As articulated by the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), “…when dealing with the pressing problems of our age, whether they are related to improving health standards or eradicating poverty, there can be no doubt that the nations of the world must work together.”[1] Emphasising on the word i.e. “work together” – by working together, does that mean welcoming the participation of the fossil fuel industry in the climate change negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?
In relation to maintaining the global temperature below 2°C above the pre-industrial level, notwithstanding the ambitious 1.5°C target, plans to phase out from fossil fuel was one of the undermining prospects for the Paris agreement. As stated by Pascoe Sabido – a researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, the Conference of the Parties (COP) has gone on for many sessions without developing an agreement which is fair and progressive, whereby he attributed this to the lobbying of fossil fuel industry.[2]
The “open door” regime has evidently undermined consensus to be reached at numerous COP in the past and is allowing the said industry to continuingly play an influential role in these negotiations. In order to advance their abusive agenda towards our climate, the industry was observed to have manipulated the negotiations by swerving the cause of climate change, stating that it is not primarily due to the increasing utilisation of fossil fuel.[3] For decades, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to obliterate the risks of utilising their products and sought to repudiate regulations,[4] as the UNFCCC and governments are in thrall to transnational corporations, whose business model depends on our continuous consumption of dirty energy,[5] thereof increasing the impacts that the world has to face from the adversely changing climate. The fact that the lobbying initiatives have succeeded in dominating the legislating process is particularly inhibiting of change.
Based on that observation, in order to avoid disinformation and interference from the fossil fuel industry, the question arises is that whether there should be a reform of transparency in terms of the parties who are allowed to be involved in the conference and whether they should have the power in the decision-making process.
Harking back to the success of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), therein lies some aspects which the climate change negotiations may emulate, in spite of the tensed deliberations which arose in attempting to seek for higher commitments to curb the utilisation of tobacco, and consequently alleviate the issue of mortality caused by cigarette smoking.[6]
It is worth noting that the FCTC acknowledges and prioritises the effects of tobacco enough to substantially trump trade over health,[7] even though such exclusion would dismiss the benefits of tobacco trading economically. If one were to scrutinise the difference between the FCTC and the Paris Agreement, it may be concluded that the former incorporates clauses which are more practical per se i.e. action-based; whereas the latter comprises rather generic and abstract clauses. For instance, Article 11 of the FCTC ensures that the packaging of a tobacco product does not provide misleading and deceptive impression about its characteristics with regards to the health effects and emissions.[8]
In addition to that, a stronger language was used in the FCTC which states that parties “shall”, in lieu of “should”, undertake a comprehensive ban of all tobacco advertising, sponsorship etc. by virtue of Article 13 of the same Convention;[9] as opposed to the Paris Agreement, whereby the word “should” was replaced in the final text which can be seen in Article 4(4) in relation to the mitigating efforts of all Member States in reducing carbon emissions.[10]
This could be inferred from the FCTC in the current circumstances of the climate change negotiations that, without the involvement and interference of the fossil fuel industry, the outcome may display a higher indication and willingness to depart from the dependency of fossil fuel, henceforth creating a stronger interpretation of commitments in the clauses of the Paris Agreement.
If the tobacco industry managed to address such issues in the FCTC, why are we not doing the same for a matter which has more urgency before the impacts of climate change become irreversible?
The title of this post underlines the drastic implications that the fossil fuel and tobacco industries have imposed on our environment and health. Prior to the finalisation of the Paris Agreement and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), there has been impeding efforts in minimising carbon emission, whilst constantly attempting to maximise their profit and refusing to shed light on a fair share of accountability on the effects of climate hitherto.
Such conducts have therefore disabled people and communities around the globe from the full enjoyment of human rights and also posed consequential threats to their circumstances.[1] The primary woe, however, is the far-reaching damage which has profoundly affected vulnerable and small island states, where they clearly lack the capacity and resources to respond adequately without sufficient capacity and financial means.[2]
For as long as it has been used for various purposes, these industries have also been accumulating permanent and prolonged environmental deterioration which could subsequently be further aggravated and affected by climate impacts, water pollution, ecological loss etc.; resulting in food security, scarce resources, increased number of climate refugees, the problem of salinity which prohibits soil to cultivate, and the vicious cycle continues.
Although it is observed that these industries are responsible for the narrow and misleading information which induce the reliance on fossil fuel and the smoking of cigarettes, regulating measures to restrict such manipulations are often neglected from being put on the table of the climate change negotiations, thereby making the reduction of carbon emission more difficult to achieve, and the pursuing efforts to limit the temperature rise of 1.5°C would remain unfeasible if these industries are not subjecting themselves to mitigating effort to influence a position shift in the consumption trend.
