domingo, 31 de outubro de 2021
Um “bloco central” informal talvez não seja uma má ideia
ANÁLISE
Um “bloco central” informal talvez não seja uma má ideia
Hoje, na Europa, a fragmentação política e a ascensão dos
extremismos têm recomendado coligações entre forças moderadas. Portugal não
pode ser uma excepção.
Teresa de Sousa
31 de Outubro de
2021, 6:10
https://www.publico.pt/2021/10/31/politica/analise/bloco-central-informal-nao-ma-ideia-1983124
1. Cabe aos
partidos adaptar as suas agendas às necessidades do país e é este o principal
critério que deve orientar o Presidente quando marcar a data das eleições
antecipadas. Aliás, foi ele próprio que disse que as convocaria, se o cenário
de chumbo do Orçamento se confirmasse, o mais depressa possível. O mais
depressa possível não é, naturalmente, amanhã. Temos o Natal. E seria
desejável haver uma campanha serena em que cada força política apresentasse os
seus programas e as soluções que tem para garantir a governabilidade, numa
paisagem política que está hoje muito mais fragmentada e volátil do que alguma
vez esteve em democracia. Ou seja, a clarificação do PSD é um dado importante.
Mas, ao decidir
receber Paulo Rangel no dia em que o destino do país se decidia no Parlamento,
Marcelo reduziu significativamente a sua margem de manobra. Percebe-se o dilema
que enfrenta. De todas as vezes que um Presidente optou pela dissolução do
Parlamento, o resultado das eleições provou o acerto da sua decisão, oferecendo
ao país um quadro parlamentar diferente do anterior e em condições de encontrar
uma solução governativa estável. Foi assim das sete vezes em que isso aconteceu
(1979, 1983, 1985, 1987, 2001, 2004, 2011). Desta vez, ou o PSD e a direita
democrática conseguem um resultado eleitoral que lhes permita constituir um
Governo com apoio parlamentar maioritário, ou o Presidente fica com um enorme
problema nas mãos por ter recorrido à “bomba atómica”, apenas prevista em caso
de estar em causa o bom funcionamento da democracia, sem conseguir uma nova
solução governativa.
Entretanto, a
forma como geriu este momento de crise, com iniciativas junto dos partidos
muito pouco avisadas para quem tem como dever manter a distância institucional
para ter total liberdade de acção (o caso da Madeira é mais grave do que o de
Rangel), a forma como “impôs”, muito antes do tempo certo, o cenário da
antecipação das eleições, a sua constante intervenção na esfera pública,
criando um ruído desnecessário que apenas desorienta a opinião pública, corroeu
bastante a imagem positiva que trazia do primeiro mandato. Paga agora um preço
pelo estilo que resolveu introduzir no exercício de funções – bastante
facilitado pela estabilidade política garantida pela “geringonça” e pela
fidelidade do Governo de António Costa aos compromissos europeus.
2. Acresce que a
desculpa de que apenas quis, com a ameaça de eleições, pressionar o PCP e o
Bloco a viabilizarem o Orçamento, revela uma coisa difícil de entender da parte
de alguém que sempre “respirou” a política nacional: um desconhecimento da
rigidez ideológica do PCP. O Partido Comunista não é igual aos outros partidos
políticos das democracias ocidentais, mesmo que tenha adoptado uma posição mais
realista, desde que os ventos da História condenaram o comunismo à
extinção. Continua, na sua essência, a ser um partido anti-sistema,
anticapitalista, anti-imperialista, antieuropeu e anti-NATO. Deixou algumas
dessas coisas de lado para poder ter um papel mais relevante na melhoria da
vida das pessoas que diz defender.
No PCP, os sindicatos ganharam a luta interna. Jerónimo
perdeu. Enquanto houver administração pública e empresas públicas, pode
paralisar sectores fundamentais
As sucessivas
derrotas eleitorais tê-lo-ão levado à conclusão de que a sua sobrevivência
depende de um governo de direita que lhe permita ocupar a rua de novo, devolver
o PS à “direita” e retomar as suas velhas bandeiras políticas. Conseguiu
sobreviver, ao contrário dos seus congéneres do Sul da Europa, porque manteve a
rigidez ideológica, que, aliás, já lhe vinha do passado soviético. Os
sindicatos ganharam a luta interna. Jerónimo perdeu. Enquanto houver
administração pública e empresas públicas, pode paralisar sectores fundamentais
– da CP à Saúde, passando pelas escolas.
O Bloco é outro
caso. A sua relação com o PS é mais conturbada porque lhe está mais próximo.
Talvez tenha ficado frustrado porque o PS, depois das eleições de 2019, não lhe
ofereceu uma solução “à espanhola” em que pudesse ocupar uma ou outra pasta no
Governo a partir de um acordo de legislatura. O partido-irmão Podemos faz
parte do Governo de Pedro Sánchez. Costa deveria ter-lhes oferecido essa
possibilidade? A resposta não é fácil. Seria preciso que o Bloco tivesse feito
um caminho mais visível em direcção à normalidade das democracias liberais,
incluindo abandonar a ideia de que é pró-europeu, mas de “outra
Europa”. Provavelmente, o primeiro-ministro sabia que um tal “programa”
não era compatível nem com os compromissos europeus do país – inegociáveis –
nem com a moderação necessária em questões fundamentais para a economia como,
por exemplo, a legislação laboral.
O Bloco continua
a ser um partido muito pouco transparente no seu funcionamento interno, o que
não ajuda. Sabemos muito pouco do que se passa lá dentro, ao contrário do que
acontece com a generalidade dos partidos das democracias. Acreditou até ao fim
que o PCP viabilizava o Orçamento? Porque não se vê que as eleições lhe
permitam recolher os votos suficientes para exigir mais ao PS, no caso de vir a
ser, de novo, o partido mais votado. Ou acreditou que uma eventual derrota de
Costa abriria mais depressa o caminho à ala esquerda socialista, encabeçada por
Pedro Nuno Santos, estendendo a passadeira vermelha que os levaria ao poder?
Esse risco existe, embora ténue. Diz a história do PS que sempre soube resistir
às tentações da sua ala esquerda.
