Activists speak out against fossil fuels amid a new pledge from wealthy nations and EU against new unabated coal power plants. Credit: Joyce Chimbi
BAKU, Nov 21 2024 (IPS) – Of all fossil fuels, coal has had the most serious and long-term effects on global warming. When burnt, coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil and gas, producing an estimated 39 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, coal is still the number one energy source, providing nearly 40 percent of the world’s electricity.
A COP29 deal struck on Wednesday November 21 now holds the promise to change the fossil fuel landscape and climate change trajectory, placing the world back on track to net zero. Twenty-five countries and the EU have now pledged not to build any new unabated coal-power plants in their next round of national climate plans in bid to scale up ambitions in the next phase of climate action.
Fossil fuels are highly polluting. The ‘no new unabated coal power’ COP29 initiative was signed by EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra to pledge that when the 25 nations submit their national climate plans by February 2025 along with all other nations party to the Paris Agreement, theirs will reflect no new unabated coal in their respective energy systems to accelerate phasing out of fossil fuels.
In reference to fossil fuels, ‘unabated’ means taking no measures to reduce the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. Abated refers to attempts to decrease release of polluting substances to an acceptable level.
“I’m often asked what gives me confidence that we can get this job done. The answer is lots of things. Quiet acts of solidarity, from people who get knocked down, but who refuse to stay down. But there are also big things – the macro trends that aren’t up for debate. And there’s none bigger than the global clean energy boom – set to hit two trillion dollars this year alone. And it’s just getting started,” Simon Stiell, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, stressed.
“Money talks, and as we enter the second quarter of this century, it is saying loud and clear: there is no stopping the clean energy juggernaut, and the vast benefits it brings: stronger growth, more jobs, less pollution and inflation, cheaper and cleaner energy. The list of benefits goes on.”
The coalition of nations backing the diplomatic campaign to encourage all countries to end new coal power is constituted of mostly wealthy nations such as Germany, France, Canada, the United Kingdom and notably Australia – a major coal producer. This is the latest pledge towards curbing use of the fuel and phasing out fossil fuels in line with the COP28 deal.
The pledge is incredibly critical for despite coal being extremely dangerous to the global climate goals, a coal boom is unfolding. Data in the Global Coal Plant Tracker show that “69.5 GW of coal power capacity was commissioned while 21.1 GW was retired in 2023, resulting in a net annual increase of 48.4 GW for the year and a global total capacity of 2,130 GW. This is the highest net increase in operating coal capacity since 2016.”
COP29 has been centered around a new deal for climate financing to support the third Nationally Determined Contributions in the developing world, but delegates have not lost sight of the COP28 landmark deal when nearly 200 nations—for the first time—called on all nations to transition away from fossil fuels.
Activists want a net-zero world and they want it now, calling for ambitious climate actions to save the planet. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
Teresa Anderson, the Global Lead on Climate Justice at ActionAid International, told IPS, “Just transitions and climate finance have to go hand in hand. Last year’s agreement to transition away from fossils was an important step. But without finance to make the just transition a reality, developing countries are in a bind.”
Stressing that climate-hit countries want to “leapfrog the fossil fuel era and scale up renewables, but can’t do so when they are being pushed deeper into debt by the climate crisis. To finally unlock the climate action the planet needs, COP29 needs to agree on an ambitious finance goal worth trillions of dollars in grants each year. Ensuring a just transition in energy is about much more than encouraging corporate investment and can’t just be left up to the private sector.
“When shifting away from fossil fuels, governments have a responsibility to actively involve communities in planning, training, social protection and ensuring energy access and secure livelihoods. Public services can join the dots, and have a key role in the just transition. The new climate finance goal has to provide trillions of dollars in grants, not loans or corporate investment targets,” Anderson observed.
