The end of fossil fuels is near - but where is justice?

We at Greenpeace had three key expectation for the Paris Agreement. We wanted

1. a signal that the age of fossil fuels is over
2. a commitment to soon - and continuously - improve national climate action and
3. global solidarity including a way to make polluters pay for the damage they cause

Today, we can say that we got 1, achieved progress on 2, and that governments mostly failed us on 3. Justice and corporate accountability were the weakest points of the Paris deal.

Let me explain.

1. Replacing fossil fuels with 100% Renewable Energy

After Paris, there can be no doubt that the time is up for fossil fuels.  

Even The Economist concludes that after Paris “the idea of investing in a coal mine will seem more risky“. Governments chose convoluted language, but the only realistic way to achieve the new “long term goal” they agreed is to phase out fossil fuels by 2050. The deal leaves the door open for some bad things - such as plantations. We will be vigilant and ensure that the real solutions - sustainable renewable energy, forest protection etc. - are the winners as governments implement the deal. Politically speaking, the language is in fact surprisingly strong. The Paris Agreement goes further than the G7 summit commitment to “decarbonize” earlier this year. They did not yet commit to the just transition to a world run on 100% renewable energy for all that we seek. But the Paris deal will drive the energy revolution in the real world - it´s already making shares in renewable companies go up.

2. Commitment to improve national targets

We already know that the pledges governments took to Paris are not good enough and will still lead to a very dangerous and destructive world (between 2.7 and 3.7 degrees warmer than in preindustrial times - the estimates vary). The Paris agreement does not force governments to change them, and change them fast. That is a blatant contradiction to the new 1,5 degree goal, which can only be achieved if we make drastic emission cuts in the next 10 to 15 years already. Indeed, if government don´t ram up ambition, we will use up the entire carbon we can still use before we exceed 1,5 degrees before 2030 at the latest.

The agreement does help a bit by setting a review date of current commitments - 2018. It also makes it clear that there will be regular reviews of ambition every 5 years and that countries will always have to improve what they commit to. President Hollande in his final speech at the conference also promised more emission cuts and more financial support for developing countries before 2020. That´s the dynamic we hope to see following Paris. Other leaders must follow. Because we have no time to waste.

3. Global solidarity

Overall the Paris Agreement fails the justice test. Fine words like “climate justice” and human rights are included only in the non-binding part of the text. Indigenous Peoples rights (while also mentioned in the legal text) are not given the protection they deserve. Just as with emission cuts, we know that the current money available to help the impacted adapt to climate change is not enough. The Paris deal does too little to change that. “Loss and damage” - which refers to negative climate impacts that can’t be adapted to - has however been included in the agreement. That is welcome (it was one of our sub tests). But the Paris Agreement fails to support the idea that major carbon polluters should be made accountable for the damage they have caused. We will have to continue to pursue such justice elsewhere. For us one of the best things of the last two weeks therefore did not happen in Paris but in Manila. The Phillipines Human Rights Commission on December 10th launched a probe into 50 major polluters for potential human rights violations. That´s a major new step - and right on, as inaction on climate change does indeed violate human rights.

All in all, governments took us a step forward in Paris, especially on making it clear that fossil fuels will be history soon. But even if the Paris Agreement had met all our criteria, it would still only have been one stop on the long road to climate justice.

The key issue is not what is in this deal but what will happen next. And that is why I am optimistic. The climate movement has shown it´s strength in Paris. Out there in the real world, coal demand is in terminal decline worldwide and after a dramatic change of energy policy in China we may have reached the global peak of emissions already. People power has also brought real trouble for the oil polluters: Shell had to retreat from the Alaskan Arctic, for example, and President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2016 we - the entire climate movement - will escalate the opposition to fossil fuels all over the world and drive the solutions needed. I leave Paris encouraged. People power will drive the change we need. If you join us!

P.S. This post was published on greenpeace.org and Huffington Post

In 3 steps, here is what Paris can do - and what we need to do afterwards

The last few weeks have seen the best and the worst in terms of climate change.

Victories which pundits told us for years were “impossible” have been coming at a breathtaking pace. Coal demand is in terminal decline worldwide, after a dramatic - if not complete - change of course in China. Oil is also in trouble, with Shell and Statoil retreating from the Alaskan Arctic, President Obama rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and Alberta putting a cap on tar sands oil. Meanwhile, more and more key players are signing up for a 100% renewable future - from cities to companies. Many communities hit by extreme weather are rebuilding sustainably and hundreds of thousands worldwide are building people power to push forward with climate action now - and in the future.

