Placeholder Content Image

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

<p>Having led the delegates at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow to believe that the first draft of the final agreement would be published at midnight Tuesday, the UK presidency will not have made many friends by delaying it till 6am Wednesday morning. There will have been plenty of negotiators – not to mention journalists – who will have needlessly waited up all night.</p> <p>In fact, COP26 president Alok Sharma will not have made many friends with the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CMA-3.pdf">text itself</a> either. As the host and chair of the summit, it is the UK’s responsibility to pull together all the negotiating texts which have been submitted and agreed over the last week into a coherent overall agreement.</p> <p>But the widespread consensus among delegates I have spoken to is that the draft they have produced is not sufficiently “balanced” between the interests and positions of the various country groupings. And for the chair of such delicate negotiations, that is a dangerous sin.</p> <p>Let’s recap. This COP (the conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the designated moment under the 2015 Paris Agreement when countries must come forward with strengthened commitments to act. There are two main areas for this. One is emissions cuts by 2030, the so-called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs. The other, for the developed countries, is financial assistance to the least developed nations.</p> <p>The problem facing the COP is that we know already that, when added together, countries’ emissions targets are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report">not nearly enough</a> to keep the world to a maximum warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial times, as the Paris Agreement aims for. And the financial promises don’t even reach the US$100 billion (£74.1 billion) a year that was meant to be achieved in 2020, let alone the much larger sums the most vulnerable countries need.</p> <p>So what have the poorest countries – and the vociferous civil society organisations demonstrating in Glasgow – been demanding?</p> <p>First, that NDCs should be strengthened before the scheduled date of 2025. And second, that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3">at least US$500 billion</a> should be provided in climate finance over the five years to 2025, with half of this going to help countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing.</p> <h2>Urging – not requiring</h2> <p>So what does the UK draft text say? It merely “urges” countries to strengthen their NDCs, proposing a meeting of ministers next year and a leaders’ summit in 2023. But “urges” is UN-speak for: “You may do this if you wish to, but you don’t have to if you don’t.” That is not enough to force countries to get onto a 1.5℃-compatible path. The text must require them to do so.</p> <p>On finance, the text is even weaker. There is no mention of the US$500 billion demand, although it does call for adaptation funding to be doubled. There is no mention of using the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/08/23/how-the-world-can-make-the-most-of-new-special-drawing-rights">special drawing rights</a> (a kind of global money supply) which the IMF has recently issued for climate-compatible development. And there is insufficient recognition that the most vulnerable countries need much better access to the funds available.</p> <p>Of course, developing countries do not expect to get all their own way in the negotiations. But commenting on the overall balance of the text between different countries’ positions, one European delegate said to me: “This looks like it could have been written by the Americans.”</p> <p>It is of course true, as Alok Sharma emphasised in his afternoon press conference, that the text can still be changed. There are several issues on which negotiations are continuing and the text has yet to reflect their progress. Sharma has asked all parties to send in their suggested amendments to the draft and to meet him to discuss their reactions. He will find himself asked for a lot of meetings.</p> <p>But it matters how this early text is drafted, for two reasons. First, the lack of balance means that it is the least developed countries which will have to do the most work to change it. In Paris the French presidency worked the other way round. They drafted an ambitious text and dared the biggest emitters to oppose it.</p> <p>Second, the perceived imbalance could affect the trust in the British hosts. Sharma has built himself a strong reputation over the past couple of years preparing for the COP. He will not want to lose that in the crucial last days ahead.</p> <p><strong>This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.</strong> <br /><em>Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. <a href="https://page.theconversation.com/cop26-glasgow-2021-climate-change-summit/"><strong>More.</strong></a></em> <!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171632/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-jacobs-840558">Michael Jacobs</a>, Professorial Fellow, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop26-what-the-draft-climate-agreement-says-and-why-its-being-criticised-171632">original article</a>.</p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

