@people_powered_news
•
People-Powered News
154 w
•
Oft-overlooked export credit agencies quietly back billions in fossil fuel exports even as their governments curb emissions at home. In the global effort against climate change, nobody is more impressive than Sweden — at least, according to the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index, which awarded the country its highest ranking, particularly praising its international climate efforts. In the same year, business watchdog Swedwatch published a report accusing Sweden of sponsoring coal power in South Africa by supporting exports of trucks, loaders, drill rigs and other equipment. Since 2014, Sweden’s export credit agency had backed nearly $80 million of such exports to South Africa, plus hundreds of millions more to Indonesia. In response, Sweden’s export credit agency — EKN — pointed out that it had already committed to ending guarantees for coal sector exports, a promise it would keep by the end of 2020. Yet Sweden’s new regulations make it the exception that proves the rule. Since the Paris Agreement, public export credit agencies, or ECAs, have helped the world’s greenest economies maintain fossil fuel interests abroad even as they enjoy glowing reputations for sustainability at home. The Swedwatch report also called out Germany and France for backing coal sector exports. Oil Change International found that from 2016-2018, G20 countries provided $31.6 billion in annual fossil fuel support through their export credit agencies. Almost all of Norway’s power comes from renewable sources, yet its ECA’s latest report showed more than half of its portfolio was in fossil fuels. “Certainly, Nordic countries have historically been at the forefront of environmental protection, but when you look into it, there still are a lot of unsolved sustainability problems,” explains Davide Maneschi, project manager for climate at Swedwatch. “And it is not uncommon that sustainability and environmental protection come second to business interests.” Globally, ECAs are taking steps to reform, both unilaterally and through international agreements. But with billions of dollars of exports on the line and little incentive to take the lead, critics say change is, as Maneschi put it, “too little, too slow.” ”It is not uncommon that sustainability and environmental protection come second to business interests.” ECAs work more or less like private insurance companies. For a premium, EKN might guarantee payment to, say, Volvo if a customer in Bangladesh fails to deliver payment for a shipment of engine parts. The ECAs of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states submit to a governing framework, a self-styled “gentleman’s agreement”, that limits the types of support they can provide. This agreement — the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits — is decidedly difficult to amend. “[ECAs] are just kind of traditional. Traditional, old, colonial arms of governments,” says Louise Burrows, policy adviser for European climate think tank E3G. “They are taking a very long time to get ahead of the game, far longer than other government departments.” ECAs aren’t interested in the latest political fads, she says. They are interested in long-term stability, sound investment and fair competition. They are inherently cautious, inherently methodical and, some would say, inherently slow to change with the times — the canny old grandfathers of government finance. Slowly but surely, those grandfathers are starting to take climate action. In 2015, the OECD amended the Arrangement to limit export credits for new coal-fired power plants. EKN’s own policy goes one step further, barring credits to even secondary coal products, such as trucks that would haul raw coal from mines. France and the U.K. have taken similar steps, and in April of this year, the U.K. and six European countries launched Export Finance for Future (E3F), which aims to “both massively increase support for sustainable and climate-friendly projects and impose restrictions on fossil fuels overseas.” Yet some see even these steps as “too little, too slow.” It has been nearly six years since the Paris Agreement, and until very recently ECAs have been more than happy to ignore it, critics say. A 2020 report by Friends of the Earth Netherlands found that in four sub-Saharan African nations, high-income countries have provided “almost 50 times as much export support” for fossil-related projects compared to clean energy projects. As for E3F, a statement co-signed by 21 civil society organizations (including Swedwatch) claimed that the initiative’s principles are “merely a reiteration of what most signatories are already doing” and leave out key details, such as a firm deadline for phasing out fossil fuels. The origin of this story was this climate warning, posted on We Don't Have Time. Sweden, despite its recent action on coal, is still open for providing financial aid to airport expansions abroad, thereby supporting one of the world’s most fossil-heavy industries. State-owned Swedish Export Credit Corporation (SEK) and EKN have written a mutual letter to Vietnam with a non-binding declaration of intent of contributing with a $2 billion loan and guarantee, respectively, to airport expansions in the country if Vietnam chooses to buy equipment from Swedish companies. That issue is more debatable: Why target aviation when it accounts for less than 3% of global emissions, contrasted with 30% from coal power? And shouldn’t developing economies have a right to air transportation? These are important questions, Maneschi agrees, and they should have been answered already. “Why did it take until February 2020 for them to have a somewhat ambitious climate policy? For what reason haven’t they been more progressive?” The answer, says Karin Wessman, sustainability director for EKN, is that there is more going on behind the scenes