Connect with us

Published

on

COP26, the 26th meeting of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change’s Conference of Parties has ended with the successful negotiation of the Glasgow Climate Pact, which updates the landmark Paris Agreement with new climate goals (full text here). The new Pact moves forward timelines for updating national goals for carbon reduction and for the first time explicitly calls for a “phase-down” of coal globally.

But experts warn that the new commitments are not strong enough and will still need to be updated, as soon and as strongly as possible, if we want to keep warming below 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels.

New Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, country climate pledges) submitted this year do bring us closer to the goal of <1.5ºC warming, but are still not enough. The oft-repeated goal of these negotiations was to “keep 1.5 alive,” and many say that the negotiations did so, but only just – that the goal of <1.5ºC warming is still on life support, and needs help.

We are currently at 1.1ºC above pre-industrial levels, and current pledges will result in us reaching 2.4ºC above pre-industrial levels – if we hit those pledges, which not all countries are on the trajectory towards.

One of the steps this Pact takes over previous agreements is in accelerating the timeline for national climate plan updates.  Under Paris, countries would submit updates to their NDCs every five years, but Glasgow calls for updates by the end of 2022, just one year away.

Given that the world only has enough “carbon budget” for 11 years worth of polluting at current rates, a delay of 5 years in submitting updated plans would be too long, so this is a welcome change.

A controversial late point of contention in Glasgow was the inclusion of the phrase “phase-out of coal power.”  India lodged a late protest against the phrase, requesting it be watered-down to “phase-down,” which is what made it to the final version.

The change in phrasing provoked quite a bit of consternation, and Alok Sharma, the President of COP26 proceedings, said he was “deeply sorry” that the new phrase made it to the final text of the Pact.

But prior to this Pact, there has never been an explicit mention of coal in a COP statement. Coal is responsible for around 40% of global CO2 emissions, making its elimination a top priority. This sends a strong signal to the world that the coal era must end.

Oil and gas, despite being responsible for the vast majority of non-coal CO2 emissions, were not mentioned in the Pact – though a number of countries and subnational entities formed the “Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance,” with a view towards keeping their reserves in the ground.

There were a number of other side changes, commitments, and pledges signed by various countries and industries (including a weak commitment on EV adoption). NRDC has a good list of them here.

A longtime pattern in climate talks has been the rift between rich and poor countries regarding who is more responsible for solving climate change and who is more likely to feel the effects of it.  Over the course of history, rich nations were able to pollute freely in our early efforts to industrialize, catapulting us into a dominant global position economically.

The costs of that pollution were never paid – that carbon (and other pollution) went into the atmosphere, harming human health and warming the planet, causing gradually more severe weather events and rising sea levels that have and will continue to disproportionately affect the global poor.

In this way, the global poor have subsidized the wealth of rich countries, but with their lives rather than their pocketbooks.  This health disparity was even more in focus this year against the backdrop of unequal vaccine access.  Many poor countries fared better in the first year of COVID-19, but are now being ravaged by the Delta variant and still unable to get access to enough vaccines that rich countries have a surplus of.

Poor countries rightly point out that this is not fair.  Why should rich countries be allowed to pollute freely, and right when poor countries are on the verge of industrialization, their progress must be halted in the name of solving a global problem that they had little or no part in causing?

To this point, countries established the “Green Climate Fund” in 2010 (prior to the Paris Agreement), with a goal of funding it to the tune of $100 billion per year by 2020. This would help pay for development programs in poor countries, to install green energy projects instead of dirty fossil projects. But rich countries welched on that promise, and now may not meet that goal until 2023.

On top of this, the question of “loss and damage” saw some progress in Glasgow. The phrase refers to current and future unavoidable effects of climate change that have already been “locked in” due to humanity’s intransigence in solving the climate crisis that we’ve known we are causing for several decades. Poor countries think that if rich country pollution causes them harm, rich countries should have to pay for it. But rich countries don’t want this responsibility.

The Glasgow Climate Pact makes some progress towards addressing this problem by codifying the “Santiago network,” a program for addressing this loss and damage. The idea was first agreed upon in 2019, but heretofore has not been staffed or funded. Glasgow resolves to fund this network.

Meanwhile, rich countries point to their own progress in cutting emissions in recent years, and think that their efforts should be appreciated and that poor countries shouldn’t be able to get away with rising emissions, undoing the progress of rich country emissions reductions. And some selfishly claim that they should not have to part with any of their lucre to help countries that are not yet decarbonizing.

Two of the primary contributors to this discourse are the two largest polluting countries in the world, the US and China. The US has emitted more total emissions than any country in the world – twice as much as the #2 historical emitter, China. And China, with 4.5x the population of the US, is emitting twice as much carbon currently as the #2 current emitter – the US.

Elements within both countries have pointed fingers at the other in attempts to excuse themselves from action and place blame elsewhere.