3. António Costa
enfrenta as eleições, podendo apenas contar consigo próprio e com a sua
capacidade para mobilizar o voto útil dos que querem um governo de
centro-esquerda e dos que consideraram, à esquerda do PS, o comportamento do
Bloco e do PCP irresponsável. Como admitiu no Parlamento, viu frustrada a sua
ideia de pôr termo ao “muro” que desequilibrava a alternância democrática em
desfavor do PS, ao excluir do “arco da governação” dois partidos à sua
esquerda. Defendeu esta ideia muito antes de se concretizar. Acreditou,
porventura, que os ventos da História teriam uma influência positiva no PCP e
no Bloco, fazendo deles dois partidos capazes de conviver bem com o sistema
demo-liberal. Enganou-se?
Ficou de novo tudo em aberto. O primeiro-ministro joga
tudo nestas eleições. Continuará a ocupar o centro do palco? Marcelo gostaria
de lhe ficar com o lugar
Durante seis
anos, a experiência resultou, deu estabilidade ao país, permitindo-lhe gerir o
Governo sem nunca pôr em causa, no essencial, o programa socialista ou os
compromissos europeus. A credibilidade que conseguiu junto dos parceiros
europeus e dos mercados é indesmentível. Houve a pandemia, que suspendeu
internamente atitudes mais radicais. Houve uma mudança histórica na Europa,
quando, em Junho do ano passado, foram aprovados os novos mecanismos para
enfrentar esta crise gigantesca, dando a mão às economias mais frágeis e mais
vulneráveis e às suas consequências económicas e sociais, entre os quais o PRR.
Quando António Costa se preparava para colher os frutos do seu trabalho nas
duas frentes – interna e europeia –, a corda rompeu-se. Ficou de novo tudo
em aberto. O primeiro-ministro joga tudo nestas eleições. Continuará a ocupar o
centro do palco? Marcelo gostaria de lhe ficar com o lugar.
4. À direita, os
problemas não são menores. O PSD tem de resolver a questão da sua liderança,
mas tem também de esclarecer os eleitores sobre até onde está disposto a ir
para governar. Aceitar o apoio parlamentar do Chega? Rangel foi claro. Rio
talvez tenha começado a perder a sua liderança quando patrocinou a solução
encontrada nos Açores para tirar o PS do poder. O cordão sanitário em volta do
Chega é um imperativo democrático.
O PSD ficou
deslumbrado com a vitória de Moedas em Lisboa, acreditando que tinha o poder ao
alcance da mão. Não é bem assim. Até agora, ainda não conseguiu apresentar-se
ao eleitorado com uma base programática mobilizadora, que não seja apenas
diabolizar o Governo de Costa. Fará o que é preciso para voltar a atrair o
centro? A dúvida é legítima. O Governo de Passos Coelho não foi assim há tanto
tempo e os “passistas” rodeiam Rangel. Ora, Rangel e Rio não divergem em quase
nada na sua concepção do que deve ser um partido de centro-esquerda. Rangel
pode querer vestir um fato mais radical, convencido de que é isso que a direita
quer. Mas isso pode ter um preço, alienando parte do centro.
5. Entretanto,
com os sinais de crise que se começam a adensar sobre a retoma europeia, da
qual a economia portuguesa depende para respirar, manter o país em compasso de
espera, sem Orçamento e sem solução clara de governo, não é propriamente uma
ajuda. Talvez por isso – e só por isso –, seja qual for o partido vencedor, um
“bloco central” informal pode vir a ser determinante para o nosso futuro. Hoje,
na Europa, a fragmentação política e a ascensão dos extremismos têm recomendado
coligações entre forças moderadas. Portugal não pode ser uma excepção. Era uma
oportunidade para Marcelo, porque querer tirar partido de crises sucessivas de
ingovernabilidade é pura ilusão.
INÍCIO SOCIEDADE
Migrantes marroquinos. Trio que desembarcou no Algarve
envolvido em crimes violentos
Três dos marroquinos que desembarcaram ilegalmente no
Algarve foram detidos pela PSP por suspeita de terem cometido vários crimes na
zona de Arroios. Dois ficaram em prisão preventiva. O SEF perdeu o rasto a 44
dos 97 que entraram em Portugal e diz que só 33 ainda estão em território
nacional
Valentina
Marcelino
31 Outubro 2021 —
00:22
Uns estão à
espera de serem expulsos, outros encontraram trabalho e estão a tentar
legalizar-se e outros aguardam ainda a decisão final ao seu pedido de asilo - é
esta a situação de 33 dos 97 migrantes marroquinos que desembarcaram na costa
algarvia entre dezembro de 2019 e setembro de 2020, os únicos que segundo o
Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (SEF) ainda estão em Portugal.
Serão deste grupo
que ainda permanece em território nacional os três que a PSP deteve por
suspeita de terem cometido vários crimes - agressões e roubos principalmente -
na zona de Arroios, em Lisboa, onde está concentrada uma comunidade
significativa de migrantes magrebinos.
Dois deles
ficaram em prisão preventiva e a situação terá acalmado. "Temos uma equipa
que acompanha o fenómeno e desde que os problemas foram detetados
intensificamos as nossas passagens na zona de forma a presenciar e recolher
informações de relevo junto da população. Neste momento não temos recebido
informação que aponte para um aumento de criminalidade ou confrontos nesta zona
da avenida Almirante Reis", disse ao DN fonte desta força de segurança.
Estes migrantes
chegaram a 21 de julho de 2020 e foram detidos pela GNR.
SEGURANÇA INTERNA
Migrantes
marroquinos. DCIAP investiga tráfico de seres humanos. Há três arguidos
No entanto, um
inspetor do SEF da investigação criminal que esteve no terreno a acompanhar
esta situação e falou ao DN sob anonimato, confirma a ação criminosa do trio,
adiantando ainda que a situação já estava a provocar queixas dos comerciantes e
residentes.
44 em paradeiro
desconhecido
A porta-voz deste
serviço de segurança - cuja extinção proposta pelo governo foi aprovada pelo
parlamento no passado dia 22 de outubro - afirma que o SEF "tem recebido
pedidos de informação da PSP sobre cidadãos estrangeiros. Contudo, a informação
com detalhe sobre os atos que cometem na via pública apenas poderá ser
fornecida pela PSP".