Hailed as a major progressive step in the journey towards phasing out fossil fuels, the initiative is nonetheless not the silver bullet to end coal. The new commitment does not compel nations to stop mining or exporting coal. Notably, the world’s greatest coal-power generators, such as the United Nations and India, are not part of the initiative. Nonetheless, despite coal power growing in the past years despite the COP28 deal on fossil fuels, Hoekstra expressed optimism that this call to action will set the ball rolling towards a much-needed fossil fuel phasing out.
Saad Abdulla Al-Hitmi, Director of the Climate Change Department at the Government of Qatar. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS
BAKU, Nov 19 2024 (IPS) – As global leaders gather at COP29 to address the urgent challenges posed by climate change, Saad Abdulla Al-Hitmi, Director of the Climate Change Department at the Government of Qatar, highlighted the nation’s ambitious goals in an interview with IPS, stressing its commitment to balancing environmental stewardship with economic growth.
Qatar’s Vision for Climate Action
Qatar’s participation at COP29, Al-Hitmi says, aligns with its National Vision 2030 and the National Environment and Climate Change Strategy 2021.
“Our message is clear: we aim to contribute to meaningful changes that reduce the impact of climate change while preserving the environment and its resources,” Al-Hitmi stated. This, according to him, is Qatar’s commitment to sustainability, focusing on achieving its nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by 2030 to protect and enhance environmental quality.
Key among Qatar’s goals, he says, is a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
“We are implementing practical solutions and proven technological applications across all sectors to achieve this target,” Al-Hitmi said.
Adapting and Financing for the Future
According to Al-Hitmi, adaptation financing must complement mitigation efforts to ensure vulnerable countries can effectively address the impacts of climate change.
“We are working to balance adaptation and mitigation financing during climate negotiations,” he said. “Adaptation is vital for developing countries, and we are negotiating to secure gains that will fund critical adaptation projects.”
‘A Leading Voice in Climate Diplomacy’
Al-Hitmi said that by leveraging cutting-edge technology and championing equitable financing mechanisms, the nation seeks to inspire collective action on the global stage.
“Our participation at COP29 is about collaboration,” Al-Hitmi said. “It’s about ensuring that our shared planet is preserved for future generations.”
Dr. Amina Schartup, Marine Chemist, sharing insights on mercury pollution and its global impact at COP29, Ocean Pavilion, Baku, Azerbaijan. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS
BAKU, Nov 19 2024 (IPS) – Mercury pollution from burning coal is contaminating our oceans and seafood, threatening global health.
Dr. Amina Schartup, a marine chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, has spent nearly 20 years studying the mercury cycle. Her research sheds light on how this heavy metal, released through industrial activities like coal burning, affects ecosystems and people worldwide.
“Mercury is released into the environment through various industries, with coal burning being a major source,” she explains. The problem goes beyond carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as mercury travels globally, settling in places as remote as the Arctic and high mountains.
When mercury reaches the oceans, it is transformed by microbes into methylmercury, a highly toxic form. “This form accumulates in seafood, especially in larger predatory fish like tuna and swordfish, which many humans consume,” Schartup says. This poses serious health risks, including developmental issues in children and cardiovascular problems in adults.
How Widespread Is Mercury Exposure?
Fish consumption is the primary way mercury enters the human body. According to Schartup, “If 3 billion people rely on seafood, then 3 billion people are exposed to mercury through fish.”
The health impacts, however, are complex.
“Fish consumption is generally healthy, supporting brain development, but consuming too much fish with high mercury levels can offset those benefits,” she notes. This makes balancing seafood consumption tricky, especially for communities heavily dependent on it.
Mercury exposure is a chronic issue, with small amounts accumulating in the body over time. The toxic effects, especially on fetal development, can result in reduced IQ and other developmental problems.
Mercury and Climate Change: A Dangerous Mix
Climate change intensifies mercury’s impact on oceans and seafood. Schartup explains, “The mercury cycle is connected to the environment, so any changes—like rising temperatures or melting sea ice—will affect it.”
