Category Archives: 2011 Media releases

Where now for climate justice? FoEI’s post-Durban analysis

Friends of the Earth International

December 13, 2011

Climate: Disastrous “Durban Package” accelerates onset of climate catastrophe

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA, December 13, 2011 — The UN climate talks in Durban were a failure and take the world a significant step back by further undermining an already flawed, inadequate multilateral system that is supposed to address the climate crisis, according to Friends of the Earth International.

Developed countries engaged in a smoke and mirrors trick of delivering rhetoric but no action, failed to commit to urgently needed deep emissions cuts, and even backtracked on past commitments to address the climate crisis, said Friends of the Earth International.

The outcome of the Durban talks, heralded by some as a step forward, in fact amounts to:

  • No progress on fair and binding action on reducing emissions
  • No progress on urgently needed climate finance
  • Increased likelihood of further expansion of false solutions like carbon trading
  • The further locking in of economies based on polluting fossil fuels
  • The further unravelling of the legally-binding international framework to deliver climate action on the basis of science and equity.

While there was resistance from developing countries to the destructive proposals on the table in Durban, the final Durban outcome amounts to:

  1. A new “Durban Platform” which will delay climate action for a decade.
    Instead of implementing the existing, ambitious and equitable negotiating roadmap that was agreed in Bali four years ago, a new process to launch negotiations for a new treaty was agreed in Durban. The “Durban Platform” will delay much needed climate action for a decade.
  2. A substantial weakening of the Kyoto Protocol.
    The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing international framework for legally-binding emissions reductions by rich industrialised countries. These countries are responsible for three quarters of the emissions in the atmosphere despite only hosting 15% of the world’s population. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has still not been formally agreed and would only cover the European Union and a handful of other developed countries.
  3. Drastically insufficient targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
    Taken alongside the expansive loopholes agreed to in Durban that serve to help countries avoid emissions cuts, these paltry pledges actually mean a likely net increase in emissions between now and 2020.
  4. A shift of the burden for climate action to developing countries, which have done the least to cause global warming, have the least resources to combat it, and face the additional burden of having to address pressing poverty alleviation and development needs.
  5. Absolutely no progress on urgently-needed, new and additional public finance for developing country climate action and adaptation measures to protect vulnerable communities from climate impacts. The Green Climate Fund was approved but with no means by which to fill the coffers and a provision agreed to that could allow multinational corporations and private financial actors to directly access the fund.
  6. The increased likelihood of new opportunities for carbon trading, a destructive false solution to the climate crisis which locks in climate inaction, drives land grabbing and displacement of communities, and could contribute to another global financial collapse.

“Developed countries, led by the United States, accelerated the demolition of the world’s international framework for fair and urgent climate action. And developing countries have been bullied and forced into accepting an agreement that could be a suicide pill for the world,” said Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

“On the eve of the climate talks, hundreds of families in Durban lost their homes and some even their lives in devastating flooding. From the Horn of Africa to Thailand to Venezuela to the small island state of Tuvalu, hundreds of millions of people are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis they did not create. The lack of progress in Durban means that we are even closer to a future catastrophic 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming, which would condemn most of Africa and the small island states to climate catastrophe and devastate the lives and livelihoods of many millions more around the world” he continued.

Who is to blame?

The disastrous Durban outcome is attributable to a combined effort by the governments of rich industrialised countries, most notably the US, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Russia and the European Union. The United States is most to blame, as it has been the most powerful driver in the dismantling of the legally-binding framework for developed country emissions reductions. It refused to take on emissions reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and has attempted to replace this system with a weaker, ineffective system of voluntary pledges.

Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia and New Zealand have pursued a similar agenda of trying to escape their legal and moral obligation to act first and fastest to cut their emissions. Canada, Japan and Russia have refused outright to emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period, and Australia and New Zealand have made their commitments conditional, leaving the European Union and a handful of other developed countries covered by the agreement in Durban.

The European Union, heralded as a climate leader and the saviour of the Durban talks, had an agenda filled with false promises. The EU was a key architect of the new “Durban Platform” that will delay action for ten years, lock in low ambition and deliver a weaker, less effective system than the Kyoto Protocol. The EU’s strategy in Durban was to split the group of developing countries and force emerging economies like India and China, with hundreds of millions of people still below the poverty line, to take on unfair responsibilities for tackling the climate crisis. The EU also blocked progress in closing dangerous loopholes in existing emissions targets, and was the principle driver of the push to expand destructive carbon trading.

