domingo, 31 de outubro de 2021

COP26 climate summit begins in Glasgow

EU and US reach agreement to settle rift over Trump-era steel and alumin...

COP26 opens in Glasgow with G20 leaders fuzzy on climate goals | DW News

G20 leaders release watered-down final statement on climate commitments ...

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

https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/migrantes-marroquinos-trio-que-desembarcou-no-algarve-envolvido-em-crimes-violentos-14270489.html?fbclid=IwAR3J4ixn_whfFVCSfeqOHBkMThBtovPf7N1geUhjGLinq_8rTsWjxrARvC4

 

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.

First published on Politcalcartoons.com, U.S., October 26, 2021 | By Peter Kuper


 

First published on Caglecartoons.com, U.S., October 28, 2021 | By Jeff Koterba


 

First published on Politicalcartoons.com, Canada, October 27, 2021 | By Dave Whamond


 

First published on Caglecartoons.com, The Netherlands, October 27, 2021 | By Joep Bertrams


 

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.

‘Astounding’ haul of Roman sculptures discovered under HS2 building site...

Greta Thunberg mobbed by fans in Glasgow ahead of the Cop26 summit | ITV...

Will artificial intelligence create useless class of people? - Yuval Noah Harari

COP26: 'Moment of truth' as world meets for climate summit @BBC News liv...

Climate fight is a battle we 'just have to win', Lord Deben says

BREAKING: Prince Charles says COP26 is 'the last chance saloon'

G20 leaders back minimum corporate tax, still out on climate & COVID | D...

LIVE: 2021 G20 Summit Rome, Italy Day 2

Prince Charles bonds with world leaders as he attends G20 gala dinner

Macron, Johnson to meet as post-Brexit fishing spat intensifies • FRANCE...

‘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

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/its-the-protests-which-are-giving-me-hope-activists-descend-on-glasgow

 

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