For instance, warming oceans change the behavior of fish and microbes. “Warmer waters can cause fish to eat more, which increases their mercury levels,” she says. Melting sea ice, which acts as a cap on the ocean, alters mercury exchange between the air and water. Freshwater inputs from melting glaciers or rivers also bring more mercury into the oceans.
These factors combine to make mercury levels in seafood even more unpredictable, creating additional challenges for public health.
Global Pollution, Local Consequences
One of the most alarming aspects of mercury pollution is its global reach. Once released into the atmosphere, mercury can travel thousands of miles before settling. “It can deposit in pristine areas like the Arctic, far from the emission sources,” Schartup explains.
Microbial activity in different environments determines where mercury is transformed into its toxic form. “It happens everywhere,” she says, emphasizing that no region is immune to this problem.
What Needs to Change?
At COP29, Schartup is advocating for a broader understanding of how emissions impact the environment and human health. “Climate change isn’t just about CO2. Burning coal also releases mercury, which contaminates fish and affects the health of millions,” she says.
Reducing coal usage could address both carbon and mercury pollution.
“By solving the CO2 crisis, we can tackle mercury contamination as well. This isn’t just about climate; it’s about health too,” she stresses.
Schartup believes this issue should resonate with everyone, especially those who eat fish regularly. “Turning on the light switch is linked to mercury in the fish we eat. It’s all connected,” she explains.
Protecting Vulnerable Communities
Some populations are more affected than others, particularly those relying heavily on seafood. These communities face a double burden: the health risks from mercury and the challenges of adapting to climate change.
Schartup emphasizes the need for policies to protect these vulnerable groups. Reducing coal emissions and investing in cleaner energy sources could lessen mercury pollution and its far-reaching effects.
A Call to Action
Mercury pollution is a hidden crisis, but its effects on human health and the environment are profound. Schartup’s research underscores the urgency of addressing this issue as part of global climate action.
“We have a chance to solve multiple problems at once,” she says. Reducing coal emissions won’t just cut CO2; it will also protect our oceans, seafood, and health.
This interconnected approach, she believes, is key to creating a sustainable future for all.
Roland Kupers, a lead architect at the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Methane Emissions Observatory
BAKU, Nov 18 2024 (IPS) – Methane emissions have emerged as a focal point of discussion as global leaders congregate at COP29 in Baku to tackle the escalating climate crisis.
The Methane Problem: Sectoral Challenges and Opportunities
“Methane emissions are not a singular issue but rather a collection of problems spanning five key sectors: oil and gas, coal, waste, rice, and livestock,” Kupers said. He adds that each sector requires tailored solutions.
“UNEP has prioritized the oil and gas industry due to its substantial potential for reduction.”
“The oil and gas industry could achieve a 75 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2030. It’s not only affordable but also feasible, given the industry’s access to technology, capital, and expertise,” Kupers said, adding that the waste sector also presents significant opportunities, although organizing mitigation measures in this sector poses logistical challenges.
UNEP’s approach includes creating detailed programs to address emissions in high-impact industries like oil, gas, and steel.
“Methane emissions account for a third of the climate footprint of steel production, yet they can be eliminated at a cost of less than 1% of steel’s production price.”
Data: A Cornerstone for Action
Kupers also underlined the critical role of accurate data in driving methane mitigation efforts.
“Data is essential for human agency. Without precise, measurement-based data, it’s impossible to identify and address the specific sources of emissions effectively.”
According to him, many existing datasets rely on emission factors derived from outdated studies. UNEP advocates transitioning to real-time, site-specific measurements to better target interventions.
“When you gather accurate data, you often find emissions in unexpected places, stressing the need for precise monitoring.”
Systemic Shifts in the Energy Sector
To align with the 2030 climate goals, Kupers argues for a fundamental transformation of the global energy system.
“While mitigating methane emissions is crucial, it’s not a substitute for decarbonization. The ultimate objective must be to eliminate fossil fuels entirely.”
He also highlighted the health benefits of reducing methane emissions.