than outsiders may realize. “In one aspect, you could say the Paris Agreement was signed six years ago, which is a long time,” Wessman explains. “But in other aspects, it is also a short time because you need to integrate it into national policy and conduct sometimes years-long negotiations to try to change a multilateral agreement such as the OECD Arrangement.” Wessman argues that EKN is a leader in climate policy, yet even its robust policies will not change the market, at least, not directly: Even if you can discourage, say, Volvo from exporting trucks to a coal mine in Indonesia, the mine wouldn’t close; it would just buy trucks from China, Japan or Italy. Thus, ECAs are caught in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma, and until they can strike a strong, multilateral agreement, agencies will be reluctant to act. “Declining a transaction is always the end of the line, but when we do that, we want to use that leverage to the maximum,” Wessman explains. “We do it in order to influence others and change the rules of the game. This is how you make lasting change.” ”Some participants continued to provide support for coal-fired power plants after the agreement, using non-Arrangement programs.” So what will it take to change the rules? A lot of time, and a lot of politics. And even if the Arrangement is amended, there are plenty of ways for member states to get around it, says David Drysdale, head of OECD’s export credits division. “The problem is that the Arrangement applies to ‘official export credits,’ an undefined term,” Drysdale explains via email. “So some participants continued to provide support for coal-fired power plants after the agreement using non-Arrangement programs, such as untied export credits, untied aid, or investment-related finance.” Drysdale believes a better approach is to work toward a separate deal in which OECD members agree to halt support for fossil fuel-related projects across the board, regardless of method. But that still leaves the problem of non-OECD countries filling the market gap. Furthermore, while there tends to be consensus against coal power, other topics are far more divisive, such as the role of natural gas as a bridge fuel for developing economies. There is no perfect strategy. Yet Drysdale remains optimistic. “At some point I would not be surprised to see efforts to multilateralize this agreement among all OECD members.” Louise Burrows understands the ECA prisoner’s dilemma. But she doesn’t believe it justifies a wait-and-see approach, nor that unilateral action should hinge on a multilateral deal. ECAs can reform, she says, and should, regardless of how the game is played. In fact, Sweden’s recent reform is a case-in-point: “It just goes to show if one has moved faster than the others, then the others can probably do it as well,” she says. As for Maneschi, he still sees Sweden’s policy change as a reaction to bad press rather than active leadership. But he agrees, at least, with Wessman’s theory of influencing others. “It’s important for countries to move first because then they can also use this as a tool in their climate diplomacy and get other countries to move.” Above all, Maneschi thinks reform should emerge from sheer principle. There is simply no excuse for Norway to celebrate its high number of electric vehicles while remaining one of the world’s top exporters of fossil fuels. Nor should Sweden claim to be reducing the climate impact of its transportation infrastructure while offering to support airports in Southeast Asia. It may not be the most methodical or economically prudent strategy, but it is simply the right thing to do. “If you have a goal to be a climate leader,” he says, “then you have to walk the talk.” Written by JARED DOWNING PEOPLE-POWERED NEWS is an initiative by Climate & Capital Media and We Don’t Have Time to democratize climate action through crowdsourced journalism. Climate & Capital Media is the Publisher of People-Powered News (and can be contacted here), but the articles will also appear on We Don't Have Time. How it works: Every day, members of the We Don’t Have Time community post several climate reviews on the platform. Each month Climate & Capital Media will select at least two climate reviews that have earned at least 250 agrees, dig deeper into the issues and publish news stories based on those reviews. So if you want us to write a story based on your climate love, climate idea or climate warning: Create a review, share it, and get at least 250 people to agree. Learn more about how to create a climate review, and see a list of companies and organizations that have replied and joined the climate dialogue.
Simon Hunt
161 w
This plan would not require corporate investment or govt funding, would reduce the cost of electricity and provide extra income to millions. https://f#s/p/open-up-the-grid-to-all-six-clean-renewable-energy-sources-with-pricing-and-margin-guarantees-for-small-suppliers?recruiter https://t.co/mEfrROwxo4
97 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Pinned by We Don't Have Time
•
•
•
161 w
Hi Simon. Thank you for posting an interesting climate idea on We Don’t Have Time. Next time, however, we would like to encourage you to direct your idea to a more suitable recipient. In this case maybe a government or a region that could implement it. If your climate review reaches more than 100 agrees, We Don't Have Time will reach out to the recipient and ask for a reply. If your climate review reaches more than 250 agrees, then People-Powered News might select it for a news story. Good luck!
•
161 w
I've been promoting it for several years on Twitter and by way of the change.com petition. I've had just over 200 signatures! Petutions get thousands for campaigns for bike paths and dogs home issues. People don't want to think outside the box. I was looking for some more suitable recipients. Couldn't find any. I'm new here.