The huge influence of corporate polluters and other corporate and financial vested interests over the positions of governments is the underlying reason why Durban’s outcome was so disastrous. The pressure and influence of these interest groups undermines the ability of ordinary citizens and civil society to hold our governments to account for their action on climate and their positions in the international climate negotiations.

“Developed country governments have connived to weaken the rules that require their countries to act on climate whilst strengthening the rules that allow their corporations to profit from the crisis” said Bobby Peek of groundWork / Friends of the Earth South Africa.

“After bailing out the banks, rich countries at the climate talks refused to commit a single new dollar for climate finance for developing countries. They insisted on allowing multinational corporations and global financial elites to directly access the Green Climate Fund, and pushed through the opening up of further possibilities for speculation via the dangerous carbon market bubble. It is clear in whose interests this deal has been advanced, and it isn’t the 99% of people around the world,” he continued.

Destructive proposals

Many developing country negotiators expressed growing concerns as the talks progressed. The Africa Group (comprising the 54 countries in Africa), India, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Nicaragua and a number of small island states all pushed back against the destructive proposals being advanced. But developing countries were coerced into having to accept a “take it or leave it” package to save the Kyoto Protocol and the Green Climate Fund and failed to stand strong and united against the disastrous final outcome of the talks. One of the most vocal critics, India, caved at the last minute to demands by the US and other developed countries that provisions to safeguard an equitable approach to tackling the climate crisis be excluded from the Durban agreement.

“Ordinary people have once again been let down by governments. Behind the failure in Durban lies the huge influence of corporate polluters and the disproportionate power of the rich developed world. The noise of the vested interests has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the ears of our leaders,” said Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Climate Justice Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International.

“It is clear that right now our governments cannot do the job we need them to do. But outside the negotiating halls, in our universities, our workplaces, and on the streets, vibrant movements are coming together to build a fair and better world. It is in this growing movement — of workers, women, farmers, students, Indigenous Peoples, and others affected by this greedy economic system — where we can find hope of solutions to the climate crisis,” she continued.

Where now for climate justice?

Friends of the Earth International believes that we need to radically transform our global economy to create a more just and sustainable world. We need dramatic cuts in emissions on the basis of science and equity and a transformation in our economies to make this a reality.

Developed countries also have a moral and legal obligation to honour their climate debt and provide adequate public finance to developing countries to develop sustainably and protect the vulnerable from climate impacts.

A strong and fair UN agreement on climate is essential, and to get it we will work with others to strengthen the movement for justice in all countries and hold our governments to account to ensure that politics works for people and the planet, not for profit.

For more information

Friends of the Earth International media line: +31 20 622 13 69 or email: media [at] foei.org

Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International: +234 803 727 4395 or email: nnimmo [at] eraction.org

Bobby Peek, Director of Friends of the Earth South Africa: +27 824 641 383 or email: bobby [at] groundwork.org.za

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Climate Justice & Energy Coordinator for Friends of the Earth International: +44 79 12 40 65 10 email: sarah.clifton [at] foe.co.uk

FoE Canada releases “Plug and Play” model regulation to help Canada reduce greenhouse gas pollution

For immediate release

Friends of the Earth donates its services to help Canada in its time of embarrassment

(Ottawa, December 8, 2011) With Canada’s international environmental reputation at rock bottom at the Durban climate negotiations, Friends of the Earth Canada has decided to donate its services to help Canada.

“Canada’s Minister of the Environment showing up in Durban without domestic regulations in place is shocking,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “So we’ve prepared a model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming, that mirrors exactly what our government needs to finally regulate greenhouse gas pollution from the largest emitters in Canada.”

Friends of the Earth has provided an efficient, actionable model regulation in exactly the format needed to plug it into the regulatory process. The model regulation targets reporting factories and plants to the National Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory because they operate stationary facilities which are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. The required reductions would be accomplished in stages and based on data reported by the approximately 800 emitters themselves.