Questionado sobre
a situação atual de cada um dos migrantes que desembarcou ilegalmente na costa
algarvia, o SEF reconhece que perdeu o rasto a 44 destes marroquinos, aos quais
se podem somar mais 11 que o SEF diz que "estarão" noutros países da
Europa.
"Dos 97
cidadãos marroquinos que desembarcaram no Algarve, entre dezembro de 2019 e
setembro de 2020, 67 apresentaram pedido de proteção internacional, tendo o
SEF, depois de proceder à recolha da informação através do preenchimento de um
inquérito preliminar pelo requerente, de efetuar a recolha de fotografia e de
impressões digitais, de realizar as consultas de segurança às bases de dados e
a audição quanto ao mérito do pedido de proteção internacional, considerado
infundados 56 dos pedidos", afiança fonte oficial do SEF.
Migrantes
marroquinos. Recrutamento para gangues da UE sob suspeita
De acordo com um
ponto de situação feito por esta polícia, à data de 15 de outubro, a pedido do
DN, "44 estão em paradeiro desconhecido com Medida Cautelar de Pedido de
Paradeiro; 11 estarão em outros Estados Membros, nomeadamente em Espanha,
Itália e França; 1 regressou a Marrocos; 8 foram afastados pelo SEF para
Marrocos; 33 estão em território nacional - uns com manifestação de interesse
para legalização com base no artigo 88º-2 (a aguardar análise), outros ainda a
aguardar a decisão do pedido de proteção internacional e outros a aguardar a
obtenção de documentação que permita o seu afastamento de território
nacional".
Sobre estes
últimos, o SEF não consegue dizer se os três detidos pela PSP aqui se incluem.
Mas detalha mais alguma informação. São "10 os que apresentaram
manifestação de interesse por via de contrato de trabalho (artigo 88) e que em
relação a seis, que por não terem requerido pedido de asilo têm processos de
afastamento coercivo, o SEF solicitou, em meados de setembro à Embaixada de
Marrocos, a emissão de documentos de viagem que permita a sua extradição",
que ainda aguarda.
Um teste aos
procedimentos de Portugal
O SEF lembra que
estes migrantes têm liberdade de movimentos. "Reitera-se que estes
cidadãos não se encontram sob detenção. Não obstante, e quando se verificam
situações em que deixa de ser conhecida a localização dos requerentes, o SEF
faz as devidas diligências no sentido de apurar a sua localização, de modo a
que possam prosseguir os procedimentos previstos", afiança.
"Repatriaremos
todos os nossos cidadãos. Depois da pandemia"
Recorde-se,
apesar do trabalho da própria investigação do SEF e dos avisos das secretas
nacionais, que este fluxo migratório foi tratado politicamente como se não
existisse e desvalorizada pelo ministro da Administração Interna e pela
anterior direção do SEF liderada por Cristina Gatões, cujo diretor adjunto,
ex-chefe de gabinete de Eduardo Cabrita, Fernando Barão, ainda se mantém no
mesmo lugar com o atual diretor Botelho Miguel, com responsabilidades nos
processos de expulsão.
Gatões,
recorde-se, foi ao Algarve receber o primeiro grupo de migrantes, prometendo
serem acolhidos, apesar dos avisos quanto ao efeito chamada que isso poderia
significar.
SEGURANÇA INTERNA
Migrantes
marroquinos "desesperados e assustados" em protesto
Na altura,
António Nunes, presidente do Observatório de Segurança, Criminalidade
Organizada e Terrorismo (OSCOT) alertou que este desembarque podia ser um teste
aos procedimentos em Portugal.
"Se do ponto
de vista humanitário o governo esteve bem em acolher e facultar todo o apoio a
estes migrantes, também não pode deixar de acautelar os possíveis efeitos que
pode ter esta decisão".
Logo à partida
porque "se a política do país é diferente da do resto da UE, pode estar-se
a criar uma tendência para os fluxos migratórios ilegais se dirigirem mais para
Portugal, onde fica a ideia que é mais fácil entrar. Se não se integrar estas
posições numa política europeia é complicado. Não devemos nesta matéria tomar
decisões próprias, mas integradas", afirmou.
Conforme o DN
noticiou, em outubro do ano passado a rota foi mesmo confirmada pela
investigação criminal desta polícia e, na sequência disso, criada uma task
force com a GNR e com a Marinha para trabalharem em conjunto da prevenção e
apoiarem a vigilância marítima.
Compaixão e
segurança
"Sabemos que
a esmagadora maioria dos que vêm querem apenas uma vida melhor e ganhar
dinheiro. Mas a história ensina-nos que a exceção estatística a este fenómeno é
paga com vidas em solo europeu e como o Estado nos paga para olhar para estes
fluxos com compaixão mas também com espírito crítico, decidimos fazer o que nos
compete, mesmo sem termo recebido instruções claras para o fazer. Daí que,
apesar de o governo insistir que não havia rota, que se tratava de uma coisa ocasional,
não organizada, conseguimos desmontar a teoria. Fomos até à origem, como
recurso a todas as fontes possíveis, ter até imagens dos imigrantes a pagarem
aos passadores à chegada à praia em Marrocos. Eram arregimentados até no norte
de Marrocos. Depois, até a própria imprensa local o confirmou. Só aqui havia o
discurso da negação", salienta a fonte do SEF que acompanhou este
processo.
O 21 migrantes
marroquinos detidos pela GNR em julho estão na cadeia do Linhó.
SEGURANÇA
Capacidade
esgotada no SEF. Governo põe migrantes em cadeias e quartéis
O Departamento
Central de Investigação e Ação Penal (DCIAP)tem um inquérito em investigação
sobre esta rota com, pelo menos, três arguidos, desde abril passado, mas ainda
não está concluído.
Recorde-se que 11
marroquinos de um grupo que chegou em 2020 destruiu equipamentos no centro de
acolhimento temporário no aeroporto do Porto, onde tinham sido instalados, e
acabaram em prisão preventiva em agosto desse ano.