“Methane, both directly and through incomplete combustion, contributes to significant local health hazards.”
The Financial Perspective
While climate discussions often center around the financial challenges of adaptation and mitigation, Kupers believes that addressing methane emissions, particularly in the oil and gas sector, is not a financial burden.
“The oil and gas industry is highly profitable and well-resourced. It has no excuse for not addressing its methane emissions,” Kupers said, adding that even oil and gas operations in developing countries operate in highly sophisticated, well-funded environments.
Responsibilities of Developed Nations
The methane issue differs from broader climate equity debates, Kupers explained.
“For methane emissions in oil and gas, the responsibility to act is universal. Whether in Nigeria, Argentina, or Indonesia, the industry operates with the same high standards and capabilities as in developed countries.”
This universality makes methane mitigation a “climate good news story,” as it bypasses some of the equity challenges seen in broader decarbonization debates.
Barriers to Progress
Despite decades of climate discussions, significant hurdles remain in addressing global warming. He attributes the slow progress to a lack of prioritization and awareness about methane’s role.
“Methane has only recently gained prominence on the global agenda. The science highlighting its importance has emerged in the past decade,” Kupers said. Policymakers are often unaware of methane’s substantial climate footprint or the cost-effective solutions available.
Key COP-29 Objectives
“UNEP has established ambitious goals for methane mitigation. The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP 2.0), a UNEP-led initiative, currently includes companies responsible for 42 percent of global oil and gas production. Kupers urged more companies to join, with the aim of achieving 80 percent participation,” Kupers said.
Another critical initiative is the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS), which integrates data from a dozen satellites to identify significant emission sources. UNEP then notifies governments and companies of these emissions.
“Over the past year, we’ve sent 1,200 notifications to governments, but the response rate has been dismal—just 1 percent,” Kupers said, a disappointing lack of engagement that points to the need for stronger accountability measures at COP29.
The Stakes: Why Methane Matters
Human-induced methane emissions are responsible for a third of the current warming. Unlike CO2, which is often a byproduct of energy use, methane emissions are largely waste streams. This makes them easier to address and a critical opportunity for climate action.
“Methane mitigation is not just an environmental necessity but a low-hanging fruit. It’s a solvable problem, and we must seize this opportunity,” Kupers said.
COP29 will need to build on COP16’s successes and mitigate its failures. Credit: COP16
BAKU, Nov 15 2024 (IPS) – The United States just went through its most consequential election. While the outcome raises questions about what the re-election of Trump means for U.S. engagement in global climate talks moving forward (in view of his previous stunt), the game is still on, with or without him. Despite the challenges, local communities, cities, states, private actors, and the public more broadly have embarked on an unstoppable journey—upholding the spirit of the Paris Agreement.
The world’s biodiversity agreement just faced its first big test in Cali, Colombia, at the United Nations’ 16th Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP16). The results were decidedly mixed, with some breakthroughs but also critical missed opportunities. Ultimately, it left the international community with a suite of urgent priorities to address our rapidly closing window to halt biodiversity collapse and to align the protection of nature with action on climate change.
With countries rapidly pivoting to the UN climate conference (COP29) this week, they will need to build on COP16’s successes and mitigate its failures, prioritizing the equitable delivery of main “AAA” objectives that are relevant to both: accountability, the alignment of biodiversity and climate plans, and the adequacy of resource mobilization and access to finance.
COP16 in Cali was the first Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP since the December 2022 adoption of the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF or, commonly, GBF). The GBF set forth a plan to reverse and halt biodiversity loss by 2030 through the achievement of 23 action-oriented targets and to live in harmony with nature by 2050 by meeting four overarching goals.
COP16 offered a chance to make progress on the AAA objectives, as they are essential to delivering on the GBF, while also ensuring equity is built into each of them. These objectives manifest in some of COP16’s most notable outcomes, including the adoption of a work program and the creation of a permanent subsidiary body on Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) under the CBD, with a recognition of the role of Afro-descendants. The outcomes also included decisions on a historic and long-overdue fund to foster equitable benefits sharing from their knowledge.