In Copenhagen, Canada lowered its commitment to a target of 17% of greenhouse gases by 2020 using a 2005 baseline. The model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming, shows the government how to meet this target and schedule using mandatory information reported by factories and facilities in Canada since 2004.

While Friends of the Earth believes dramatic emission reductions are necessary to save the world from catastrophic warming, it is pragmatic about what is possible today in Canada. “Some businesses may be ready to meet these minimalistic targets,” said Olivastri, “but none are going to do even this until regulations are put in place. It is appalling that Canada doesn’t have these rules in place.”

The Notice of Intent and the model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances causing Global Warming Regulation can be viewed at www.foecanada.org.

In Canada, regulations are a form of law with binding legal effect. The first steps in Canada’s regulatory process are developing a regulatory proposal for an enabling Act, review by the central agency and pre-publication.

- 30 -

For further information, contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth (613) 241-0085 x26 or (613) 724-8690

Friends of the Earth Canda is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues.


Backgrounder — December 8, 2011

The model regulation Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming issued by Friends of the Earth Canada has these advantages:

  • it is “Plug and Play,” written in a format that can be immediately used;
  • it is direct;
  • it targets the greenhouse gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs);
  • it is fully consistent with — and will achieve — the reductions committed to by the Government of Canada at the Copenhagen and Cancún meetings of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol — namely 17% from 2005 levels, by December 31, 2021;
  • it is based on data provided by the companies that report to the National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory;
  • therefore, it targets those companies whose facilities are considered by the Government of Canada to be the highest emitters of greenhouse gases;
  • it phases in, at three levels, the reductions from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2021, so that the regulated companies can space out their costs to achieve the 17% reduction from 2005 levels by December 31, 2021;
  • it requires the regulated companies to install continuous emissions monitoring systems of their choice for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, provided that the systems meet performance criteria for precision and accuracy to be set by the scientific experts of Environment Canada;
  • it leaves to those companies the choice of technology to achieve the required reductions;
  • it covers reductions of greenhouse gases in the various types of emissions by those companies — e.g. emissions from stationary combustion emissions, from industrial processes, etc.; and
  • it requires the regulated companies to report their achieved reductions only three times — no later than February 28, 2015, February 28, 2018, February 28, 2022 — hence keeping reporting to the minimum that would allow the Government of Canada to track progress by the regulated companies.

The model regulation Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming leaves to the scientific experts of Environment Canada the selection or development of methods of calculation for the greenhouse gases.

Friends of the Earth Canada believes that applying this Model Regulation is the essential step that Canada must take, at the federal level, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its lowered public commitments stated at the Copenhagen and Cancún meetings of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Note: The model regulation does not address emission reduction by new facilities.

Latest lethal threat to the Great Lakes must be halted

For immediate release

Friends of the Earth Canada supports U.S. States’ case on invasion of Asian Carp

(Ottawa, November 28, 2011) Friends of the Earth Canada joins U.S. States in the fight to stop the Asian Carp invasion of the Great Lakes citing the mutual obligation of Canada and the U.S. under the Boundary Waters Treaty to prevent transboundary pollution including biological pollution by Asian carp.

Represented by their attorneys, the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and Ecojustice Canada, Friends of the Earth filed an amicus brief on November 22, 2011 urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the appeal by the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These States are in court to force the U.S. Corp of Engineers and other defendants to take urgent action to prevent the invasion of Asian carp into the Great Lakes through the Chicago Area Water System.

“Friends of the Earth is concerned that the U.S. Corp of Engineers has lost sight of the urgent need to stop the invasion of Asian carp into the Great Lakes,” says Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “Families and communities that depend on the Great Lakes for their livelihoods are facing the most lethal threat yet from this invasive fish. We think this lethal threat could and should be stopped.”

“To-date, the Courts have failed to consider the impact on Canadian interests and failed to consider the joint efforts and investment of the U.S. and Canada to restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes,” said Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.

“Canada and the U.S. have worked together for over half a century to revitalize the Great Lakes — now is not the time to expose this collaboration to the destructive force of a ‘biological pollution’ like Asian carp,” said Hugh Wilkins, Ecojustice lawyer.

