We know we’ve raised it before, but this is really important. The facilitative, multilateral consideration of progress (FMCP) will only be effective if it builds on the expertise and perspectives of civil society. ECO is asking Parties to allow observers to participate in the FMCP under the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework. Since ECO was unable to participate in the multilateral assessment and facilitative sharing of views this session, we presented our questions in a previous ECO. ECO appreciates that the Marshall Islands posed our questions to Germany.
best betting app for football_free login w88 mobile_free login betfair app not working
Today’s official U.S. side event promoting fossil fuels is bound to attract a lot of attention – after all, the U.S. is the only party which officially intends to quit the Paris Agreement. While it is obvious that any event promoting greater fossil fuel use has no place here at COP24, ECO readers should keep in mind a few things:
The pre-2020 issue is a waiting game where everyone loses. People who are vulnerable — as they face dangerous loss and damage from climate impacts. People and communities all over the world — whose recent development successes may be undone. Those employed in the fossil fuel industry — who need a just transition to real, alternative livelihoods.
There are several ways to make a person doubt themselves. One insidious way to do it is gaslighting: psychologically manipulate someone, or a group of people, making them question reality, and even their own sanity. We’ve seen examples of such behaviour from the Trump.
Introductions can be kind of important, don’t you think?
We use them to connect to people in a “Hi, how are you?” way, or in documents to give a sneak peek at what the text has in store for the reader. Sometimes they are relevant in treaties… Wait, just sometimes? That can’t be right.
Saturday’s fossil went to the US for rejecting the inclusion of human rights and other elements of the preamble of the Paris Agreement in the Paris Rulebook.
Dear ECO: We’ve been coming to UNFCCC meetings for 24 years, but we still are not on track to stop climate change. Why is reaching our climate goals so hard?
– Sincerely, Parties to the UNFCCC
It is pretty hard to fight anything with one arm tied behind your back. How do you expect to adequately cut emissions without also addressing the primary source of the problem: the production of oil, gas, and coal?
Seventy years ago the world came together following the devastation of the second world war, one of the worst human rights atrocities of our time, and adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to ensure that egregious human rights violations would never be repeated on such a massive scale! Today we are facing a different, but equally existential and calamitous crisis: climate change.
It seems that some information on clarity, transparency, and understanding of NDCs is playing hide-and-seek. What happened to additional information on mitigation targets under paragraph H in the last iteration? Shouldn’t these targets be clear, transparent and understandable too? ECO is witnessing a scraping of integrity from text on mitigation – which now is completely imbalanced.
So, Parties, who is going to be “it” and seek out this hiding text?
Everyone knows that CO2 emissions from burning coal are a massive contributor to climate change. Yet there’s confusion about burning wood. In fact, generating a unit of energy from wood emits more CO2 upfront than generating it from coal!
After a successful decision at COP23 concerning the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP), negotiations on the LCIPP have been stalled on multiple fronts since the negotiations first started in May at Bonn session.