Overall, however, the international community left Cali with a long road ahead for meaningful, enduring, and equitable implementation.
Accountability A long history of failed promises on biodiversity cast a broad shadow as the international community began negotiations at COP16. None of the biodiversity conservation targets set for 2010–2020 were fully met, making the challenge of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in the following decades much harder. While parties to the CBD have had two years since adopting the GBF to revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are supposed to detail how they will fulfill their GBF obligations, only about 22 percent of countries had done so by the conclusion of the COP.
Developed countries have been particularly notorious for sidestepping accountability, especially on forest commitments. For decades, international policy has largely focused on addressing deforestation in the tropics while allowing the wealthier countries of the Global North to evade scrutiny for their own forest degradation. As countries chart their ambition under the GBF and related commitments at the intersection of nature and climate, voices from the Global South, including the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, have begun calling for frameworks to drive more equitable accountability.
The GBF’s monitoring framework presented an opportunity to begin correcting this imbalance through the adoption of concrete, shared indicators to guide biodiversity protection and restoration. Instead, in the months leading up to COP16, negotiators began building a monitoring framework that risks cloaking business as usual under the guise of progress. Ultimately, without additional revisions and willingness to strengthen the indicators, the monitoring framework will be subject to the same inequities and weaknesses that have plagued policies for decades.
As countries look to build accountability, the enhanced transparency framework and global stocktake under the UN climate convention can provide models for how to bring more teeth into the CBD process and foster responsibility for all parties. In addition, wealthy countries need to ensure their NBSAPs are action-oriented and to hold themselves to the same standards on deforestation and forest degradation that they expect in the tropics.
There may also be opportunities to channel success elsewhere into greater accountability on biodiversity conservation. One example is the progressing ratification of the new high seas treaty, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for biodiversity conservation at a global scale. The treaty must be ratified by 60 nations to come into force and then be effectively implemented, both of which saw progress at COP16 with the announcement of Panama’s ratification during the COP and several countries confirming the signing of the treaty and announcing intentions to start working on the first round of high seas marine protected areas.
Alignment of biodiversity and climate efforts Biodiversity loss and climate change are inextricably linked, requiring aligned, synergistic action. The UN biodiversity and climate conventions have historically been siloed, resulting in disconnected, sometimes conflicting decision-making and ambition. Last December, at the UN climate conference in Dubai (COP28), countries agreed to the first global stocktake, which emphasized the need to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 and to align with the GBF.
COP16 created an opening for fostering that alignment and ensuring coordination and complementarity. Parties agreed to establish a process, with submissions of views from all stakeholders by May 2025, for coordinating between the three Rio Conventions (addressing climate, biodiversity, and desertification). This creates a pathway for ensuring that climate mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity protection and restoration mutually reinforce each other’s priorities.
At COP29, negotiators should build off of this leadership, elevating the need to integrate climate and biodiversity commitments and reinforcing the importance of an efficient, robust collaboration process. Particularly given next year’s ocean and climate summits in France and Brazil, respectively, which will thrust oceans and forests to the forefront of the climate agenda, it is imperative that countries set the stage for the alignment between biodiversity and climate commitments, create opportunities for the exchange of lessons and best practices between the conventions, and deliver more robust and ambitious climate and biodiversity plans as soon as possible, and no later than in a year’s time in 2025.
Adequacy of finance As at COP15, the issue causing the greatest rift at COP16 was the question of how to fund the biodiversity conservation called for in the GBF. Since the signing of the GBF, positions—particularly divisions between developed and developing countries—have only hardened. The European Union announced in September that it was opposed to a key demand of developing countries: the creation of a new finance mechanism to distribute biodiversity finance. At the same time, the Ministerial Alliance for Ambition on Nature Finance released a statement from 20 Global South countries calling on the Global North to meet the commitments it made in the GBF to ensure that at least $20 billion per year is delivered from developed to developing countries by 2025 and that at least $30 billion per year is delivered by 2030.