"I won't cop sledging on Australia": ScoMo hits back

<p>After French president Emmanuel Macron called Scott Morrison a liar, the Prime Minister has hit back. </p> <p>While in Glasgow for the COP26 Climate Change conference, ScoMo told reporters that he would not "cop slurs" about the integrity of Australia, and that he had no regrets about his seemingly quick decision to back out of a $90 billion submarine contract with France. </p> <p>Macron accused the Prime Minister of lying by not revealing he was in talks with the UK and the US over the <span>acquisition of nuclear submarines before he pulled out of the French deal.</span></p> <p>While at the G20 summit in Rome, Macron made the comment to Australian reporters, after several weeks to escalating diplomatic tensions between Australia and France. </p> <p>“I have a lot of respect and a lot of friendship for (Australian) people,” he said.</p> <p>“I just say when we have respect, you have to be true and you have to behave in line and consistently with this value."</p> <p>When asked if he thought Mr Morrison had lied to him, he said: “I don’t think, I know”.</p> <p>In a fiery response, Scott Morrison said he didn't wish to "personalise the spat", but would not accept <span>“statements questioning Australia’s integrity”.</span></p> <p>“There’s no element of that from my perspective. I must say that I think the statements that were made questioning Australia’s integrity and the slurs that have been placed on Australia, not me, I’ve got broad shoulders. I can deal with that."</p> <p>“But those slurs, I’m not going to cop sledging at Australia. I’m not going to cop that on behalf of Australians."</p> <p>“I can deal with whatever people throw at me. But Australia has a proud record when it comes to our defence capability. That’s why we will be building these. We’ll be building others. And Australia’s service record, I think needs no elaboration. And so that’s where we are.”</p> <p>He went on to say that the conventional diesel submarines that would have been built under the French deal would not have met Australia's needs. </p> <p><span>“I have to put Australia’s interests before any interests that involved potentially offending others,” he said.</span></p> <p><span>Despite being at the Climate Change conference when Scott Morrison gave the interview, he dedicated all of his air time to responding to Macron, and no mention of Australia's climate change policy. </span></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Dan's dilemma: The China deal Premier Andrews can't back out of

<p><span>Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has hit a roadblock after the relationship between Australia and China plunged to a new low this week.</span><br /><br /><span>In his press conference on Wednesday, he didn’t hesitate to slam the graphic fake image that depicted an Australian soldier slitting a child’s throat.</span><br /><br /><span>He said that image was “just beyond the pale”.</span><br /><br /><span>“It’s wrong. I condemn it,” he said.</span><br /><br /><span>“I would hope the rhetoric, the commentary, social media posts, comes to an end.”</span></p> <p><span>However, although the relationship is souring between Canberra and Beijing, the Victorian premier is being forced to re-examine a controversial deal he made with China back in 2018.</span><br /><br /><span>The Belt and Road agreement has been heavily criticised by Mr Andrews’ since he made it and on Wednesday, he was asked by reporters if he would be turning his back on.</span><br /><br /><span>However, he states he still has intentions of working with them.</span><br /><br /><span>“This relationship is far too important to farmers, to manufacturers, to workers, to profits for Victorian companies and therefore prosperity for our state,” Mr Andrews said.</span><br /><br /><span>“This is not just our biggest customer, but it is all about jobs. We need a good relationship but it has to be a fair and respectful one.”</span><br /><br /><span>He called on the federal government and China to “refocus on trying to repair” their relationship.</span><br /><br /><span>“I’m confident that the commonwealth government knows and understands how important this relationship is. I’m certain of that, and that’s why, as challenging as this is, people have to find a way to work through it,” he said.</span><br /><br /><span>Danny Pearson, who works beneath Mr Andrews and played a key role in the Belt and Road negotiations refused to state his opinion on the feud between Australia and China.</span><br /><br /><span>He said he has “no responsibilities for those matters”.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr Andrews said he wouldn’t “waste my time” when asked if he was going to counsel Mr Pearson for his comment.</span><br /><br /><span>“I don’t think I’d waste my time. That’s a trivial matter, with the greatest of respect,” he said.</span><br /><br /><span>“I haven’t seen his comments, I’ve just given you some pretty frank and clear answers, you’ve invited me to go a bit further, I haven’t, and I don’t necessarily think I’m going to spend every day before you guys interpreting every word that comes out of every other minister’s mouth, that’s not, I think, where we’ve got to.”</span><br /><br /><span>In 2018, Mr Andrews signed a “memorandum of understanding” with China on belt and road initiatives.</span><br /><br /><span>He said the agreement was aimed at big state infrastructure investment.</span><br /><br /><span>The deal shows China may be looking to build partnerships with Victoria on biotechnology, agriculture, food, cosmetics, and other industries, however a solid plan is yet to be put forward.</span><br /><br /><span>The agreement is not legally-binding, but Victoria seems intent on not walking away.</span></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