Throughout the years, United Nations member states have gathered at the Conference of Parties (COP) to broker a deal to alleviate the atmospheric concentration of GHGs despite constant efforts of huge firms injecting monies into lobbying for the fossil fuel and tobacco industry to delay action meant to remedy climate change.[3] It is worth noting that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has undertaken steps to retain oil reserves on the ground by addressing the crucial role of redirecting investments in the latest scientific report, stating that accelerating the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies is an urgent priority and “substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.”[4]
Furthermore, the International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasised fossil fuel subsidy reform as a key element of energy regulating measures to tackle climate change and reckoned that a partial reduction of fossil fuel subsidies as an opportunity cost could allow for doors to be opened in order to achieve the 2°C target.[5]
Therefore, divesting from the fossil fuel and tobacco industry can arguably be deemed as the priority action being discussed in the climate change negotiations to date, and have always been perceived as the main reason for disrupting the chemistry of the planet.[6]
However, the above efforts are too minute for these industries to negate their responsibilities and duty for the series of damage that they have caused when lives are lost and homes are destroyed; yet they show no remorse and hungrily seek for short-term gains, whilst wholly missing the point of preserving and conserving what we currently have, and at worst, getting away scot-free.
One may argue that the government should stop subsidising these products and propose a carbon tax and cap on them, but the truth of the reality is how do we suppose we could hold these industries accountable when they command huge bargaining power, which in turn allowing them to hide behind the consumption pattern and lurking behind the decision-making process? We should be concerned that whether these “decision-making parties” are actually acting in our best interest or are they economically driven?
Essentially, if we want to yield a better outcome for our future and put a halt on such consumption, we cannot merely rely on these industries and deliberately avoid our own responsibility. As real change comes from the bottom and floats to the top, the responsibility lies within us and the choices that we make could ultimately affect our environment.
Written by Choy Moon Moon
[1] T Greiber, Conversation with Justice: A Rights-based Approach (IUCN, 2009) 38
[2] V Hoffmeister & S Huq, ‘Loss and Damage in INDCs’ [2015] ICCCAD 6
An aerial view of flood in Malaysia. Source: The Star
There are many factors whereby we could be affected by climate change, be it locally or internationally. For instance, outdoor burning which results in haze is a trans-border issue, whereas deforestation for agricultural purposes and cultivation of cash crop; rapid industrialisation, incursion into the vulnerable ecosystem are some of the local factors which build the causal link towards climate change.
Even though Malaysia is not considered to be prone to climate-related natural disaster per se, we were assaulted by these recurring events as of lately. Such events include droughts and floods which have led to severe domestic effects in terms of our socio-economy aspect, and Malaysia, being a tropical country, we are bound to be exposed towards excessive rainfalls which would then result in landslides when it is accompanied by vigorous wind.
Flooding is a serious issue in Malaysia and has continuously affected our agricultural activities. In any event, the water may come and go unexpectedly, and when the level rises, it usually happens quite rapidly before we are prepared to contend with the situation at hand. To exacerbate the flooding further, Malaysia, in the writer’s humble opinion, does not have an efficient drainage system, hence may often time exaggerate the acute flood.
In relation to these flooding incidents, if there are insufficient establishment of adaptation measures, this could easily lead to people having to flee from their home, a widespread of land erosion, deprivation of agricultural food production, as well as the destruction of infrastructures.
On the other end of the spectrum of climate change events in Malaysia, despite the occurrences of floods, drought is also a frequent visitor whereby the rainfall variability is unusually low for a period of time resulting in limitation of water irrigation. This may lead to exhaustion of dam when rationing of water has to be provided to supply adequate water.
More importantly, forests may be highly flammable when it encounters prolong dry weather condition. This situation can be seen in our bordering country i.e. Indonesia, where forest fires happen regularly, especially when they are disinclined to do crop rotation so they would just burn down their crops and move somewhere else. These peatlands, being more flammable than regular forests, coupled with dry weather, may easily spread forest fires if it is not regulated vigilantly. Consequently, this would induce the localised phenomena i.e. haze, which could, in turn, threaten the health of people around the region.
Having said that, there is an absolute need to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celcius above the pre-industrial level, despite the fact that the occurrences of climate-related disasters in Malaysia are comparatively mild in comparison to other vulnerable small island states which would be more susceptible towards the impacts of climate change.