Unfortunately, discussions on these issues started too late in the negotiations and dragged into the last day of the COP, until the meeting ended abruptly for lack of a quorum. The aborted talks adjourned with no agreed-upon strategy for increasing funds to finance nature conservation. Countries will now continue talks next year at an interim meeting.
This result is unacceptable. The vast majority of countries in the Global South will not have the resources necessary to meet their obligations in the GBF if the Global North does not meet its funding commitments.
The problem is compounded given that some of the key sticking points of biodiversity finance echo discussions about climate finance. For example, under the UN climate convention, there have been similar disagreements around appropriate finance mechanisms, such as around the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund in 2022. During those and other discussions, diverging opinions around sources of finance, transparency, and access to funding have stymied progress. Now, with the inconclusive end of COP16 on these issues, there is even larger, more entrenched distrust between developed and developing countries.
At COP29, countries need to agree to a new, ambitious climate finance goal to build the needed confidence among governments and the private sector to pursue more ambitious climate action that also drives the protection of nature; the richest and most-polluting countries must therefore dramatically enhance their efforts.
This is not charity—it is investment for economic and social justice, a matter of national, food, and energy security, and it is essential to building a climate-safer world for all.
Ultimately, all countries will get hurt by climate impacts with billions’ worth of damages. The richest countries are not immune to this (as we saw most recently in the United States and Spain), and they all need to step up. A deal on finance cannot just hinge on the United States. That was true before, and it’s truer now.
Looking forward For both climate and nature, 2030 is a deadline that will dictate our future. By then, the international community will need to have implemented transformative change across all sectors, establishing climate-safe, nature-positive economies while ensuring equity and human rights.
Government progress, including at the subnational level, on accountability, alignment, and adequacy of finance is particularly critical given the unprecedented attention from the private sector on biodiversity and climate risks and outcomes. Companies and investors had a major presence at COP16—they are paying close attention to these negotiations and to the growing risks of failing to take action. Signals from the government are critical to pushing money flows and supply chains toward sustainable, equitable outcomes and building the structures that will transform business practices.
COP16 made important strides but ultimately left far too much on the table. At COP29 and beyond, parties need to renew trust and pursue their resolve to rapidly scale up and invest in holistic, equitable, all-of-planet approaches that propel action at every level of society and government, finally turning global commitments into reality on the ground. COP29 needs to and can deliver.
Note: Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President of NRDC International, Amanda Maxwell, Managing Director of NRDC Global, Zak Smith, Senior Attorney of NRDC International, and Jennifer Skene, Director of NRDC Global Northern Forests Policy, International, wrote this article. It was republished with the permission of NRDC International.
Community health worker in Nepal helping giving polio vaccine to a child. Climate change-induced events are affecting basic health facilities directly. Photo: Tanka Dhakal/IPS
BAKU, Nov 14 2024 (IPS) – Climate change and its impact on public health hasn’t made the top of the agenda even at a forum like the UN Climate Conference, but is should, say the health community.
Understanding the gap, more than 100 organizations from across the international health and climate community came together as the Global Climate and Health Alliance and have called wealthy countries to protect people’s health by committing to provide climate finance in the order of a trillion dollars annually, in addition to global action with leadership from the highest emitting countries to end the fossil fuel era.
Alliance endorsed nine recommendations for the summit through a policy brief—‘A COP29 for People and Planet’ which includes financing to community engagement.
In an interview with Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance IPS asked about the recommendations and why they were necessary.
Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.
IPS: How and why the international health and climate community came together—why was it necessary, right before COP29?