At the same time the news is getting worse. This year will be the hottest year in recorded history. And Indonesia´s forest fires were a massive blow for climate action, emitting more than the entire United States of America - a powerful reminder of how fast hard-won emission reductions can be jeopardized by greed. Also, despite the climate movement´s recent victories, too often polluters are still dictating policy in North and South. The energy revolution, which is now inevitable, is not going as fast as it needs to, if we’re to keep our climate safe.

The meaning of this year´s climate negotiations has been changed by the recent murderous attacks in Paris, the host city. In response to these terrible crimes, the climate marches around the world this weekend are not just a call to action, but an expression of our shared humanity. Governments must hear this call and make the climate negotiations demonstrate that human cooperation can solve our common problems.

In order to do that, the Paris climate conference must be a starting point for faster and more decisive climate action. As Greenpeace, we have three key criteria that governments must meet:

1. Does the Paris climate agreement send a signal that the age of fossil fuels is over?

The world of energy is changing fast. Governments in Paris must solidify the direction towards renewables that the world is already on, and state clearly that fossil fuels must be completely phased out by 2050. We need a just transition to a world run on 100% renewable energy for all; a world where workers, our health and our children win. This signal must be clear. It must not be stymied by delays. Therefore, we will ask:

2. Does the Paris climate agreement agree to soon - and continuously - improve national climate action?

We already know that the pledges governments are coming to Paris with are not good enough and will still lead to a very dangerous and destructive world (between 2.7 and 3.7 degrees warmer than in preindustrial times - the estimates vary). Governments and companies need to increase their ambition immediately after Paris. We simply cannot afford to be stuck with insufficient targets for the next 10-15 decisive years. The targets must be ramped up before the Paris agreement enters into force in 2020. And governments need to review and enhance their actions every five years after the Paris agreement comes into force in 2020.

3. Does the Paris climate agreement deliver global solidarity and ensure that polluters pay for the damage they cause?

Some impacts of climate change are with us already and we need sufficient and reliable funding and support for those affected. Greenpeace, for example, supports anchoring the “loss and damage mechanism” under the Paris Agreement, to help support the vulnerable. We expect governments to meet the growing adaptation needs. We will also continue to hold polluters accountable, as we are doing with our call on the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR). We need the culpability of big fossil fuel companies for fuelling catastrophic climate change to be addressed.

If the three criteria above are met, we’ll take an important step towards a world in which energy is clean, cheap and accessible to all. A world where air and water will be cleaner and where global warming avoids truly hazardous temperatures.

But even if governments take us this one step forward in Paris, it is still only one step. We are the ones that have to keep marching to get us to where we need to go. We need to keep up the pressure in the months and years after the Paris summit. The race between renewables and climate change will only be won if we keep winning like we have been doing on Keystone, coal and the Arctic. We must continue to build our power as a climate movement worldwide in 2016. This is how we force politicians across the globe to end the fossil fuel era and deliver a decent environment for all.

Are you in?

P.S. This blog appeared on the Huffington Post and on greenpeace.org .

Klimaverhandlungen: frustrierend, aber wichtig

Am 21.10. debattierte ich den Zustand der Klimabewegung vor Paris im taz Cafe in Berlin. Zur Vorbereitung hatte ich für das Forschungsjournal neue soziale Bewegungen ein paar Gedanken zur Rolle der Klimaverhandlungen als Ort der Auseinandersetzung für die Klimabewegung aufgeschrieben. Eine Version dieses Beitrags befindet sich hier auf der Seite des Journals. Eine weitere, akademischere, wird im Journal selber erscheinen. Dies ist eine gute Mischung. Wer die gesamte Diskussion vom 21.10. nachhören möchte kann dies hier tun. 

2015 gilt als das “Gipfeljahr”. Der britische Telegraph nennt es "das wichtigste Jahr seit Jahrzehnten für die Klima Schlacht" und auch Naomi Klein ist überzeugt, dass dieses Jahr ein einmaliger Moment für die Klimabewegung ist.