And this was another of the big achievements of Glasgow – China and the US made a joint commitment negotiated by special climate envoys John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua – who were both responsible for a previous agreement in 2014, in the buildup to the 2015 Paris Agreement. And Presidents Biden and Xi plan to meet virtually next week to discuss this collaboration.

Action by large countries like these, putting aside the pointless bickering of the intervening half-decade, sends a signal to the rest of the world that climate action is possible and that progress won’t be held back by inaction on the part of the largest problem-makers. It can help set the stage for more improvements to come – as it did before Paris. So we hope to see more from both of these countries, and everyone else, in the near future.

As is often the case with climate negotiations, there are a number of disappointments. But the path forward is a little bit brighter today than it was yesterday. Not bright enough, mind you, but it’s a step in the right direction at least. And further steps are at least coming sooner than expected, with major updates required of all parties by the end of next year.

Very importantly, we can’t fall victim to disappointment, which leads to despair and inaction. The entities behind a century of climate lies and environmental violence (the fossil fuel industry) want you to give up, so do not let them win.

For every disappointment, let us resolve to work twice as hard to resist their efforts at making the world worse for all but the select few mineral rights holders who would spew their poison into our lungs instead of keeping it in the ground where it has always belonged. Act yourself – consider the environment in each decision you make – and demand the same action from government, individuals, companies and media. Let us put 7 billion people to work at fixing this.

We, as humans, on both an individual and tribal level, sometimes just can’t seem to knock it off with selfish, short-sighted, small-scale thinking. We try so hard to find someone else to point the finger at, to absolve ourselves of blame with the excuse that it’s someone else’s problem.

But at the end of the day, excuses don’t solve the problem. To solve the problem, the blame game needs to be avoided.  While the boat we are all in together is sinking, we could all sit and bicker about which of us is most at fault, but all the time we waste doing that is time we’re not spending bailing water.  EVERYONE needs to grab a bucket and get to work.


Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Glastonbury 2025 line-up revealed

Published

on

By

Glastonbury 2025 line-up revealed

The 1975 and Olivia Rodrigo will be among the stars headlining Glastonbury Festival this year, it has been announced.

Glastonbury organisers have revealed the line-up for this summer’s event, taking place between 25 June and 29 June, after months of speculation.

The 1975 will take to the iconic Pyramid Stage on the Friday to headline, then Canadian singer-songwriter Neil Young will perform on Saturday and Olivia Rodrigo on the Sunday.

Other big names performing include British pop sensation Charli XCX, rapper Loyle Carner electronic group The Prodigy.

The announcement comes after Sir Rod Stewart was booked for the Sunday teatime legend slot and Young was confirmed as a headliner earlier this year.

Young’s announcement in January came amid some confusion, as he had days before told fans he was pulling out of the festival because the BBC’s involvement was a “corporate turn-off”.

The Canadian singer-songwriter later said this decision was down to “an error in the information I received”.

More on Glastonbury

The 1975 will be headlining for the first time, having made their Glastonbury debut in 2014.

The Cheshire band, known for hits such as Somebody Else and Chocolate, have regularly made headlines due to the antics of frontman Matty Healy.

Glastonbury, which takes place at Worthy Farm in Somerset in the summer, has worked closely with the BBC – its exclusive broadcast partner – since 1997.

Neil Young performing at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival last May. Pic: Amy Harris/Invision/AP
Image:
Neil Young performing at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival last May. Pic: Amy Harris/Invision/AP

Appetite for the esteemed festival saw standard tickets sell out in 35 minutes in November.

They cost £373.50 plus a £5 booking fee, up £18.50 from the price from the 2024 festival, and were sold exclusively through the See Tickets website.

The date for the resale – where tickets not fully paid for are put back up for purchase – is set for some time in spring.

The headliners last summer on the iconic Pyramid Stage were Dua Lipa, SZA and Coldplay, who made history as the first act to headline the festival five times.

2026 is likely to be a year off for Glastonbury, with the festival traditionally taking place four out of every five years, and the fifth year reserved for rehabilitation of the land.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Sabrina Carpenter and Charli XCX BRIT Awards appearances spark hundreds of Ofcom complaints

Published

on

By

Sabrina Carpenter and Charli XCX BRIT Awards appearances spark hundreds of Ofcom complaints

Ofcom received 825 complaints over the Brit Awards, with the majority relating to Sabrina Carpenter’s raunchy performance and Charli XCX’s outfit, the media watchdog says.

US pop star Carpenter, 25, sported a red sparkly military-style blazer dress for her performance at the awards show on Saturday night, paired with stockings and suspenders for a rendition of Espresso.

The song was mixed with a Rule Britannia mash-up, as dancers in military parade dress followed her.

She then switched to a red sparkly bra and shorts for her next song, Bad Chem, which she performed alongside dancers in bras and shorts while sitting suggestively on a large bed.

Sabrina Carpenter opened proceedings. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Sabrina Carpenter performing her second song. Pic: Reuters

Carpenter later received the global success award at the ceremony, and was also nominated in the international artist and international song of the year categories.

