, I reviewed drafts, and spoke with missions and colleagues about how crucial it was to include human rights in the climate agreement. My priority—shared by colleagues from organizations, some government representatives and international entities—was to ensure a strong agreement, including the obligation to consider and respect human rights. For some people, this was an obstacle, even inappropriate, as they saw the climate crisis as a purely technical issue. Some delegations told me that human rights issues are another area entirely. We insisted on the point until we achieved it, not out of stubbornness (although there may have been some of that), but because in essence the climate crisis affects our rights, our lives and all of us. That’s why it is vital to put human rights at the center of climate action. Otherwise, these actions are incomplete. This is evidenced by the reality of the climate crisis, translated for example into the damages sustained by millions of people and communities by the hurricanes and storms that have, in recent months, devastated coastal areas in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and the Caribbean; the floods in South Asia; the droughts in northern Mexico; and the devastating fires in the Amazon, California and Australia. The most vulnerable people and communities who have contributed least to the crisis are disproportionately affected. It is therefore possible, and necessary, to find balance through a human rights approach. It’s necessary to hold States, companies and even some sectors of the population accountable. Responsibility with a sense of equity is one of the fundamental principles of human rights. In fact, the 2020 UN Emissions Gap Report concludes by saying, "Equity is central to addressing lifestyles. The emissions of the richest 1 per cent of the global population account for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50 per cent." Communities, movements and peoples around the world have demanded—even in court—effective climate action that respects their rights. This has been reiterated by the United Nations. But climate action is still largely considered a question of numbers, tons of emissions to be reduced and hectares to be conserved. People and communities, despite being the ones who live the consequences, remain on the periphery of this action. Ensuring a true human rights perspective would help raise ambition and the level of obligations and outcomes. It would also allow impacts to be considered in a comprehensive manner and, as the IPCC concluded, take into account ancestral knowledge and social justice, which are central elements in finding effective solutions. Therein lies the opportunity that is being lost.  The scientific community today confirms the widening gap between the current situation and where we should be in reducing emissions. According to the recent UN emissions gap report, emissions were reduced in the last year due to the suspension of activities caused by the pandemic, while in the previous year they had continued to increase. In fact, despite the pandemic, which is also linked to environmental degradation, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as in other regions, continue to rely mostly on fossil fuels, even for the economic recovery following the pandemic. This trend ignores the provisions of the Paris Agreement on the obligation of States to reduce emissions and implement effective measures while respecting human rights. It’s an element yet to be fulfilled, and a fundamental tool for States to increase their ambition and move towards the solutions that have as yet proven elusive. The five-year anniversary of this Agreement is a good time to remember it and to demand its implementation. If not, the most vulnerable communities will continue to suffer the consequences, and global inequalities will continue to deepen. Then, there will also be an increase in lawsuits and demands for a solution that the agreement itself incorporated. One element of leadership would be to put people and communities at the center of climate action. This is what I mean when I talk about climate justice, a great opportunity that many of us will continue to promote.  

Read more
Fracking, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

5 things you should know about methane

Although its presence in the atmosphere is less than that of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most abundant and well-known greenhouse gas—methane is much more effective at retaining heat due to its chemical composition. Therefore, adding smaller amounts of methane to the atmosphere can have an effect equal to that of adding tremendous amounts of CO2. Since 2006, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has grown considerably—by about 25 million tons per year. Studies have associated this increase with the leakage and burning of methane from the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through the process of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing.  Although extracting gas through fracking is sold as a “greener” alternative to other fossil fuels, it is a false narratiave that must be combatted. In general, all activities that cause methane emissions aggravate the climate crisis and the increasingly urgent need to combat air pollution. The common understanding of methane is inaccurate. Therefore, it’s necessary to generate more awareness about what it is and what its real impacts are. What follows are five basic facts about methane.  1. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas and climate pollutant Methane is a greenhouse gas.The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomena in which the atmosphere, composed of different gases, captures some rays of the sun and keeps them trapped in order to balance the temperature of the planet. When an excess of gases such as methane are emitted, the atmosphere traps more heat than necessary, leading to global warming. Methane has 67 times more power than CO2 to warm the planet over a 20-year period.  Its emissions are responsible for nearly 25 percent of global warming. And since it stays less time in the atmosphere—12 years on average (CO2 stays for centuries)—it is among the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), which cause 40-45 percent of global warming and damage air quality. 2. Methane primarily is produced from human sources About 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere is considered by scientists to be caused by human activity, while the other 40 percent comes from natural sources like wetlands, volcanoes, and permafrost. Human sources include livestock, gas and petroleum exploitation, rice farming, mining (particularly coal mining), and landfills.  It should be noted that, according to scientific evidence, reservoirs are also an important source of methane. They generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide each year, more than all of Canada's polluting emissions, and 80 percent of that pollution is from methane. 3. Methane directly and indirectly degrades air quality Large amounts of methane are intentionally leaked or released during the exploitation, processing, and transportation of oil and gas. In the United States alone, such direct emissions amount to 13 million tons each year. When released into the atmosphere, methane is accompanied by other toxic pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylbenzene. In addition, by interacting with solar radiation, methane promotes the formation of ground-level ozone (O3), another short-lived climate pollutant (CCVC) and the main component of smog. Methane gas flaring also produces black carbon and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are also CCVCs. 4. Methane causes serious damage to human health As mentioned, methane emissions promote the formation of ozone found in the lower layers of the atmosphere, which has serious impacts on public health. It irritates the airways, generates a feeling of burning and shortness of breath, complicates asthma, causes lung dysfunction and even premature death, and alters the immune system's response, reducing its ability to respond to diseases such as COVID-19, which mainly affects the airways. And since methane burning generates black carbon, it is relevant to point out that it is a key component of particulate matter (PM 2.5)—particles that are 35 times smaller than a grain of sand. These particles cannot be filtered or retained naturally in the nose, and can even enter the lungs. Particulate matter is the air pollutant most frequently associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and pulmonary diseases, including lung cancer. 5. It is urgent to regulate and curb methane emissions Since methane, in addition to aggravating the climate crisis, deteriorates air quality and with it human health, it is urgent to act to curb its emissions. Civil society must demand that governments efficiently regulate methane emissions from the hydrocarbon industry and other sectors such as coal mining and industrial livestock. In addition, we must demand the monitoring of emissions, as well as the production and dissemination of timely information about methane’s damage to our air quality.  

Read more