Foram indiciados
pelos crimes de motim, sequestro, dano qualificado e ameaça e coação a
funcionário.
De acordo com o
SEF, apenas um deles se "encontra em prisão preventiva, por não ter
apresentado recurso a esta decisão judicial".
CRONOLOGIA DOS
DESEMBARQUES
18 de dezembro de
2007
23 imigrantes,
entre os quais cinco mulheres, entre os 25 e os 30 anos, andaram à deriva no
mar, num barco de pesca com pouco mais de seis metros. Foram todos expulsos em
poucos meses.
11 de dezembro de
2019
Oito cidadãos
marroquinos desembarcaram em Monte Gordo.
29 de janeiro de
2020
Onze cidadãos
marroquinos desembarcaram em Olhão.
6 de junho de
2020
Sete cidadãos
marroquinos foram detetados junto à ilha da Culatra.
15 de junho de
2020
Vinte e dois
cidadãos marroquinos desembarcaram também na costa algarvia e foram detetados
junto a Vale do Lobo.
21 de julho de
2020
Vinte e um
cidadãos marroquinos foram detetados também em Vale de Lobo. Foram transferidos
para a cadeia do Linhó, depois de terem provocado um motim no Centro de
Instalação do SEF do Porto.
15 de setembro de
2020
Vinte e oito
cidadãos marroquinos, entre os quais duas mulheres e um menor, foram detetados
junto à ilha Formosa. 17 fugiram do quartel em Tavira onde foram instalados e
foram capturados 15.
29 de março de
2021
Entre 15 a 16
migrantes, alegadamente marroquinos, terão desembarcado junto a Vila Real de
António. Só três foram detetados e detidos.
Coal countries balk at G20 phaseout calls
Coal countries balk at G20 phaseout calls
Australia, India, China and Russia hold out against a
push to target coal.
BY KARL
MATHIESEN AND ESTHER WEBBER
October 30,
2021 9:04 pm
https://www.politico.eu/article/coal-g20-rome/
ROME — A
group of coal users and coal exporters is blocking efforts for the G20 to call
for an end to coal use — something organizers had hoped would send a powerful
signal ahead of COP26 climate talks starting Sunday.
Diplomats
from the U.K. and Continental Europe are pressing for a commitment by the large
economies to phase out coal, a fuel responsible for about 44 percent of
man-made CO2 emissions.
But
Australia, India, China and Russia are holding out, a European diplomat said.
Australian
Prime Minister Scott Morrison arrived in Rome after a bloody fight to set a
domestic net-zero emissions target for 2050 — a goal that pointedly does not
aim to halt the country's lucrative coal exports.
"We
are not engaged in those sort of mandates and bans. That's not the Australian
government's policy, it won't be the Australian government's policy,"
Morrison said after talking to French President Emmanuel Macron, who asked him
to commit to ending the production and consumption of coal at home and abroad.
A
spokesperson for U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the British hosts of
the COP26 climate summit would continue to push Morrison: “We do believe
Australia can do more on areas such as coal.”
The G20
leaders will discuss climate change and energy on Sunday morning. Also on the
table in draft agreements seen by POLITICO were deals to end international coal
finance, ramp up action during the 2020s, reach net-zero emissions “by
mid-century,” and halt the construction of new coal plants “in the 2030s.”
Negotiations were continuing on Saturday evening and none of the specific
language had been settled.
The
economic and political interests of the regions where coal is mined and burned
are proving to be an obstacle for the organizers of the G20 and the upcoming
COP26.
In thrall
to coal
Some G20
countries — like China and India — owe their invite to the world’s club of
economic giants in large part to economic development fueled by coal and fear
the high price of shifting their energy mix.
Russia is a
large coal exporter, especially to China, and also uses the fuel at home.
Australia earns about 50 billion Australian dollars a year from coal exports.
Chris
Littlecott, associate director of the E3G think tank said: “The key dynamic I
see is the tactical alliance between coal exporter Australia — desperately trying to maintain export
markets and keen to promote further new coal construction — and major coal
users China and India, which have the biggest challenge ahead of them for
phasing out coal use.” But he said the fact that a push to end coal had reached
the G20 leaders' meeting was a significant signal.
Johnson
told reporters he had been “evangelical” about “the potential to move away from
coal" in a Friday call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, trying to
persuade him that ditching coal was not as hard as it seemed.
According
to Johnson, Xi told him: “China depends on it for our domestic economy.” But
Johnson was adamant that China, an economy more than five times the size of the
U.K., should look to the example of Britain which has gone from coal generating
40 percent of its power to nearly zero within a decade.
“It shows
how fast you can make the transition,” Johnson said.
China,
which has huge coal reserves but little oil and gas, fears relying on others
for its energy supplies, said Yan Qin, an analyst with Refinitiv.
In a
statement Saturday, Xi pointed to the “exceptional difficulties and concerns of
the developing countries” — among which China counts itself — and urged
developed countries to do more to tackle climate change.
Those
countries aren't alone in struggling to drop the fuel. U.S. President Joe Biden
arrived in Rome bruised from a battle in Congress where Senator Joe Manchin
from coal-producing West Virginia was holding up his key infrastructure and
climate package.
While the
U.S. is pushing for a broad climate effort at the G20, it has been publicly
quiet on coal. The U.S. blocked a push at this year’s G7 to set an end date for
a coal phaseout.
Although
the EU's position calls for an end to coal use, it is divided internally, with
some countries like Poland balking at the costs of a rapid exit from coal.
On to COP26
Hopes that
the G20 might still spur COP26 in Glasgow are pinned on Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi being pried away from the other coal countries. Modi is actually
in Rome, unlike Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and has been lobbied
personally by Western officials over the past year.
"He
gets it and he is more visionary than his negotiators," said the European
diplomat.
But that's
a big ask for India, which has not set any target for reaching net-zero
emissions and is counting on coal to fuel its industrialization.
“In India,
coal is seen as the bulwark of the power industry and fundamental to
livelihood, state revenues and sustainable development,” said Rajani Ranjan
Rashmi, India’s former lead climate negotiator and a program director at the
Energy & Resources Institute in New Delhi. “Seeing it as a mere source of
emissions and pollution would be counterproductive.”