Gerade hat die UN-Vollversammlung in New York neue Nachhaltigkeitsziele verabschiedet. Fast alle Nichtregierungsorganisationen feierten sie als Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Auch Greenpeace äußerte sich positiv. Allerdings halten wir es für falsch, dass die Agenda weiter auf genau das weltweite Freihandelsregime setzt, das in Deutschland momentan unter den Stichwörtern TTIP und CETA Millionen mobilisiert und – zu Recht - Tausende auf die Straße bringt.

Nun richten sich die Blicke auf Paris, wo die UN im Dezember einen weiteren Versuch unternehmen wird, ein universales – also wirklich globales - Klimaabkommen zu verabschieden. Welche Bedeutung hat Paris für die Klimabewegung? Darüber lässt sich trefflich streiten. Jürgen Maier behauptet, es “gibt  keine Klimapolitik” und wirft NGOs, die auf einen globalen Klimavertrag setzen, vor, in einer Parallelwelt zu leben. Andere, wie Avaaz, sprechen von Paris immer noch als den Moment, an dem die Welt zu retten ist.

Für Greenpeace liegen die entscheidenden Argumente genau zwischen diesen Positionen …

Niemand sollte ernsthaft erwarten, dass eine einmalige Versammlung von Staatschefs die “Rettung” von oben bringen kann.  Die zentralen Auseinandersetzungen, die darüber entscheiden, ob unser Planet lebenswert bleibt, laufen ständig in der Energie- , Wald- Verkehrs- und Landwirtschaftspolitik. Fossile Energien müssen jetzt und überall vor Ort bekämpft werden – und der Durchbruch für Erneuerbare Energien überall erstritten werden. (Selbst mitten in den kanadischen Ölsanden, wie es Little Buffalo vormacht).

Aber Ereignisse wie der Pariser Klimagipfel können trotzdem helfen. Gipfel setzen Fristen. Regierungen werden so gezwungen, Zeit zu finden um Gesetze zu verabschieden. Verfeindete Ministerien müssen sich zu einigen. Brasilien hat z.B. gerade – trotz einer tiefen Regierungskrise – einen Klimaschutzplan vorgelegt.  Dieser reicht nicht aus, aber er beinhaltet einige Schritte in die richtige Richtung, die ohne den Zeitdruck durch Paris sehr wahrscheinlich vertagt worden wären.

Globale Gipfel sind auch Motor wichtiger bilateraler Abkommen.  Die beiden Nationen mit den höchsten absoluten Emissionen - die USA und China - haben sich nun schon zweimal -  2014 und im September 2015 – gemeinsam auf mehr Klimaschutz geeinigt. Es ist klar, dass sie an einem gemeinsamen Plan für Paris arbeiten. Und gerade in den USA ist es politisch eine Notwendigkeit für alle, die das Klima schützen wollen, zu zeigen, dass auch China handelt.

Klimaverhandlungen bringen auch jedes Jahr zusätzliche öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit (ein Indikator: Umweltorganisationen werden während der beiden Wochen der Klimaverhandlungen global jedes Jahr deutlich mehr in den Medien zitiert als den Rest des Jahres). Das bietet besonders Umweltorganisationen die Chance, die  öffentliche Debatte voran zu treiben und auf mehr Einsatz für den Klimaschutz zu drängen.

Und Gipfeltreffen sind Orte, an denen die Regierungen Signale an Märkte senden. Wer denkt, dass es nicht von Bedeutung ist, dass z.B. die G7 sich zu einer kompletten Dekarbonisierung der Weltwirtschaft bekannt haben, der hat noch nie mit Investoren gesprochen. Klar, auch dieser Beschluss reicht bei weitem nicht aus – und in Deutschland bleibt die zentrale Auseinandersetzung der Ausstieg aus der Kohleindustrie. Aber das heisst nicht, dass der G7 Beschluss unbedeutend ist. Er befeuert die Debatte vor allem in Kanada und Japan. Durch ihn lässt sich - wie der Economist schrieb – die Vorstellung einer Welt ohne fossile Energien nicht mehr als spinnige Idee der Umweltbewegung abtun. Ein Ende von Kohle, Öl und Gas sind nun ein akzeptiertes politisches Ziel.

Deswegen fordert Greenpeace, dass der Pariser Klimagipfel im Dezember den nächsten Schritt macht und sich zu einer 100% erneuerbaren Welt bis 2050 bekennt. Nachhaltige, erneuerbare Energien für alle sind verfügbar. Nur diejenigen, die an dem zerstörerischen Status Quo profitieren, wollen verhindern, dass wir dieses Ziel sicher bis 2050 erreichen.

