PRESS RELEASE
December 4, 2014
AS CLIMATE TALKS BEGIN IN LIMA:
U.S. FAITH LEADERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO CRAFT
A PEOPLE’S CLIMATE COVENANT
December 4, 2014
AS CLIMATE TALKS BEGIN IN LIMA:
U.S. FAITH LEADERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO CRAFT
A PEOPLE’S CLIMATE COVENANT
Spurred into action by the US-China Climate Agreement, (see analysis below) a broad coalition of faith –based organizations and leaders has announced plans to craft a People’s Climate Covenant which proposes a life-protecting, science-based position as the United States’ commitment in the UN Treaty process taking place this week in Lima.
Under the leadership of Interfaith Moral Action on Climate (IMAC) and Climate Justice at Union Theological Seminary, faith leaders and organizations, along with others concerned about the threats to our planet, call on policy makers to adopt a plan to reduce GHG on a scale and time frame that is consistent with the requirements of the global consensus of climate scientists.
While the world was encouraged to hear a new sentiment of cooperation in reducing GHG was taking shape with the US-China Agreement, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c) this accord is flawed in several key ways:
- The thrust of the efforts focus on China, with US investment opportunities for questionable technologies that essentially allow for the continued use of coal, the dirtiest of energy sources.
- While a welcome announcement, China’s intention to “cap” its CO2 emissions by 2030 leaves open the possibility for unlimited, damaging increases prior to that date
- China’s much touted pledge to shift to 20% low-carbon energy sources by 2030 is heavily-based on nuclear and hydropower rather than renewables.
The “side bar” agreement has the potential to weaken the worldwide resolve to fight for justifiably more aggressive demands in the UN Treaty to be negotiated in Paris in 2015.
The People’s Climate Covenant will offer a science-based pathway for restoring health to our planet. In accordance with scientific projections, dramatic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – is imperative and must begin immediately.
Rev. Tom Carr, IMAC Steering Committee Member, explained: "Though we are pleased that the U.S. and China are discussing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we cannot conclude that the US-China Agreement represents a major emissions reductions plan for either country. No new emissions-reduction measures are being proposed by the United States, nor has our commitment been substantially increased.”
Commenting on the US-China Agreement Victoria Furio, Convener of the Climate Justice Initiative at Union Theological Seminary, adds: “Our greatest concern is that this type of agreement squanders the little time left to make the ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions demanded by ever-more dire scientific projections. Leading international agencies have signaled the dangers ahead unless dramatic changes in policies and practices are enacted. We cannot stand idly by in the face of the urgent task at hand if we are to preserve any semblance of stability for life on earth. Our love of Creation and its Creator demands no less.”
******************************************
US-China Deal: Advancing towards Paris?
The recently announced climate agreement between the United States and China has been hailed by the media as a “game-changer,” trumpeting new targets to reduce carbon pollution extracted from China and a doubling of US emissions reductions commitments. Yet, even a cursory reading of the details supports neither of these claims. On the contrary, the accord takes the process in precisely the wrong direction ─further postponing the necessary shift to renewable energy, and continuing fossil fuel use, particularly coal. This agreement may indeed inject momentum into the UN Treaty negotiations but of what kind? Its focus is an investment opportunity for US corporations. Will a legally-binding, global accord be strengthened or derailed in favor of this “successful” model of bilateral agreement? The urgency of making deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) does not seem to be on the agenda of these two major emitters.
The Specifics
There is no increase in pledged US emission reductions- the new figures are simply a projection of the benefits expected from previously announced measures at a later point in time (2025 vs 2020). They hold up the yet-to-be approved new EPA rules, which face future gutting attempts, as evidence of guaranteed reductions and do not call for new cuts in any sector. Both national and international organizations deem the US pledge to be insufficient. Among other groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that we can and should be making 40% cuts in power plant emissions in order to reach the economy-wide 26-28% reductions, and ramping up solar and wind use. The latest UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report names four countries as needing to do more: Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the USA, stating that current global emissions trajectories exceed the 2020 limits required to hold temperature rise under 2ºC and that stringent 2014-2020 reductions are essential.
Why are US climate policy makers not responding to the science?
The centerpiece of the agreement is a cost-sharing partnership that facilitates China’s continued use of coal. The US has agreed to build a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility in China ─ an unproven technology─ with the fanciful idea of a plant that will actually be a source of water production, despite the fact that no CCS model exists in the US. Pilot projects have been cancelled or delayed due to their exorbitant costs, exceeding those of nuclear energy. At best, 65% of the CO2 from coal can be captured; the remaining 35% gets released into the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage (sequestration) has been questioned at every level regarding its feasibility and risks of social, economic, and environmental harm.
The most common use for sequestered CO2 is for “enhanced oil recovery ,” – an extreme energy extraction technique that exposes a motive of US support. The question is: why perpetuate and reward fossil fuel use when there is such a small window for achieving decarbonization? Not only has the IPCC indicated that current country pledges are insufficient to hold us below a 2ºC threshold, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) is projecting that the global carbon budget will be used up by 2040 due to a 20% rise in CO2, taking us to a 3.6ºC temperature rise. (World Energy Outlook 2014, Executive Summary)
The other unwarranted heralding is China’s announcement to “cap emissions in 2030” and to increase its low-carbon energy sources to 20%. What has been omitted by the media is that this mix features hydropower, always contentious due to environmental concerns, and a prominent role for new nuclear power plants, to be obtained from the United States. China is on tap to sustain consumption of 50% of the world’s coal; the US is a major exporter of coal. The operative word for both countries continues to be “growth.” With the license to pollute until 2030, how high will its emissions reach before that time?
Given China’s success in developing solar technology, why not taking full advantage to maximize the use of renewables in both countries? Does it make any sense to spend years and billions of dollars on a technology (CCS-coal) because it can recover part of its CO2 emissions, when a simpler, more desirable solution would be not to produce them at all? Renewables would eliminate the need for the tragically absurd quest for “clean coal,” an oxymoron, and a dangerous one.
To continue to promote the use of fossil fuels at this point in history can only be considered as fundamentally immoral. We will not be silent as the people of the world are robbed of their God-given right to life and life in abundance.
What We Need
Our president’s actions need to be decisive and informed. He must break with the culture that places profits above the preservation of life, His administration must lead the world by example – by pledging authentically ambitious emissions cuts, by seeking a binding and just global treaty, and by launching a national call to consciousness to eliminate wasteful energy use and maximize energy efficiency. As the world’s largest historical emitter of GHG, we also have a responsibility to make dramatic emissions cuts, change our unsustainable consumption patterns, and assist those affected by our practices.
The message conveyed to developing nations through the US China agreement is that GHG reductions are not a pressing priority and that a global treaty is not necessary ─ that similar bilateral economic arrangements may be possible for them. This cannot stand. It will not deliver the solutions desperately needed for a stable climate.
We support a strong UN Climate Treaty in which all nations make an adequate contribution according to their circumstances. And we hereby invite all persons of conscience to join us in drafting a People’s Climate Covenant to serve as the United States position, reflecting the policies and measures needed at this critical moment in history ─ to assure that those elected to govern reflect the voice of their people as democracy demands.
Climate Justice Interfaith Moral Action on Climate (IMAC)
Union Theological Seminary, N.Y. www.interfaithactiononclimatechange.org
[email protected] [email protected]