A summary of COP26 by Greenpeace UK

 

If you want to know if something has succeeded, you should start by asking the people with the most to lose. In this case, that’s those who are already being hit hardest by climate change, and they’ve given a clear answer:

What is balanced and pragmatic to other parties will not help the Maldives adapt in time. For us, this is a matter of survival. We recognise the foundations that this outcome provides, but it does not bring hope to our hearts. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us.
Shauna Aminath, minister of environment for The Maldives

The climate emergency has already arrived in our territories. And we are very worried about all these announcements, and deals that are being signed here without considering or respecting the rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples.
Sônia Guajajara, Brazilian Indigenous leader

I’m hugely disappointed and hugely let down by COP. Coming from Chad, millions of my people are suffering but nobody is listening to our cries, our tears. It’s our planet, and it’s time to stop messing about with our future.
Safia Hasan, 15, climate activist from Chad

These groups are suffering the most from climate change, even though they did nearly nothing to cause it. But their reasonable demands for help protecting themselves against climate impacts, and compensation from the damage it’s already done, were downplayed and sidelined in the talks.

And while the COP26 deal doesn’t put the 1.5C goal completely out of reach, the governments and companies that obstruct bold action on climate change are knowingly endangering whole communities and cultures for their own short-term profits or political convenience. History won’t judge them kindly for this.

It’s important to be honest about this situation. But it’s also important to remember how much we still have to fight for. There’s no single moment when it’s ‘too late’ to act on climate change; no cut-off point where we can’t choose a better path.

Every ray of hope and inch of progress at COP26 was won through relentless pressure from activists, campaigners and diplomats, especially those on the front lines of the crisis. It’s always been this way, and always will.

So for all the missed opportunities, it’s still worth asking: did COP26 make things better than they were before? Did it create some good foundations to build on? Or did it create new problems that will need to be untangled later?

What was decided at COP26?

Global climate talks have two main strands. You have the formal (and often technical) UN negotiations, which produce a final ‘decision text’ that every country signs.

Alongside that, you often have what’s essentially a giant trade show, where everyone who’s working on climate change comes to boast about what they’re doing. The UK government’s love of good green PR meant we saw even more of these shiny ‘side deals’ at this COP than normal.

This second strand can feel like a bit of a circus, but positive news here can build goodwill and momentum that feed into the formal negotiations.

Let’s run through the big decisions and announcements, starting with what was in the official agreement:

Climate justice

What happened? Governments wrangled over funding and wider support to help poorer countries protect themselves against climate impacts, and compensate them for loss and damage they suffer as a result of emissions from the rich world.

Verdict: you break it, you pay for it. Climate change is already putting a huge financial burden on poorer countries who did almost nothing to cause this crisis. Over a decade ago, governments promised $100bn a year, but they’re still not paying up in full.

There was a tiny bit of progress here, thanks to activists and delegates from climate-vulnerable countries piling on the pressure. But rich governments still didn’t go nearly far enough. While this huge injustice continues, it’ll be hard to build the trust we need for real progress.

A nail in the coffin for coal

What happened? It only took 26 years, but the world’s governments finally officially acknowledged that tackling climate change means moving away from one of the biggest causes of climate change. The final COP26 agreement explicitly talks about ‘phasing down’ coal-burning.

Verdict: bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough. A major theme of COP26 was sending a signal to the wider world that fossil fuels are on their way out. Lots of the wrangling over the text was really about how strong that signal should be. And while fossil fuel execs certainly won’t be celebrating, the negotiations fell far short of the decisive ‘time’s up’ message we needed. As Greenpeace’s exec director Jennifer Morgan put it, COP26 was bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough.

A better timetable for tougher targets

What happened? Countries’ existing climate targets aren’t anywhere near enough to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees. So they agreed to return with stronger targets in 2022, rather than leaving the normal five-year gap between new commitments.