If the
anti-coal drive fails in Rome, the fight will shift to Glasgow.
Johnson
said in parliament last week that President Joko Widodo of Indonesia was
planning to announce a 2040 coal phaseout date, which would represent a major
step forward for one of the world’s largest and most coal-dependent economies.
Organizers
of COP26 hope that by the end of the conference they can paint coal as a sector
in terminal decline and a bad investment. But while Johnson might be
evangelical about the need to give coal up, others are holding just as
religiously to a different future.
“The
Australian way is our path and that's what I'm here to talk about and be
faithful to,” said Morrison.
The Glasgow climate change summit explained
The Glasgow climate change summit explained
Everything you need to know about COP26.
BY ZIA
WEISE
October 28,
2021 12:00 pm
https://www.politico.eu/article/glasgow-climate-summit-explained-cop26-cop-26/
A crucial
climate change summit, known as COP26, is about to kick off in Glasgow.
It’s been
described as the most important gathering since the 2015 Paris climate
conference, with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson going as far as to cast this
year’s summit as a “turning point for humanity.”
No
Paris-style blockbuster accord, however, is set to come out of Glasgow. So
what’s going on at this COP, and what would success — or failure — look like?
Here’s what you need to know.
What is the
COP and what’s happening in Glasgow?
The 1992
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) compels its 197
members to fight global warming but doesn’t offer much in terms of detail, so
the signatories meet regularly to work on steps for implementing the treaty’s
aims.
This
meeting is known as the COP, or conference of the parties. A COP summit has
taken place nearly every year since 1995, hosted by a different country each
time.
The
upcoming COP — delayed by a year because of the coronavirus pandemic — is the
26th such summit, and will be hosted by the U.K. government in Glasgow between
October 31 and November 12.
Some 25,000
people are expected to travel to Glasgow, including representatives from
governments, civil society and industry. More than 100 world leaders will
attend, though they won’t stay the full two weeks.
What’s the
key goal of the summit?
The U.K.
government has distilled its top target into one snazzy phrase: “Keeping 1.5
alive.”
Under the
Paris Agreement, the result of COP21, governments agreed to limit the increase
in global average temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels — and better yet, 1.5°C.
Countries’
climate action plans aren’t sufficient to meet this goal, so the U.K. hosts
want governments to put forward more ambitious pledges, both for reducing
emissions during this decade and for reaching “net zero” by mid-century — a
state where all emissions produced are offset by emissions removed from the
atmosphere by around 2050.
Is 1.5
really that significant?
The U.K.’s
insistence on 1.5°C is setting the stage for a battle over definitions, with
some countries arguing the Paris deal allows for 2°C. It doesn’t sound like a
big difference, but every tenth of a degree of warming has major consequences.
1.5°C would
still bring major changes, such as rising sea levels, biodiversity loss and
more frequent droughts or flooding. But according to the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), composed of the world’s top
climate scientists, 1.5°C is considerably safer than 2°C. Extreme weather
becomes more frequent the warmer it gets: Warming of 1.5°C will expose about 14
percent of the world's population to deadly heatwaves every five years, for
example, while it’s 37 percent at 2°C.
How are
things looking so far?
Not great.
Countries had to submit climate action plans to the U.N. as part of the Paris
Agreement, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). They were
supposed to send in updated pledges ahead of COP26, but only 116 signatories
have done so.
The U.N.
recently warned current NDCs, including updated ones, have the world heading
toward 2.7°C of warming. But a recent IPCC report found 1.5°C remains
technically possible if governments take rapid and far-reaching action to
reduce emissions.
Who’s gonna
pay for all this?
Answering
this question will be key to the talks' success.
The massive
decarbonization needed to limit warming to safe levels will require equally
massive investments, especially in the developing world. The International
Energy Agency, for example, said this month that investment in clean energy
needs to triple by 2030 to achieve net zero by mid-century, largely in
developing and emerging economies.
It’s a tall
order for poorer countries. That's why in 2009, wealthy nations pledged to
raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries reduce emissions
and adapt to the consequences of climate change. They're falling short: In
2019, the most recent data available, less than $80 billion was raised, and a
report by Canada and Germany this week found the goal won't be met until 2023.
Developing
countries have stressed that keeping the climate finance promise is key to
getting their support for more ambitious goals, putting pressure on rich
countries to step up funding.
What other
announcements are worth looking out for?
Boris
Johnson likes to talk about “coal, cash, cars and trees” as the areas the U.K.
wants to see governments make commitments on.
For cash,
see above. The other three refer to phasing out coal, speeding up the
transition to electric vehicles in an effort to end combustion-engine cars, halting
deforestation and planting more trees.
There’s
already been some movement: China recently pledged to end support for overseas
coal plants, but keep an eye out for more on that. A coal phaseout will also be
discussed at the G20 leaders’ summit the weekend before COP26, setting it up
for a triumphant (or disappointing) start.
Methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas, has come into the spotlight, with the European Union
and the United States leading a campaign to get countries to cut methane
emissions by 30 percent this decade. Brussels and Washington want a majority of
the world’s governments to sign up to the pledge, which will be officially
launched at COP26.
Adaptation
to the impacts of climate change will be another focus at the summit. The U.K.
is hoping to see action on adaptation finance and planning as well as the
restoration of ecosystems. All countries, the U.K. says, should present a
summary of their adaptation plans.
OK, but
what’s actually going to be decided?
Countries
will need to finalize details of the Paris Agreement, so a significant part of
COP26 will involve technical negotiations on the so-called “Paris rulebook.”
There are
three key issues yet to be resolved: The “Enhanced Transparency Framework,” or
rules on how countries report progress on their climate action plans; the
“common time frames,” or how tight deadlines for climate goals should be; and
parts of the agreement’s Article 6, which deals with rules for carbon markets.
The latter
will likely be the trickiest. The central idea is that countries unable to meet
their climate targets can buy carbon credits (meaning emissions reductions)
from other countries that have overshot their goals. The overachiever gets
money and the buyer can balance their emissions sheet — it’s a win-win. But
shoddy regulation could create loopholes that risk undermining emission
reductions efforts, so getting the rules right matters.