But much of the buzz on social media surrounded her performance, which took place before the 9pm watershed.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Highlights from the 2025 BRIT Awards

Ofcom said some of the complaints were also aimed at British pop sensation Charli XCX, who dominated the night by winning five awards, including album of the year.

More on Brit Awards

Some viewers took issue with her outfit – a black see-through dress.

Read more:
Explore other celebrity looks at the BRIT Awards
Why is Noel Clarke suing The Guardian?

The singer addressed the concerns during her acceptance speech for artist of the year, saying: “I heard that ITV were complaining about my nipples. I feel like we’re in the era of ‘free the nipple’ though, right?”

Carpenter paid tribute to the UK in her acceptance speech, saying: “The Brits have given me this award, and this feels like such an insane honour in a very primarily tea-drinking country… you really understood my dry sense of humour because your sense of humour is so, so dry. So I love y’all more than you even understand.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Why is Noel Clarke suing The Guardian?

Published

on

By

Why is Noel Clarke suing The Guardian?

Actor Noel Clarke begins his High Court libel case against The Guardian’s publisher today.

Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over a series of articles it published about him in April 2021.

They were based on the claims of 20 women Clarke knew “in a professional capacity” who allege his behaviour towards them amounted to sexual misconduct.

Clarke, known for his roles in the Kidulthood trilogy and Dr Who, “vehemently” denies “any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing”.

What will the trial cover?

Clarke is suing GNM for libel, sometimes also referred to as defamation.

It’s a civil tort – not a criminal offence – defined as false written statements that have damaged the person’s reputation. This means Clarke can seek redress or damages but no one will face charges or prison.

Clarke claims the articles The Guardian published in 2021 altered public opinion of him, damaged his reputation, and lost him work.

He said after the allegations emerged: “In a 20-year career, I have put inclusivity and diversity at the forefront of my work and never had a complaint made against me.

“If anyone who has worked with me has ever felt uncomfortable or disrespected, I sincerely apologise. I vehemently deny any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing and intend to defend myself against these false allegations.”

The Guardian is defending the claim on the basis of truth and public interest.

At a premiere in London in 2013. Pic: PA
Image:
At a premiere in London in 2013. Pic: PA

Read more from Sky News
Jay Z sues woman who accused him of rape
BBC apologises over Gaza documentary
What we learnt from Meghan’s new Netflix show

It said in its statement: “Our reporting on Noel Clarke in 2021 was based on the accounts of 20 brave women. After we published our first article, more women came forward.

“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”

The trial will only focus on liability – not the amount of damages to be paid if Clarke is successful.

The actor tried and failed to get the case struck out in January, with his legal team saying it had “overwhelming evidence” of “perversion of the course of justice”.

His lawyers told the High Court three of the journalists involved in the articles had “deliberately and permanently” deleted messages, which meant he could not get a fair trial.

Lawyers for GNM told the court there was “no adequate evidential basis” for Clarke’s application for a strike out and said it sought “to smear Guardian journalists and editors without any proper justification”.

The trial, which will be presided over by judge Mrs Justice Steyn, is expected to last between four and six weeks.

EDITORIAL USE ONLY File photo dated 20/07/15 of actor Noel Clarke. Police have confirmed that no criminal investigation will be launched after sexual offence allegations were made against actor Noel Clarke. Issue date: Sunday March 27, 2022.
Image:
In July 2015. Pic: PA

What has happened since the articles were published?

A month before the articles about him were published in April 2021, Clarke received BAFTA’s outstanding contribution to British cinema award.

However, once the allegations against him emerged, he was suspended by the organisation and the prize rescinded.

His management and production company 42M&P told Sky News they were no longer representing him and Sky cancelled its TV show Bulletproof, starring Clarke and Top Boy actor Ashley Walters as the lead roles.

ITV also decided to pull the finale of another of his dramas, Viewpoint, following the Guardian articles.

The Met Police looked into the allegations against Clarke for any potential criminal wrongdoing, but in March 2022 announced they “did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation”.

Clarke filed the libel claim the following month and has attended several of the preliminary hearings in person.

He says he has faced a “trial by media” – and that the ordeal has left him suicidal and in need of professional help.

At the UK premiere of Kidulthood in London's Leicester Square in 2006. Pic: PA
Image:
At the UK premiere of Kidulthood in London’s Leicester Square in 2006. Pic: PA

‘Rising star’

Clarke made his TV debut in a revived version of Auf Wiedersehen Pet in 2002.

Soon after he played Mickey Smith in Dr Who and Kwame in the six-part Channel 4 series Metrosexuality.

He wrote and starred in the film trilogy Kidulthood, Adulthood, and Brotherhood, which were based in west London, where he grew up, and explored the lives of a group of teenagers given time off school after a bullied classmate takes their own life.

It was a box office success and eventually saw Clarke given BAFTA’s rising star prize in 2009.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.

Continue Reading

Trending