Verdict: essential urgency. This tougher deadline will put pressure on countries to bring their targets into line with the 1.5C goal. It’s also more in line with the overall urgency of the climate crisis.

Carbon offsetting

What happened? A new official agreement paved the way for countries to trade emissions cuts, paying others – often in the Global South – to ‘offset’ the climate pollution they generate rather than reducing it directly.

Verdict: a license to pollute? COP26 opened the gates for much more carbon offsetting. This is almost certainly bad news, because carbon offsetting is almost certainly a colossal scam that will delay real action on climate change.

Many of the rules and safeguards that could have made the system even vaguely useful were left out, and the resulting loopholes put Indigenous Peoples at even more risk, as their lands will be in demand for new offsetting schemes.

Greenpeace activists raise a banner reading “NOT FOR SALE” against the iconic giant globe

 at the centre of the COP26 conference hall in Glasgow, as talks enter their final hours. 

© Emily Macinnes / Greenpeace

The side deals

Forests deal

What happened? Over 100 governments signed a voluntary side agreement that promised to end deforestation and protect indigenous rights.

Verdict: blah blah blah. There was no sign of actual policies to actually deliver on these promises, and there are major question marks surrounding the new funding. Greenpeace Brazil’s Carolina Pasquali said: “There’s a very good reason [Brazil’s forest-destroying president] Bolsonaro felt comfortable signing on to this new deal. It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding.”

And to top it all off, this deal looks suspiciously similar to another agreement from back in 2014, which did literally nothing to slow deforestation. World leaders have a long track record here, and it’s not good.

Fossil fuel funding

What happened? A group of over 20 governments and financial institutions agreed to stop funding new overseas fossil fuel projects with public money by the end of 2022. The group includes some major players in energy financing, including Canada, the US, and the UK. This was possibly the most important side agreement at COP26.

Verdict: beginning of the end. Historically, governments have been keen to invest in building fossil-fueled power plants outside their borders. But despite some technical loopholes, this agreement starts to bring that era to an end.

It’ll become much harder to build new dirty energy infrastructure, as companies will have to rely on private banks or domestic government funding. It’s vital that overseas energy funding is redirected into renewable projects instead, and that this ambition is extended to end all new fossil fuel projects immediately.

India’s net zero target

What happened? India pledged to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2070. The pledge was part of a new set of measures including a strengthened renewable energy target.

Verdict: better than expected. These measures move India’s climate policy more in the right direction, but there’s still a long way to go. The average person in India creates much less climate pollution than people in Europe or the US. But the size of its population means India’s government has huge influence over the climate. If they meet this goal, analysts say it’ll reduce global temperature rise by around 0.2C.

But 2070 is nearly half a century away, and the whole world needs to be ‘net zero’ by 2050 if we want to stay under 1.5 degrees. The next 10 years will be a good test of whether the government is taking climate change seriously. Greenpeace India’s Avinash Kumar Chanchal said the government “must start reducing emissions at source, as fast and as much as possible”.

Cutting methane

What happened? Over 100 countries joined a side pledge to slash methane 30% by 2030. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that mostly comes from rubbish dumps, industrial farms and leaky oil and gas wells. The pledge mainly focuses on the oil and gas element.

Verdict: not methane accomplished. There’s some good stuff here, but some big gaps too. The commitment failed to rule out new fossil fuels, and didn’t tackle industrial meat and dairy agriculture. Also, some of the world’s biggest emitters – including China, Russia and India haven’t signed up.

US-China deal

What happened? China and the US agreed to work together on ‘enhancing climate action’ through the 2020s, with collaboration on the technical nuts and bolts of cutting emissions.

Verdict: something to build on. Many feared that the terrible state of the US-China relationship could seriously hurt global carbon cutting efforts. So this step towards cooperation between the world’s two biggest emitters is a good sign. Their joint statement says a lot of the right things, but this won’t be a real breakthrough until they can back it up with some real actions.