Which
countries will play a key role?
Many eyes
will be on China. President Xi Jinping’s announcement on ending overseas coal
funding made headlines, but Beijing’s current pledges, which include a climate
neutrality goal for 2060, are regarded as insufficient. Xi is not expected to
be in Glasgow.
Other major
emitters that have so far rejected calls for more ambitious climate targets for
the 2020s include Russia, Brazil and Australia. India, which relies on coal for
70 percent of its electricity generation, will also find itself in the
spotlight.
The G20
nations — together responsible for some
80 percent of global emissions — are all facing calls to step up their pledges.
And finally
… isn’t this a massive superspreader event?
COP26 was
postponed from November 2020 because of the pandemic. Even though the
coronavirus crisis is far from over, the U.K. decided to go ahead with the
talks in person this year given the importance of face-to-face negotiations.
The pandemic will nevertheless have an impact, with concerns developing
countries won’t be able to fully participate.
The U.K.
has relaxed its entry rules ahead of COP26, recognizing all vaccines and
offering jabs to delegates. Vaccinated attendees from red zone countries still
have to quarantine for five days, and unvaccinated attendees for 10 days. For
all attendees, the U.K. says a “robust testing protocol” will be in place,
including daily tests to enter the conference venue.
“Despite
all these precautions there are likely to be cases of COVID,” wrote Richard
Smith, chair of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, in a blog post for
the British Medical Journal. Delegates from developing economies, where
vaccination rates are lower, “are potentially at most risk of both catching and
spreading COVID,” he added. “But it is people from these countries who are also
most at risk from climate change.”
Want more
analysis from POLITICO? POLITICO Pro is our premium intelligence service for
professionals. From financial services to trade, technology, cybersecurity and
more, Pro delivers real time intelligence, deep insight and breaking scoops you
need to keep one step ahead. Email pro@politico.eu to request a
complimentary trial.
‘It’s the protests which are giving me hope’: activists descend on Glasgow
‘It’s the protests which are giving me hope’:
activists descend on Glasgow
Campaigners from around the world are uniting to
disrupt the Cop26 conference and put pressure on political leaders
Matthew
Taylor
Sat 30 Oct
2021 16.39 EDT
Thousands
of protesters from around the world arrived in Glasgow on Saturday to demand
urgent action on the escalating ecological emergency before the two-week Cop26
climate conference.
Campaigners
from scores of environmental justice, indigenous and civil society groups are
converging on Scotland’s biggest city to forge alliances and pressure political
leaders.
Among the
activists to arrive in Glasgow on Saturday evening was Greta Thunberg who was
mobbed by supporters at Glasgow Central train station. Climate protesters held
a demonstration at the station ahead of her arrival and the teenage activist
was greeted by large crowds of supporters.
Protests –
from marches to strikes, and occupations to roadblocks – are being planned and
activists say their campaigns of peaceful civil disobedience will be crucial to
the outcome of the talks. “It is the protests which give me hope,” said Cat
Scothorne, 18, an activist with Glasgow Calls Out Polluters.
“It is a
chance to foreground the voices of those people on the frontline of the climate
crisis and push back against the influence and ‘green washing’ of corporations
at this Cop – a chance to tell people what is really happening, especially in
the global south.”
Campaigners
from Europe, Africa and Asia joined UK activists on Saturdayon the streets as
protests and civil society events got under way. On the banks of the Clyde,
overlooking the Cop26 conference centre, activists from Ocean Rebellion dressed
as mermaids to highlight the huge impact industrial fishing has on greenhouse
emissions.
Delegates
from the Minga Indigena collective, representing indigenous communities in
North and South America, were welcomed to the city by Scotland’s first minister
Nicola Sturgeon. They mixed water from Scotland and the Andes before calling
for climate justice to be a “unifying demand of Cop26”.
In central
Glasgow, activists who had walked to Cop26 from across the UK and Europe
arrived in the city demanding justice for those on the frontline of the climate
crisis.
Alex
Cochrane, from Extinction Rebellion Glasgow, which helped organise the
“pilgrims’ procession”, said it was time for governments to “walk the walk for
the global south”.
Cochrane
added: “Cop26 must end a growing crime against humanity by wealthy governments
where the global south are sacrificed to bear the brunt of the global north’s
affluent, carbon-intensive lifestyles.”
Protester
numbers were due to grow on Saturday eveningwith the arrival of a “climate
train” carrying hundreds of activists from across Europe at Glasgow Central
station.
Federico
Pastoris, a climate justice activist and campaigner with the Stop Cambo group,
which is campaigning to prevent drilling in the Cambo oilfield in the North
Sea, said the next two weeks were as much about building links between
environment campaigners in Europe and frontline communities in the global south
as they were about influencing what goes on inside the conference centre.
“It is
summed up by the idea of climate justice… there is a realisation that the Cop
process is ineffective so we need to build grassroots collaborations and
solidarity to find new ways of addressing this crisis. That is why people have
made such an effort to get here.”
Over the
next fortnight, campaigners are planning a series of protests and civil
disobedience actions. On Friday Thunberg is planning to join a school strike in
Glasgow, and on Saturday a global day of action will see large-scale marches in
both Glasgow and London, with campaigners promising spin-off civil disobedience
protests. Activists say there will also be smaller, more disruptive actions
throughout the two weeks of the conference.
Many
campaigners and civil society groups from the global south have had severe
difficulty getting to Glasgow because of problems with visas and the changing
Covid-19 travel restrictions.
However, by
Saturday some had made it. Patience Nabukalu, 24, had travelled from Uganda as
part of the Mapa – “most affected people and areas” – organisation,
representing communities disproportionately affected by climate change.
“This is an
opportunity for people like us, who live in areas that are really facing the
climate effects right now, to raise our voices,” she said.
Nabukalu,
who was speaking from a coach that was expected to arrive in Glasgow on
Saturday evening, said she had grown up facing ever-more-regular and extreme
flooding, which had had dire consequences for her family and the wider
community.