Paris ist die perfekte Plattform, um die öffentliche Auseinandersetzung darüber zu suchen, dass wir um den Klimawandel aufzuhalten mehr machen müssen als die schrittweise “Dekarbonisierung” bis 2100 á la Merkel und G7.  Schon jetzt ist es gelungen, die öffentliche Debatte zu verändern. Aus Anlass des Treffens des Weltklimarates 2014 in Berlin hat z.B. der BBC zum ersten Mal nicht mehr von der Reduzierung von Emissionen gesprochen, sondern vom kompletten Ende der klimaschädlichen Emissionen.

Der Pariser Klimazirkus ist also nicht irrelevant. Er treibt nationale Gesetze und bilaterale Abkommen voran und bringt öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit, die Bewegungen nützen können und sollten. Die Arbeit zu den Klimaverhandlungen in Paris sollte nicht als Gegenteil des Kampfes gegen weitere Straßen, Kohleminen oder für bessere Fahrradwege verstanden werden.  Statt dessen sollten wir die globale Diskussion als Sprungbrett für “grassroots”-Fortschritte nutzen.

Lokale und nationale Erfolge sind im Gegenzug die Voraussetzung dafür, dass

auch die globalen Verhandlungsergebnissen besser werden. Nur weil es z.B. gelungen ist, den Kohleverbrauch in China 2014 zum ersten Mal nicht mehr ansteigen zu lassen, hat sich China im Abkommen mit den USA verpflichtet, bald weniger Kohle zu verbrauchen. Der Kampf gegen den Smog in chinesischen Städten – vor allem natürlich getrieben von Gesundheitssorgen – senkt den Kohleverbrauch. Und dies macht - als erfreulicher Nebeneffekt – es auch deutlich wahrscheinlicher, dass China ein noch ehrgeizigeres Klimaversprechen in Paris macht …

An anderen Orten kann die Debatte um den Klimawandel ein wichtiges zusätzliches Argument gegen fossile Projekte sein. Denn wenn unser Klima nicht vollends außer Kontrolle geraten soll, dann dürfen über zwei Drittel der fossilen Ressourcen, über die wir jetzt schon Bescheid wissen, nicht verbrannt werden. Sie müssen im Boden bleiben. Deswegen können sich nicht nur die lokal Betroffenen sondern wir uns alle– zu Recht – gegen neue Kohlehäfen am australischen Great Barrier Reef stellen. Deswegen gilt es, Ölbohrungen in der Arktis komplett zu unterbinden und die Arktis als “Commons” für die Menschheit zu bewahren. Die potentiellen zusätzlichen Emissionen dieser Projekte sind schlicht nicht hinnehmbar. Sie gehen uns alle an.

Statt uns innerhalb der Bewegung über die Bedeutung von Paris und die Klimaverhandlungen zu streiten, sollten wir all unsere Kraft gemeinsam gegen diejenigen einsetzen, die durch das Verbrennen fossiler Energien, die Entwaldung oder andere Klimazerstörungen weiterhin Milliarden verdienen. Gerade die Lobbymacht der rückwärts gewandten Kräfte sollten wir in den nächsten Wochen gemeinsam skandalisieren und überwinden. Der gegenwärtige VW-Skandal ist auch in dieser Hinsicht nur die Spitze des Eisbergs.

Weltweit ist die Energiewende auf dem Vormarsch. Das Momentum ist auf der Seite der Klimabewegung. Lasst uns dies nutzen und das Heft der Transformation gemeinsam in die Hand nehmen.  Denn was auch immer in Paris beschlossen wird, schon jetzt ist klar, dass auch danach Druck für schnellere und grundlegende Veränderungen notwendig sein wird. Die Welt wird nicht ein für alle Mal in Paris gerettet werden (sorry Avaaz). Aber lasst uns die Aufmerksamkeit, die Paris bringt, nutzen, um den notwendigen Wandel unsere Wirtschaft und unseres Konsummodells in den nächsten Wochen zu beschleunigen.

What´s at stake in Paris at #COP21?

Watch this lecture on what to expect from the climate negotiations in Paris. The lecture is part of the Mass Online Course on climate justice from the Fern Universität Hagen. You can still watch all the lectures of the course until summer 2016 here.