Posters featuring portraits of climate impacted people and activists and their messages to world 

leaders to tackle the climate and nature crisis. © Marie Jacquemin / Greenpeace

What does this all mean for global temperature rises?

You might have seen headlines talking about the world being headed for a particular amount of warming following the new pledges at COP26.

CAT global update: Glasgow has a credibility gap between talk and action. If all govts met their 2030 targets, we would have 2.4˚C of warming in 2100. But right now, current policies put us at 2.7˚C.
 

— ClimateActionTracker (@climateactiontr) November 9, 2021

There were a few different projections floating around, but importantly, they all see us going way past the 1.5 degree limit, beyond which some countries and regions will simply disappear from the map.

Where exactly we land mainly comes down to whether countries follow through on all their carbon-cutting commitments.

And that’s a big if. Given their track record on climate, it’s bold to assume countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia will reach net zero by 2050 simply because they’ve said they will – especially when their funding and policies to actually get there are seriously lacking.

It’ll be up to citizens, campaigners and forward-thinking politicians to make sure governments set more ambitious goals and stick to them. But until that happens, we should only trust those projections as much as we trust ultra-polluting governments to stop polluting.

What’s next for climate action globally?

The COP bandwagon rolls on, and the UK’s Alok Sharma is still COP president until next year. It’s up to him and the government to make sure countries build on the more positive things that were agreed in Glasgow, and patch up the holes in the agreement.

Rich countries’ reluctance to pay what they owe poor countries is also causing serious problems, slowing progress and undermining much-needed trust in the negotiations. Sharma needs to make this a priority – including getting the UK to make a more substantial contribution.

COP27 will happen in Egypt in 2022, with the UAE playing host the year after. As home to some of the world’s biggest oil producers and many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, the Middle East will play a major part in deciding what happens to our climate.

But all the diplomatic wrangling won’t mean much if governments don’t actually stick to their climate commitments, and so far their track record isn’t exactly inspiring.

Delivering the actual emissions cuts to match the targets is a world away from the big-picture grandstanding at COP. It’s the work of imaginative civil servants and brave local councillors; committed businesses and active citizens. Success will be the sum of millions of good choices, supported by good government policies that make those choices possible.

And what’s next for climate action in the UK?

As the global spotlight shifts away from the UK after COP, there’s an immediate risk that the government will quietly green-light a bunch of high-carbon projects, including the Cambo oil field and Cumbria coal mine.

Beyond that, there are still some big gaps in the UK’s climate plans that need fixing. The government still hasn’t come up with enough money or policies needed to get the country’s emissions down in line with its targets. And they’re still not taking seriously the need for a just transition, which means ordinary workers in polluting industries risk losing out as we move to clean technology.

If you take away one thing from the story of COP26, please let it be this: there is power in our collective voice. There is a beacon of hope in the brilliant words and leadership of the four MAPA youth activists that sailed on the Rainbow Warrior to the steps of COP26. There is strength in the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest in the rain. There is a guiding light from Indigenous Peoples, who have reminded us that failure is not an option.

 I have been looking forward to reading the greenpeace report on COP26 and was not disappointed, as usual it is informative and to the point.

The blog song for today is: " Iron Man" by Black Sabbath

TTFN

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell - a report from earth911.com

 

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell

ByGemma Alexander

Nov 23, 2021 campfire, fireplace, wood smoke, wood-smoke-problem

Nearly everyone loves the smell of wood smoke. It evokes carefree summer nights under the stars and cozy winter evenings relaxing in front of the fireplace. But the smoke storms caused by extreme wildfire seasons in recent years have been a stark reminder that there can be too much of a good thing.

In the case of wood smoke, it doesn’t take a wildfire to be unhealthy for people and the environment. Wood smoke might smell better than car exhaust, but it is also an environmental pollutant that contributes to serious health impacts. In fact, an old wood stove can emit as much air pollution as five diesel trucks.