She added:
“The only thing I want to hear [from world leaders] are climate solutions and
climate action. I am tired of promises and pledges because promises keep
getting made but nothing actually happens and we are running out of time.”
A COP26 e o risco de voltarmos a falhar
EDITORIAL COP26
A COP26 e o risco de voltarmos a falhar
Fracasso ou sucesso, de uma certeza já não nos livramos:
a maior das batalhas civilizacionais do nosso tempo está em marcha e ela é
imparável. O relógio está a contar.
Tiago Luz Pedro
31 de Outubro de
2021, 5:30
https://www.publico.pt/2021/10/31/opiniao/editorial/cop26-risco-voltarmos-falhar-1983127
A mãe de todas as
cimeiras, o momento do agora ou nunca, a nossa derradeira oportunidade. Não tem
faltado drama para descrever o muito que se joga por estes dias em Glasgow, na
26.ª Cimeira do Clima da ONU (COP26). Há boas razões para tal. O momento é
grave e há um risco sério de voltarmos a falhar.
Na última semana,
quando a ONU fez as contas aos planos climáticos já enunciados pelos 197 países
reunidos na COP, o roteiro ficou traçado: se tudo se mantiver como está,
esqueçamos Paris e a meta de conter até ao final do século o aumento da
temperatura em 1,5°C face aos níveis pré-industriais; 2,7°C é agora o número
que nos separa do abismo e só cortando para metade as emissões de CO2 até 2030
estaremos em condições de assegurar que o planeta pode perseverar.
Há óptimas razões
para inquietação e para se temer que Glasgow fique longe de repetir os avanços
do Rio de Janeiro (1992), Quioto (1997) ou Paris (2015). Numa cimeira destinada
a actualizar os planos dos vários países para reduzir as emissões de gases com
efeito de estufa, muitos não o fizeram e vários só prometem acção concreta para
lá de 2030. Dos quatro países mais poluentes do mundo, a Rússia não estará, a
China deixou Xi Jinping em casa e não se espera que a Índia de Modi se converta
tão cedo ao imperativo da neutralidade carbónica. Haja alguma esperança: os EUA
estão de volta ao Acordo de Paris, depois dos anos tenebrosos de Trump e do
ascenso do negacionismo climático.
Posto isto, o que
sobra? Há uma crise energética em curso, que mostra que já estamos a
desinvestir nos combustíveis fósseis mas que ainda não temos uma
infra-estrutura limpa suficientemente robusta para o compensar – vai ser preciso
acelerá-la, canalizando para aqui o actual volume obsceno de subsidiação
pública ao petróleo, carvão e gás natural; há notícias promissoras e objectivos
realizáveis, como uma redução rápida das emissões de metano ou um mercado de
carbono que é preciso estimular; mas há, sobretudo, uma consciência crescente,
cada vez mais activa e global, de que é aqui que a Humanidade joga o seu
destino e que não agir agora pode ser tarde de mais.
Fracasso ou
sucesso, de uma certeza já não nos livramos: a maior das batalhas
civilizacionais do nosso tempo está em marcha e ela é imparável. O relógio está
a contar. Ou redobramos a ambição e geramos consensos para enfrentar um
problema que é global ou caminhamos em passo acelerado para a catástrofe
climática e social.
tp.ocilbup@zulogait
The COP26 Climate Talks Are Opening. Here’s What to Expect.
The COP26 Climate Talks Are Opening. Here’s What
to Expect.
Some fundamental differences, including over money,
divide the leaders heading to Glasgow. The outcome will determine, to a large
extent, how humanity will survive on a hotter planet.
By Somini
Sengupta
Oct. 30,
2021
The future
is on the line.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/climate/climate-summit-glasgow.html
As
presidents and prime ministers arrive in Glasgow this week for a pivotal
climate summit, the outcome will determine, to a large extent, how the world’s
seven billion people will survive on a hotter planet and whether far worse
levels of warming can be averted for future generations.
Already,
the failure to slow rising temperatures — brought on by the burning of oil, gas
and coal — has led to deadly floods, fires, heat, and drought around the world.
It has exposed a gaping chasm between the scientific consensus, which says
humanity must rapidly reduce the emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases
to avert climate catastrophe, and what political leaders and many corporate
executives have been willing to do.
“That we
are now so perilously close to the edge for a number of countries is perhaps
the tragedy of our times,” said Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, in
an interview.
Tensions
loom over the 12-day summit. Some poor countries hard hit by climate disasters
are holding out for money promised, and yet to be delivered, by the
industrialized nations that fueled the crisis. Polluting countries are pressing
each other to cut their emissions while jockeying for advantage and wrestling
with the impacts on their own economies.
Complicating
matters, the need for collective action to tackle such an urgent, existential
global threat comes at a time of rising nationalism. This makes the talks in
Glasgow a test of whether global cooperation is even possible to confront a
crisis that does not recognize national borders.
“I don’t
think you can solve the climate crisis on your own as a nationalist leader,”
said Rachel Kyte, a former United Nations official and now dean of the Fletcher
School at Tufts University. “You depend on the actions of others.”
The science
is clear on what needs to be done. Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and
other greenhouse gases driving up global temperatures need to be cut by nearly
half by 2030, less than a decade. In fact, they are continuing to grow. The
World Meteorological Organization warned last week that the amount of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had reached a record high in
2020 despite the pandemic and is rising again this year.
As a
result, the average global temperature has risen by more than 1 degree Celsius
since the Industrial Revolution. The scientific consensus says that if it rises
by 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, it will significantly
increase the likelihood of far worse climate catastrophes that could exacerbate
hunger, disease and conflict.
Limiting
temperature rise to within the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold has become
something of a rallying cry for many powerful countries, including the United
States. That is not within reach: Even if all countries achieve the targets
they set for themselves at the 2015 Paris Agreement, average global
temperatures are on track to rise by 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the
century.
The Stakes
at the U.N. Climate Summit
About
20,000 people will attend COP26, a climate change conference hosted by the United
Nations starting Oct. 31 in Glasgow. Participants are seeking to set new
targets for cutting emissions from burning coal, oil and gas. Here are a few
things to keep in mind before the gathering begins:
The United
States climate envoy, John Kerry, who had recently described the summit as “the
last best hope” last week tried to manage expectations. “Glasgow was never,
ever going to get every country joining up in Glasgow or this year
necessarily,” he said in a telephone interview Thursday. “It was going to galvanize
the raising of ambition on a global basis.”