The Friends of the Earth amicus brief presents two unique issues for the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration — one, that the earlier decision overlooked the important investments made to-date by the two countries for the restoration of the Great Lakes and two, that international treaty obligations require the U.S. Corp of Engineers to act in a manner that would prevent Asian Carp from invading the Great Lakes. The ultimate goal is to force the Corp to place block nets in the Little Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers to prevent passage of Asian carp across these channels into the Great Lakes while also forcing the Corp to expedite completion of their study assessing options to restore the natural separation of the Great lakes and Mississippi River Basins.

In executing the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, Canada and the U.S. agreed that the “boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.” Subsequently, in 1972 and under the authority of the Boundary Waters Treaty, Canada and the U.S. entered into the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, aiming to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”

- 30 -

For further information, contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth (613) 241-0085×26 or (613) 724-8690
Nick Schroeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (313) 820-7797
Hugh Wilkins, Lawyer, Ecojustice (416) 368-7533 x534

Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle

For immediate release

Newfoundlanders shouldn’t have to pay to clean up AbitibiBowater’s pollution

(Ottawa, November 16, 2011) Ecojustice, representing Friends of the Earth, appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada today to argue that insolvent corporations cannot shift the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination to the taxpayer.

This is the first time Canada’s insolvency procedure has been challenged to deal with the polluter pays principle. In this case, the issue is historic contamination by AbitibiBowater Inc.’s mining, shipping and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland.

“Businesses can’t restructure their way out of obligations to remediate the environment,” said William Amos, director of the Ecojustice Clinic at the University of Ottawa. “The system is broken when it forces the environment to line up with creditors and makes Newfoundlanders pay for a mess that AbitibiBowater created.”

AbitibiBowater operated industrial sites in Newfoundland for more than a century until 2008. Its operations have resulted in severe environmental damage, including the deposit of heavy metals and chemicals hazardous to human health into the surrounding lands and waters.

Newfoundland subsequently issued orders under the provincial Environmental Protection Act in November 2009, requiring AbitibiBowater to perform environmental remediation at a number of its former sites. However, because AbitibiBowater had filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, a federal statute, two lower courts said that the company has no obligation to repair the environmental contamination it caused.

“This case has the potential to send a powerful signal to polluters, their bankers and investors on the need to not only disclose but to pay in real time for environmental messes,” says Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “Future generations should not bear the costs of yesterday’s and today’s pollution.”

Ecojustice and Friends of the Earth are also concerned that allowing AbitibiBowater to shirk its responsibility to clean up its former sites threatens the ability of provincial governments to enforce environmental protection statutes and absolves insolvent corporations of any accountability.

“Insolvency processes should not grant a company a clean slate when it comes to environmental contamination,” Amos said. “AbitibiBowater has a new name [Resolute Forest Products], it is restructuring and expects to return to profitability within a few years. Newfoundlanders, on the other hand, are still waiting for those contaminated sites to be cleaned and wondering who will foot the bill.”

For further information, please contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada (613) 241-0085 x26 or (613) 724-8690 (cell)
Pierre Hamilton, Ecojustice Communications Associate (416) 368-7533 x526
Will Amos, Director, Ecojustice Clinic at the University of Ottawa (613) 255-7505 (cell)

Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice fighting for polluter pays principle at Supreme Court

MEDIA ADVISORY, November 15, 2011

For immediate release

Should Newfoundlanders have to pay to cleanup AbitibiBowater’s pollution?

Why: This is the first time Canada’s insolvency procedure is challenged to deal with the polluter pays principle, in this case, for historic contamination by AbitibiBowater’s mining, shipping and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland.

What: Friends of the Earth, represented by Ecojustice, will appear before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. The Supreme Court is considering whether insolvent corporations in Canada must fulfill their past environmental obligations to the public or whether taxpayers must bear the full cost of an environmental clean-up.

Friends of the Earth CEO Beatrice Olivastri and Ecojustice lawyers will be available for comment after the hearing, which is scheduled to end at 1 p.m.

When: Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Where: Supreme Court of Canada, 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario

For further information, please contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth (613) 241-0085 x26 or (613) 724-8690 (cell)

Pierre Hamilton, Ecojustice Communications Associate (416) 368-7533 x526

Will Amos, Director, Ecojustice Clinic at the University of Ottawa (613) 255-7505 (cell)