Wood Smoke

Smoke, regardless of what material is burning, contains fine particles, including dust and soot. Called particle pollution or particulate matter, these particles range in size from visible to microscopic. Fine particles that are 2.5 µm (micrometers) in diameter or smaller are not visible like dust or soot, but they can become lodged in the respiratory tract. When you look up your local air quality, this fine particulate matter is usually the primary statistic, reported as “PM2.5.”

Particulate matter can damage the lungs, triggering asthma, heart attacks, stroke, irregular heart rhythms, and even heart failure in people who are already at risk for these conditions. Even people who are not at-risk will experience eye and sinus irritation from particle pollution. When pollution is severe, it can lead to bronchitis and other respiratory ailments.

Image source: EPA.gov

The smoke from burning wood also includes several toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are found in soot and tar, and are among the same chemicals that make cigarettes so harmful. Incomplete combustion of wood releases more of these toxic chemicals, as well as carbon monoxide. More than 150 people die annually from carbon monoxide poisoning related to home heating.

Burn Less

In developed countries, the simplest way to avoid pollution from wood smoke is to stop burning wood. But psychological and economic forces make it unlikely that we will abandon burning wood completely. Even so, we can be more judicious about when and how much we burn wood. If you have a fireplace or woodstove at home, avoid using it during seasons when warmer temperatures allow smoke to settle around the house.

Many people have a hard time imagining camping without a campfire. Cooking over an open fire, making s’mores, and sitting around the fire under the stars are all iconic camping experiences. But nowadays many areas institute burn bans throughout much of the year. Complying with burn bans is not optional – campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006.

It might not be as picturesque, but a propane camp stove is much safer than a campfire. And if you want to avoid an open flame altogether, consider a solar oven.

Campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006. Image by skeeze on Pixabay

Burn Cleaner

In parts of the world where people depend on wood fires for cooking, traditional cookstoves are a greater health risk factor than poor water, sanitation, and other environmental hazards. In these places, people need cleaner cookstoves to replace open fires.

Incomplete burning releases more smoke and toxic chemicals. For complete combustion, only use dry, seasoned wood or cleaner-burning manufactured fire logs; learn how to build a fire that catches quickly, and always put out your fire completely. A smoldering fire also releases more smoke and harmful chemicals. And never burn garbage, treated lumber, or plastics.

Standard fireplaces put out 28 times as much particulate matter as a new wood stove, and a pellet stove releases about half of what a new wood stove puts out. Both wood and gas-burning fireplace inserts generate less smoke and provide the same amount of heat with less fuel than an open fireplace. If you have a wood-burning fireplace, have it inspected annually by a chimney sweep certified by the Chimney Safety Institute of America to make sure it’s operating properly.

Wood stoves should also be inspected annually for safety and efficiency. Older woodstoves release 15 to 30 grams of smoke per hour. New, EPA-certified stoves produce 4.5 grams per hour or less. When you’re ready to upgrade your stove, check the current list of EPA-certified wood heaters or consider switching your home to a cleaner heating system. And no matter what heat source you use, make sure you heat your home as efficiently as possible.

This article was originally published on October 12, 2020.

You can tell the difference when a household is burning bad wood, the colour of the smoke is a tell tale sign and the smell is horrendous.  Hopefully someone will read this blog and follow some of the tips mentioned in it.  I pass some houses near where I live and they have a fire burning during the day and through the night, they must burn a tremendous amount of wood!  It is difficult what to do for the best, use electric heaters more or follow the advice above and burn wood, or a little bit of both? I find it best to heat the area we are using at the time, to heat the whole house is impossible and also a waste of energy! Because the electric prices here in Spain have increased so much, and also to try and reduce the amount we use, I don´t put the water heater on in the day and try to use any appliances in the low or cheap time bands.  Unfortunately not everyone is able to do this and they are paying an awful lot for their electricity. 