Miller: For many years, the UN climate negotiations have been going on. For many years, health was not a part of the conversation. And in fact, the Global Climate and Health Alliance was established because a handful of health organizations felt like this is an important health issue, and we need to get health into that conversation, and we’re not seeing it there. Over the years, more and more health organizations have really begun to understand the threat that climate change poses to people’s health. I think a big contributing factor as well is that we are now seeing those impacts of climate change in real time in communities all over the world—every country, every region, is seeing some combination of extreme weather events.
This is directly impacting the communities that we serve, and we have to raise the alarm bell and make sure that we’re pushing for those solutions that are going to protect people’s health. The report, specifically the policy recommendations, is really an attempt to take what we’re seeing from the health perspective, the concerns that we have. About the threat that this poses for people’s health and the reality of the impacts on people’s health, and somewhat translate that into terms that make sense for negotiators to pick that up, understand it, and use it in the context of those actual decision-making processes in the climate talks.
IPS: Wealth is concentrated on one side of the world or one section of the community, but burden—especially public health burden—is on marginalized communities who don’t have access to basic resources. Is there any way that gap will be narrowed in the near future?
Miller: This is such a critically important issue. And unfortunately, we’re seeing some real extremes of wealth disparity—ironically, in countries that have huge wealth disparity within the country, everyone is less healthy than they would be if there was less health disparity. If people were more equal, that would be healthier for everyone. But the reality is, many people, as you say, don’t have the resources to access the basic necessities of life. Healthy food, clean water, electricity of any kind, but particularly clean energy, even access to education, access to basic health care—all of those things are really vital to growing up healthy and to living a healthy life. And the thing that is so clear is that access to those basic necessities early in life makes a tremendous difference in being able to grow up healthy, resilient, and productive.
It’s a huge impact on the individual that’s growing up without those resources—it’s also an impact on society. So, a society that has people that grow up with enough resources to be resilient, healthy, and well educated is a healthier society. And I would argue that that extends not only within a community or even a country but also internationally. So, if we have huge disparities internationally, that’s also kind of a drain on the world, a challenge for the world as a whole. It leads to conflict, it leads to friction, and it leads to difficulty making decisions to tackle climate change together. I would argue that it’s really in the best interest of wealthy countries to make those investments to help the lowest-income, vulnerable countries have the resource they need to address those basic necessities. I think it’s fundamental. It’s the right thing to do.
I think for so many reasons, it’s important that the wealthy countries do step up and provide this kind of resources.
IPS: While talking about the resources, wealthy countries are already far behind on their climate finance commitment. Do you think they will consider financing to protect people’s health?
Miller: This is a major focus of this year’s climate negotiations. In fact, on the table is a major discussion about a new pot of financing for climate change, and I don’t think we know the answer yet as to how that’s going to come out.
It often gets talked about as we can’t economically afford to put in that money. I think a key question is, what is the cost of inaction? If we fail to act, we’re already seeing. The cost of failing to act on climate change is immense. The cost of failing to enable countries to be better, prepared to be better, to have their systems, their water and sanitation systems be stronger, their hospitals be more prepared, etc. The costs are just staggering. So, when we’re talking about, can we afford to put the money into climate action, I think we also need to ask the question, can we afford not to? I think the answer is no. And then the last thing that I’ll say about this is, and this is also important, we are currently subsidizing fossil fuels more than a trillion a year in direct public subsidies. So that’s public money going into supporting the production and use of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change.
So again, when we’re talking about, can we afford to or are we prepared to invest in climate action and put money into a Climate Fund? We need to ask ourselves the question. What is the cost of not doing so? And then where else is public money going that could be going into moving us in the right direction, towards clean energy, towards climate resilience?
IPS: You talked about the extreme weather events. In recent years, extreme events contributed by climate change are causing destruction en masse; often its monetary losses will be counted but its public health impact is still to be discussed. How do you see climate and health discussion moving forward especially regarding financing?
Miller: I don’t think it happens by itself. In my own country, the US, we are seeing climate-exacerbated disaster, and yet people not accepting the role of climate change in that and not accepting that the health impacts, the dislocation, and the trauma that they’re experiencing were caused by climate change.
