Submitted by admin on
As hundreds of wet negotiators who walked back from the conference centre this week can attest to, we all prefer some sun and blue skies. But we are still far away from blue skies for the Paris Agreement Work Program (PAWP). True, some hard work from negotiators made a few clouds go away but there is still much work to be done.
Question: what happens when there is no longer a long- term? No, this is not a bleak pondering on where current emissions trajectories will lead us, although that is probably warranted.
Technology transfer is vital if we are serious about limiting warming to 1.5°C. The technology framework was included in the Paris Agreement to provide guidance on technology as part of the means of implementation. The framework was meant to enhance the process of delivering technology to support transformational climate action.
Rules, Rules, Rules – they are important and we all knowweneedthem!Themeetingroomsherearefilledwith delegates engaged in intense discussions over the minutiae of the Paris rulebook. The incoming Polish Presidency also never misses a chance to emphasize their laser focus on the rulebook outcome as their absolute priority for COP 24.
Australia’s new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has just toured the 100 per cent drought stricken country-side of the most populous state, refusing to recognise any possible connection to climate impacts – all while unprecedented bushfires rage during winter!
There’s a new brand of sceptic in our midst: the loss and damage sceptic. Just like the kind you’re more familiar with, they also deny the evidence of climate impacts right in front of their eyes.
We at ECO are wondering whether we should have a chat with the nice lawyers at the UNFCCC Secretariat.