It is tricky sometimes to do what is right, because of the factors of everyday life and circumstances, but I just focus on what I know that I can do and go for it.  If I try to follow all the recommendations from all the different sources, I will drive myself nuts!

The blog song for today is: "Tangled up in Blue"by Bob Dylan

TTFN

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year! An alternative to Black Friday from the Earth911.com website!

 

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year

ByGemma Alexander Earth911.com

Nov 18, 2021 black friday, buy, buy nothing day, buy-nothing, consumerism

The pandemic makes Black Friday crowds even scarier than usual (not to mention leaving lots of folks flat broke). The good news? More people than ever may be ready to participate in Buy Nothing Day.

Lying somewhere between a protest and an alternative holiday, Buy Nothing Day was invented by Canadian artist Ted Dave as a challenge to find out what it feels like to step completely outside of consumer culture for just one day. If you’re up for the challenge, here are a few socially distant Black Friday alternatives that could even put you on the path to buying less all year long.

This year, Buy Nothing Day is Friday, November 26. (Poster above is from Buy Nothing Day 2019.) Image: adbusters.org

DIY Gifts

Gift-giving can be one of the most meaningful parts of the holiday season. But the average American racks up more than $1,000 of holiday credit card debt each year, and fewer than half of them will pay it off before Easter.

So instead of shopping, why not make gifts for your loved ones? Handmade holiday gifts are more meaningful, and can be more environmentally friendly, too. You can use essential oils, Mason jars, old books, and even your cut-up credit cards to make eco-chic gifts like handmade beauty products. You can use the skills to make thoughtful homemade gifts year-round for birthdays and other special events.

Go Outside

You can get a lot of exercise walking around the mall but carrying all those shopping bags will help your wallet lose as much weight as you do.

Try getting outside instead. Outdoor exercise boosts your mood and immune health as well as your metabolism. Kids benefit as much as – or more than – adults. So take them on a winter nature scavenger hunt. You can even find nature in the city if you know where to look. Follow the Scandinavian’s example and get outside in all kinds of weather.

Once you’ve gotten used to winter biking, hiking, or just playing outside, keeping up the healthy habit in summer will be easy.

Read a Book

Even if you enjoy shopping, odds are that cozying up with a good book is more relaxing. Take advantage of the long weekend to catch up on your TBR list. You could dig into the roots of environmental nonfiction or explore its contemporary branches. Maybe you will change your shopping habits for good after reading books to counter consumerism.

Make reading a family affair this Buy Nothing Day with captivating picture books about recycling, Green Earth Awards-winning children’s books, or books that expertly teach kids about the environment.

Garden

You don’t have to put the garden to bed in the fall.

The long weekend is the perfect time to replant, build a cold frame, go vertical, and mulch to keep your garden going all winter. You can even get the kids involved. But if it’s really too cold for a winter garden outside, consider starting an indoor garden or using your garden leftovers inside. If you do it right, growing your own food is good economics year-round, and a little extra work in the fall will give your garden the best start next spring.

Originally published on November 23, 2020, this article was updated in November 2021.

I love the idea behind this, I have posted before about how black friday turned  into blackmonth, and ti be honest there are not so many good deals about!  It is just another ploy to get us to part with our money for things that we really don´t need!  I can understand if the purchase was on the list, but some of the stuff that ends up being bought on a whim just ends up in a cupboard somewhere!Everything looks great until you stop to think and ask yourself "do I really need another bag/pair of shoes/party dress, etc..?  Normally the answer is no!  I like to buy clothes from our local charity shop, it´s shopping with a clear conscience! but even then I only buy if I need it!  So happy "buy nothing day" we can be really stingy and know that it is for a good cause!

The blog song for today is: "Sweet emotion" by Aerosmith

TTFN

Getting a Greener Clean: soaps - A report from earth911.com

Soap, by definition, is clean. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s environmentally friendly, or even that it’s free from harmful chemicals. That’s discouraging news about a product that you coat your entire body in daily, like body wash or shower gel. But you can’t just skip the shower if you want to continue living in human society. There are lots of ways to make your hygiene routine more sustainable, and some soap choices are clearly better than others.