It’s not necessarily going to happen just by itself, in in other countries as well. People may be feeling the impacts, but not connecting the dots, and not because of disinformation, not recognizing.
I do think that it’s important for those who know about those connections—the scientists, the advocates, the health professionals who are looking at these issues, the academic departments—to talk about it and articulate what those connections are.
But then I do think that each time one of those extreme weather events does create the opportunity for that conversation to happen, and we need to step up to those opportunities.
And I think that can make a really big difference in changing the nature of the conversation and opening-up possibility for a deeper conversation about what we need to do about this.
IPS: Let’s talk about the report. It talks about healthy climate action for most affected communities. Can you explain it for our audience and what would be the role of the community?
Miller: It’s so often the case that decisions get made without consulting communities affected by those decisions. There can be very good will that is, and good intentions behind that, and yet the results are not going to be as good if you’re not working with the people affected by the issue. The thing that community members know that nobody else knows in the way that they know it is their lived experience of what’s going on in their community, their resources in terms of their own knowledge, their own community relationships, their own resilience, their own techniques. There may be techniques that they know for growing food and their ecosystem.
There may be knowledge you know for forced communities, knowledge that they have of the force that they live in. There is very deep knowledge that communities have about their circumstances, their context, and their needs and what they can bring in terms of solutions, so effectively working with communities means really involving them in the conversation from the get-go when designing programs and projects and all of that sort of thing. And I think when it comes even to financing, thinking about how finance for Climate Solutions reaches that community level.
I think another thing that’s really important to recognize is that climate change puts a huge strain on all of us. It’s a huge psychological strain just to live in the climate era. Enabling communities to come together and be a part of the solution helps to heal that burden.
IPS: You touched on mental health. The report also talks about mental health and wellbeing outcomes—we are seeing people struggling with climate-related post- and pre-event psychological burden in different forms. How do you see this dimension moving forward?
Miller: That is one area where I’ve definitely seen significant progress in the last several years. I think I’ve seen significant progress in increasingly recognizing the health impacts of climate change and the health threat that climate change poses, and then within that, significant progress in beginning to recognize and acknowledge and understand the mental health dimensions of this. There’s a long way to go, but it is a part of the conversation, and it’s an important one.
There are mental health impacts before or after an extreme weather event, and that can show up as kind of anxiety and stress, a variety of things. People who go through major extreme weather events, like the post-traumatic stress of having experienced that and having gone through it, not knowing if it might happen again or when it might happen again.
There’s also the sense of losing one’s world, losing the world that one grew up in, losing the environment that one, the world that one grew up in and seeing those things kind of slip away—this sort of a cultural, ecological and cultural dimension to that. And if you know, failing to acknowledge that mental health dimension both leaves people suffering and also leaves people sort of disempowered.
I think community is important in response to those kinds of mental health challenges—the kind of recognition that there are actions that one can take and ways that one can come together. And some of those actions may be kind of the direct actions of sustainability, working to live a more sustainable lifestyle. I think even, maybe even more important than that, are actions of coming together with the community to influence the kinds of decisions that get made, to call for the kinds of policies that will turn the needle on climate change, to have a voice in the larger conversation. I think that can be even more powerful.
IPS: Do you have anything to add that we may have missed or you wanted to add?
Miller: I think the one thing that I would add is that, right now, every government that’s part of the Paris Agreement is in the process of drafting new national climate commitments.
It’s an important opportunity, not just at the international level, and as at these big international climate talks, but at home, in every single country, for people to call on their governments to make commitments that are aligned with protecting their health from climate change.
Also, I think it’s important to continue to focus on what we can do. The headwinds can feel pretty strong. Addressing climate change will be something that we’re doing for the rest of our lives, not just for the rest of my life—anybody alive today will be dealing with this issue for the rest of our lives. So, we need to maintain our stamina around it and know that this is a long-term commitment and know that it’s worth it.