The warming effect has already affected Malaysia on such drastic level, imagine what would happen in the vulnerable nations if we refrain from impelling all member states to cooperate and work towards the 1.5 degrees Celcius target? The burden of climate change impacts is always incurring upon the poor and those who are regarded as marginalised.
These climate-related disasters would definitely impose an irreversible damage on our health, forestry and agriculture sector, food production, economy, and may also form psychological trauma within the people who have suffered from these impacts.
Thus, it is crucial to implement national policies and put adaptation measures in place which are both imperative to manage climate change impacts in different areas to ensure sustainable development of a country.
MYD 2016 Training Series – Training on UNFCCC negotiations and media work with various climate experts, government bodies and civil society leaders, from July until October 2016. Each session runs for 2 hours and may be broadcast live on Google Hangout. Hangout will be available on YouTube for future reference. See also MYD 2015’s compilation of Training Series here.
Chris Wright
Dr Matthew Ashfold
Chee Yoke Ling
In anticipation of COP22, a series of training has been organised by MYD 2016, similar to the ones designed for MYD 2015 last year prior to COP21. The training series provides these new delegates with the opportunity to grasp an understanding of the UNFCCC process and the dynamics between key stakeholders. The list of trainers include one of the Guardian’s top young campaigners to watch in the lead up to COP21 etc.
[table id=6 /]
#MYD – Malaysian Youth Delegation – Malaysian youth climate movement at international United Nations climate conferences, UNFCCC, participants will be mentored and hold engagements with various climate expert bodies and dialogue with Malaysian policy makers and negotiators.
Today, I got to immerse in Sri Lankan culture – through food and traditional dance!
Today, I also spent nine hours absorbing climate change adaptation knowledge at the 5th Asia-Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum, held at Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH). The Forum is held in conjunction with Sri Lanka NEXT, the Blue Green Era.
Day One of the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN) 2016 Forum encapsulates the heart and essence of climate change adaptation and bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Here are some of the key takeaways from the plenary and parallel session:
Barney Dickson, Head of Climate Change Adaptation Unit, Ecosystem Division, UN Environment, Nairobi, Kenya, eloquently sums up his views on adaptation planning under 2C in six points:
National level planning. The Paris Agreement supports National Adaptation Plan (NAP). He believes that these processes have to have country ownership, not just a requirement under the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requirement. It is important to incorporate inclusive planning across sectors and ministries.
Management of ecosystems as a central part of adaptation planning. The coastal, inland and terrestrial ecosystem plays a vital role, especially in reducing flooding.
Timescales. There should be a prioritisation level and proper sequence of different planning. Investments are taken into account and are planned to be climate resilient.
Knowledge and uncertainty. There is no doubt that we still have incomplete knowledge of what climate change can be. Although downscaled climate projection can be of value, it still leaves a large margin of uncertainty. All countries need to be prepared for a range of possible impacts.
Money. The Green Climate Fund was recently opened for countries to apply. Projections show that there is a need to invest 140-300 billion/year toward 2030 as a cost of adaptation globally.
Communication. Reporting, communication mechanisms under Paris Agreement are very important. It is not entirely clearly cut on what countries should be reporting on, based on the Paris Agreement, but can be expected that negotiators to clarify on this matter later on. Submissions of reporting to UNFCCC is a form of communication for countries to communicate internationally. Global Adaptation Goals, for example, help countries to address the issues globally.
Another interesting topic that compelled me was during the first parallel session that I attended, which was Developing legal frameworks for adaptation planning, where Archala, Principal Researcher and Team Leader of Global Climate Law, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) spoke on NAP and the Paris Agreement. She explained that it is preferable for countries to have a mandate as it ensures adaptation beyond projected thinking, certainty, multi-holder engagement, establish clear responsibilities and identify key milestones.
For the second parallel session, I found the concept of de-risking that was brought up by Srilata, Regional Technical Advisor of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Thailand, particularly interesting as it is something new and foreign to me. She emphasised on the utilisation of policy and financial instruments as a tool for information asymmetries and to build technical capacities. I respect her for highlighting that group blending should be incorporated when planning for adaptation, especially women’s participation in decision-making.
To sum up, Day One was a knowledge seeking journey filled with new information. It definitely leaves me thinking deeply about the whole interrelatedness of the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC in tackling the climate change agenda.
Want to know about the cultural insights of Sri Lanka? Stay tuned for my next article!