New Zealand to Australia travel bubble to begin in two weeks

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text ">New Zealanders will get the opportunity to travel quarantine-free to Australia in the first stage of a travel bubble deal between the two countries in two weeks.<br /><br />Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack says that the quarantine-free travel will begin from midnight on Friday, October 16.<br /><br />New Zealanders will be allowed to fly into NSW and the Northern Territory.<br /> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Breaking! Australia and New Zealand agree on an air travel bubble within weeks!!</p> — Stephanie Hunter (@EliteStephanie) <a href="https://twitter.com/EliteStephanie/status/1311889612390891522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <br />It is expected that Australians will be given the opportunity to head to New Zealand at a later date.<br /><br />Prime Minister Scott Morrison smoothed out all the details of the arrangement with his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern on Friday.<br /><br />“This will allow New Zealanders and other residents in New Zealand who have not been in an area designated as a COVID-19 hot spot in New Zealand in the preceding 14 days to travel quarantine free to Australia,” Mr McCormack said at a press conference on Friday afternoon.<br /><br />Mr McCormack said that the Commonwealth definition of a COVID-19 hot spot was three locally acquired cases over a rolling three-day average.<br /><br />However, there was no date yet for when Australians would be able to travel to New Zealand.<br /><br />“Certainly if (Ms Ardern) wants to have Australians going to New Zealand, then that will be up to her and New Zealand as to how those arrangements can be put into place and under what conditions they can be put into place,” Mr McCormack said. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Australia and New Zealand announce first stage of travel bubble between the two countries <a href="https://t.co/va69e62x8s">https://t.co/va69e62x8s</a></p> — abaskswhy (@abaskswhy) <a href="https://twitter.com/abaskswhy/status/1311888320838815745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <br /><br />“But as I’d say, Northern Territory and New South Wales — very much open.”<br /><br />Mr McCormack said the trans-Tasman travel bubble was the first stage of the government’s plan to “open up Australia to the world”.<br /><br />South Australia has since opened up its domestic border but will not be part of the first travel bubble Mr McCormack said.<br /><br />However he says it is expected to be the “next cab off the rank”.<br /><br />He said other states could follow if they accepted the Federal Government’s COVID-19 hot spot definition.<br /><br />There are no plans to expand the international bubble beyond New Zealand yet, but the option may be a possibility soon.<br /><br />“We may well extend this. We want to open up Australia to the world. This is the first part of it,” McCormack said.<br /><br />“We will wait and see how this unfolds, we will wait and see the success of this.<br /><br />“I know Foreign Minister Marise Payne is working with many of our Pacific island friends at the moment, but for the Pacific Islands that want to go to New Zealand (and) be there for a fortnight, they can avail themselves of this opportunity.”<br /><br />Sydney Airport chief executive Geoff Culbert said that the announcement has given the travel industry “a welcome injection of hope”.<br /><br />“We applaud the Federal Government for driving this through,” Mr Culbert said.<br /><br />“Pre-COVID New Zealand was Sydney Airport’s second busiest passenger route behind the USA. We’ve been preparing for the ramp up of international passengers from the day restrictions came in and we’re looking forward to giving our Kiwi cousins a safe and warm welcome from October 16.”<br /><br />“I hope very soon to see New Zealanders coming and holidaying in Australia,” Mr Morrison told the National Press Club in Canberra this week.<br /><br />“I can’t tell you Australians will be able to holiday in New Zealand, but that’s their problem. I’m happy for Kiwi tourists to come here and spend money in NSW and South Australia. They’re very, very welcome.”</div> </div> </div> <div class="post-action-bar-component-wrapper"> <div class="post-actions-component"> <div class="upper-row"><span class="like-bar-component"></span> <div class="right-box-container"></div> </div> </div> </div>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Why Prince Harry refused to sign a prenup

<p>Prince Harry has reportedly refused to sign a prenuptial agreement ahead of his May 19 wedding to Meghan Markle.</p> <p>According to a friend of the couple, the 33-year-old royal, who has an estimated £30 million ($54 million) fortune, rejected the opportunity to sign the document because he is determined to make his marriage last. Meghan is believed to have a £4 million ($7.23 million) fortune of her own.</p> <p>“There was never any question in Harry’s mind that he would sign a prenup,” the friend told the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5511861/Prince-Harry-rejects-chance-safeguard-30million-fortune.html" target="_blank"><em><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Daily Mail</span></strong></em></a>. “He’s determined that his marriage will be a lasting one, so there’s no need for him to sign anything.”</p> <p>The decision comes after weeks of reports suggesting a prenup was being drawn up.</p> <p>“Both Harry and Meghan have assets to protect,” society columnist Sophia Money-Coutts wrote in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/fear-not-meghan-harry-prenup-wont-kill-romance/" target="_blank"><em><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Telegraph</span></strong></em></a>. “Given divorce rates, it’s worth couples having a frank discussion about what each is bringing to the party before signing that marriage register.”</p> <p>But Harry and Meghan wouldn’t be the first couple to refuse a prenup.</p> <p>The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge also decided against one, as did the princes’ late mother Princess Diana, who fought hard to win £17 million ($30 million) plus £400,000 ($722,000) each year in her divorce settlement with Prince Charles.</p> <p>Tell us in the comments below, do you think Harry and Meghan made the right decision? Did you sign a prenup before your wedding?</p> <p><em>Image credit: Kensington Palace/Twitter.</em></p>

Legal

Our Partners