Soap vs. Detergent

You might be surprised to find out that most people don’t shower with soap. Body washes, bath gels, and even some bar soaps are technically detergents. The difference is more than just semantics; soaps and detergents are chemically different, and as a result, their environmental impacts are, too.

Every cleanser contains surfactants to dissolve water and wash away dirt and oil. The surfactants in soap come from the reaction between a strong base, such as sodium hydroxide, and a fatty acid or triglycerides from vegetable oils or animal fats. In contrast, shower gels and body washes contain surfactants that are usually derived from petroleum. The most common plant-based surfactants are sodium laureth sulfate or sodium cocoamphoacetate from palm or coconut oil.

Soaps and synthetic detergents are regulated differently. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates true soaps. But the U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulates soaps containing moisturizers or perfumes as cosmetics. The FDA also regulates medicated soaps and soaps that are marketed as non-prescription drugs to treat acne or other skin conditions. Unfortunately, none of these sets of regulations is particularly strong. When it comes to cleansers, it’s buyer beware.

 

Choose Soap

Soap is usually better than detergent, which is almost always petroleum-based. There are plant-based detergents. But if you’re shopping for plant-based body washes, beware that unsustainable palm oil is a common ingredient.

Soap is also less likely to contain sodium laureth sulfate, one of the Suzuki Foundation’s Dirty Dozen cosmetic chemicals to avoid. However, many soaps contain animal products such as goat’s milk or even tallow. The Leaping Bunny app identifies companies that do not perform or employ animal testing, and there are numerous vegan certifications. Soaps like Kiss My Face and Hugo Naturals do not contain animal products or byproducts and have not been tested on animals.

Liquid vs. Bar

Liquid cleansers require five times more energy to manufacture and have 10 times the carbon footprint of bar soaps. Liquids are also packaged in plastic that is not always recyclable and contributes to ocean pollution. One life cycle analysis also found that solid soaps contain fewer ingredients harmful to human health and the environment than liquid soaps. The British website Ethical Consumer confirms that bar soaps are less likely to contain petroleum, use less plastic packaging, and have lower emissions from transportation than liquid soap.

Toxicity

Cleansers of all kinds can contain untested chemicals (or worse, known carcinogens and toxins). The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database provides detailed information about individual products. Verified products are those with the fewest toxicity concerns, like Codex Beauty’s BIA bar and Bravo Sierra.

Antibacterial Soaps

The FDA encourages consumers to avoid antibacterial soaps. Antibacterial soaps do not provide any added protection against viruses like COVID-19, nor is there any evidence that their ingredients are safe and effective. The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Microbeads

Because water treatment systems cannot effectively filter out microbeads, they end up as microplastic pollution. The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibits the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. However, many product formulae still contain plastics under the names acrylate copolymer and polypropylene. Or, use regular soap with a renewable loofah sponge (you can even grow your own).

Use

Multiple LCAs note that the way we use soap contributes significantly to its footprint. One found that consumers use more than six times more liquid soap than bar soap per wash. Use this knowledge to either switch from body wash to bar soap or become more mindful of how much liquid soap you squeeze out of the bottle. When you switch to bar soap, try to store it dry so it doesn’t dissolve between uses.

Also, be sure to set your water heater to 120F degrees and use a low-flow showerhead. Be mindful of how much time you spend in the shower. Even an efficient showerhead uses more than a gallon of water per minute. In the end, the water and energy you use washing have a much bigger impact on your personal carbon footprint than your choice of soap.

 

This is the very reason why I decided to make my own soap.  If you are interested visit my website:

www.suubio.org (copy this address or use the link below!)

suubio

The blog song for today is: " Waterfalls" by TLC

TTFN