The great transformation

Watch this lecture on The Great Transformation - which is part of the Mass Online Course on climate justice from the Fern Universität Hagen. You can still watch all the lectures of the course until summer 2016 here.

Let’s go all the way and deliver renewable energy for all

Little has been transformed more in recent years than the world of energy. It’s hard to think of a sector that has undergone more changes in the years between the 2000 launch of the Millennium Development Goals and the new 2015 Sustainable Development Goals that will be formally endorsed at a global Summit at UN Headquarters this September.

There is now 15 times more solar power and three times more wind power in the world than in 2007. On a global level, more clean power capacity is being installed than coal, oil, and gas put together. Solar power is growing faster than even we at Greenpeace predicted, and renewables are now the cheapest way to provide  additional electricity in an ever-growing number of countries. In other words: renewable energy is winning the race against fossil fuels.

In this context, it is almost disappointing that the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 7 calls on us only to “by 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” This “substantial increase” is already on its way and inevitable. The question for planet and humanity alike is whether this transformation will deliver energy access to all - and whether the switch to 100% renewable energy will be fast enough to prevent dangerous climate change.

Renewable energy can certainly meet the world’s energy needs. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently confirmed that the technical potential is much higher than global energy demand. Many countries, such as Denmark, but also communities, regions, and megacities are already committed to making 100% renewables a reality.

Sydney, the most populated city in Australia, will switch to 100% renewable energy in electricity, heating, and cooling by 2030. Reykjavik has achieved a similar goal already. Even leading businesses like Ikea, Mars, Philips, or Swiss Re are campaigning to ensure that by 2020, 100 of the world's largest companies will run on 100% renewable power.

Dharnai, a solar-powered village in India, has shown how we can make this renewables boom deliver for all - including the rural poor. Dharnai is located in Bihar, one of the poorest provinces in India. The village faces extreme poverty, deep caste divisions, and very high illiteracy rates. But life in Dharnai has been transformed in the 10 months since an affordable solar energy grid arrived. Dharnai is the first village in India where all aspects of life are powered by solar. The 100 kilowatt (kW) system powers the 450 homes of the 2,400 residents, 50 commercial operations, two schools, a training center, and a health care facility. A battery backup ensures power is available around the clock.

Solar-powered lighting means children can now go out and play after school and finish their homework after sunset. Women feel safer venturing out after dark. The arrival of solar water pumps has brought new hope to many farmers for improving access to fresh water resources. With solar energy, more villagers have further been able to recharge their mobile phones regularly, so the solar grid has also opened up Dharnai to the world of the internet.

This is just the beginning. Improvements in the quality of life of Dharnai's residents have become the talk of neighboring villages that are eager to understand and replicate the Dharnai model. India has 80,000 villages that still need solar micro-grids.

And the story of Dharnai goes well beyond India. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live without electricity. For them, the Dharnai solar-powered micro-grid could be a game-changer, a model for bringing clean reliable energy to all.

The switch to renewables can deliver for people in industrialized countries as well. For example, while Greece’s debt crisis has received worldwide attention, few are aware that energy poverty is one of the most dramatic symptoms of the Greek  recession: six out of every 10 households are struggling to pay their energy bills.

Worse, through their electricity bills, Greek consumers pay around €800 million a year to subsidize the oil imports providing power to the country's many islands. This is equivalent to the cuts in pensions that were recently forced through by Greece’s creditors. These oil imports are also unnecessary. Solar could power Greek islands very well. Indeed, Greece's short-lived “Photovoltaic Spring” of 2009-2013 provided a glimpse of the country's solar potential. Within five years, installed solar capacity jumped from 47 to over 2,500 megawatts. A total of €4.5 billion was invested in modernizing the energy sector and created around 50,000 jobs. In all, around 100,000 Greek families benefitted. The “Solarize Greece” campaign by Greenpeace Greece aims to build on this success, which was undermined by austerity. We the people of the world must unite and once again kickstart solar power as a driver of the Greek economy.

From Dharnai to Greece, there is no question that all over the world, people and the planet will benefit if Sustainable Development Goal 7 is implemented in a truly ambitious manner. The world of energy is transforming fast and a real energy revolution is within our grasp. Governments must follow up the many fine words that will be spoken at the UN Sustainable Development Summit with actions that put our world on the path to 100% renewables by 2050.

This article was first published on the Huffington Post as part of their #WhatsWorking series.