The goals
of the summit are to have countries nudge each other to rein in their
emissions, commit financial support to low-income countries to deal with the
impacts, and iron out some of the rules of the Paris Agreement. The agreement
stipulated that countries come together every five years to update their
climate action plans and nudge each other to do more. The five-year mark was
missed because of the pandemic. The climate summit was postponed. Climate disasters
piled on.
The
pandemic is important in another sense. It offers a grim lesson on the
prospects for collective action. Countries turned inward to protect their own
citizens, and sometimes their own pharmaceutical industries, resulting in a
starkly inequitable distribution of vaccines. Half the world’s population
remains unvaccinated, mainly in countries of the global south.
“We’ve just
experienced the worst part of humanity’s response to a global crisis,” said
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network, an activist group.
“And if this is going to be the track record for addressing the global climate
crisis, then we are in trouble. I’m hoping this is a moment of reflection and
inflection.”
Meanwhile,
anger is mounting against official inaction. The streets of Glasgow are
expected to fill with tens of thousands of protesters.
The main
battle lines shaping up at the Glasgow talks, known as the 26th session of the
Conference of Parties, or COP26, have to do with who is responsible for the
warming of the planet that is already underway, who should do what to keep it
from getting worse, and how to live with the damage already done.
The venue
is itself a reminder. In the mid-19th century, Glasgow was a center of heavy
industry and shipbuilding. Its power and wealth rose as Britain conquered
nations across Asia and Africa, extracting their riches and becoming the
world’s leading industrial power, until the United States took the mantle.
The largest
share of the emissions that have already heated the planet came mainly from the
United States and Europe, including Britain, while the largest share of
emissions produced right now comes from China, the world’s factory.
In some
cases, the divisions in Glasgow pit advanced industrialized countries,
including the United States and Europe, against emerging economies, including
China, India, and South Africa. In other cases, they set large emerging
polluters, like China and India, against small vulnerable countries, including
low-lying island nations in the Pacific and Caribbean, which want more
aggressive action against emissions.
Tensions
over money are so profound that they threaten to derail cooperation.
In 2010,
rich countries had promised to pay $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor
countries address climate change. Some of that money has been paid but the full
amount will not materialize until 2023, three years late, according to the
latest plan announced by a group of industrialized countries.
Even more
fraught is the idea of industrialized countries also paying reparations to
vulnerable nations to compensate for the damage already done. Known in
diplomatic circles as a fund for loss and damage, discussions about this have
been postponed for years because of opposition from countries like the United
States.
Mr. Kerry
this week said he was “supportive” of the idea of assisting countries who can’t
adapt their way out of climate change, but remained concerned about opening the
floodgates of liability claims.
Then there
are tensions over whether countries are doing their fair share to reduce their
emissions.
The Biden
administration has pledged that the United States will slash emissions by about
half by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. But President Biden’s ability to reach
that target is unclear, as legislation has been watered down and stalled in
Congress, partly by a single Democratic lawmaker with ties to the fossil fuel
industry.
The United
States has been leaning hard on China to set more ambitious targets in Glasgow.
But so far, Beijing has said only that its emissions will continue to grow and
decline before 2030. China is wary of the United States’ ability to fulfill its
emissions and finance targets, a skepticism only fueled by Mr. Biden’s
inability so far to get his climate agenda through Congress.
Besides,
the two countries are locked in bitter tensions over a host of other issues,
from trade to defense to cybersecurity.
While
President Biden is in Glasgow, President Xi Jinping of China is likely to
appear only by video, precluding any face-to-face discussions.
President
Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil also plans to stay home. President Vladimir V. Putin
of Russia is not going, either, but may offer remarks remotely. India is
unlikely to commit to phase out its heavy reliance on coal power to meet its
growing energy needs, though it is quickly expanding solar power in its energy
mix.
The most
optimistic diplomats say countries will be forced to come around and cooperate.
“Because of
the global nature of this threat,” the Danish environment minister, Dan
Jorgenson, said, “you will see countries, in their own interest, work with
countries they see as their competitor.”
What Is
Success?
No matter
what happens at the summit, success in battling climate change will be measured
by how quickly the global economy can pivot away from fossil fuels. Coal, oil
and gas interests, and their political allies, are fighting that transition.
But a transformation is visible.
The global
use of fossil fuels, which has been on a steady march upward for 150 years, is
projected to peak by the middle of this decade, assuming that countries mostly
hew to the promises they’ve made under the Paris accord, according to
projections by the International Energy Agency. Wind and solar have become the
cheapest source of electricity in some markets, coal use is set to decline sharply
by midcentury, despite an uptick this year driven by increased industrial
activity in China, and electric vehicles are projected to drive down global oil
demand by the 2030s.
Global
temperature rise has also slowed since 2015, when the Paris Agreement was
signed.
Some see
that as evidence that climate diplomacy is working. Most countries are doing
what they signed up to do, which is to set their own climate targets and “egg
each other on” to do better, said Ani Dasgupta, president of World Resources
Institute, a Washington-based research and advocacy group.
“The
ratcheting up of ambition, we do see it happening,” he said. “It’s not
happening fast enough.”
From her
home in Barbados, Ms. Mottley sees another promising sign: pressure on leaders
of countries in the global north, as the dangers of climate change increasingly
afflict their citizens. That includes the floods that killed nearly 200 people
in Germany, Europe’s richest country, and the fires that scorched homes in
California, America’s richest state.
“It is the
populations of the advanced countries coming to the recognition that this is a
serious issue that is causing the needle to move,” she said. “It is that kind
of domestic political pressure from ordinary people that is going to save the
world in my view.”
Somini
Sengupta is an international climate correspondent. She has also covered the
Middle East, West Africa and South Asia for The Times and received the 2003
George Polk Award for her work in Congo, Liberia and other conflict zones. @SominiSengupta
• Facebook