People-Powered News
162 w
•
When Germany deregulated its power market in the late 1990s, Greenpeace jumped into the business to distribute renewable power from wind and solar. So why is Greenpeace Energy also offering its customers natural gas? Photo: Christine Lutz / Greenpeace Energy eG Welcome to our new feature called People-Powered News, an initiative to amplify popular climate reviews in order to draw the attention of business, government, and NGO leaders to your posts. It’s our version of crowd-sourced journalism. When a review reaches a certain level, we will use the newsgathering resources of our media partner Climate & Capital Media to report and write a story on the subject of the review. This week, Climate & Capital Editor Peter Mckillop digs deeper into a climate review on a German offshoot of the global NGO Greenpeace. Mr. McKillop is a veteran journalist having worked at Newsweek Magazine in New York, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. In his college years, he also worked with Greenpeace. Here’s the story: Greenpeace, the most iconic of environmental organizations, has always been popular in Germany, a nation where many people identify themselves as “green.” Its local office, Greenpeace eV., draws more financial contributions than any other Greenpeace operation in the world. So when Germany deregulated its power markets in the late 1990s, the organization enthusiastically jumped into the business of renewable power with sustainable options like wind and solar. It set up Greenpeace Energy eG, an energy cooperative in order to change the existing energy markets. In 2011, already a successful provider of green electrical energy, Greenpeace Energy added natural gas, the company says, to provide a ”back-up” option for the electricity market. ”The energy transition has to take place not only in the electricity sector but in all sectors of our economies. Green gases are crucial for bringing green energy to sectors which cannot be decarbonized with green electricity directly”, says Michael Friedrich, a Greenpeace Energy spokesperson. ”That’s why we started proWindgas: to foster the development and production of green hydrogen and to bring about change in the gas sector towards 100 % renewable gases.” Greenpeace Energy, based in Hamburg Germany, admits its sale of natural gas “may appear to be a paradox.” Today, Greenpeace Energy already supplies more than 170,000 households with clean electricity from wind and solar, six times the number of gas customers. Renewable electricity makes up 85 percent of their turnover. 15 percent of its sales are natural gas. It's also developing green hydrogen energy, operating two electrolyzers that produce the hydrogen from excess wind energy. It is its natural gas sales that have drawn the most public scrutiny. “Gaspeace,” as one Reddit user dubbed it. The company adds a small surcharge to all gas sales to fund the development of renewable green energy hydrogen. It even offers a vegan alternative, proWindgas Vegan, produced from sugar beets. But critics question how the company can use the Greenpeace name and sell natural gas at all. Other Greenpeace affiliates around the world oppose the use of natural gas because the effect of methane gas is much stronger than that of carbon dioxide. Greenpeace Energy admits its sale of natural gas “may appear to be a paradox,” the company said. “We are aware that the share of fossil fuel in the mix of our products needs to be reduced much faster than in the past.” A more detailed company response can be found in the climate review posted on WDHT by Goran Falemo. How Greenpeace Energy came to this awkward point is linked to a larger energy transformation. In the 1990s, while Germany began shifting from coal, oil, and nuclear to renewables and natural gas — a journey that has renewables making up 46% of its energy mix, Greenpeace’s answer was to form Germany’s first energy cooperative. Greenpeace Energy is a fully independent company (Greenpeace Germany owns shares in the cooperative (.0015%), and lists Greenpeace Energy on its website). Of the more than 1,000 energy cooperatives across the country, Greenpeace Energy is the second-largest with more than 27,500 members. “It was really important at the time to bring renewable electricity into Germany’s energy mix,” says an energy executive previously involved with the project, “especially when the country was heavily reliant on nuclear.” Friedrich says Greenpeace Energy is committed to its goal of only selling 100% renewable electricity and says that it has a clear phase-out plan for fossil gas. ”We will completely replace fossil gas in our proWindgas products with green gases by 2027 at the latest”, he says. It is also taking steps to increase the amount of biogas it adds to its natural gas. This year, it has begun to offer a new gas mix of 89% natural gas, 10% biogas, and 1% green hydrogen. The company describes this as the most ambitious plan in Germany. Greenpeace Energy points to a number of factors that it says have so far thwarted its 100 % renewable energy goals. These include the high cost to produce green hydrogen, the German government’s long-neglected development of green hydrogen, and because Greenpeace Energy’s customer base who want to heat their homes with proWindgas is growing more rapidly than the amount of green hydrogen available. By most standards, Greenpeace Energy is a pretty green company. It produces 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind. It does not use nuclear or coal. And its gas product is a shrinking element of its overall energy mix that it sells to German households. It is also a vigorous proponent of green hydrogen and continues to accelerate its use of biogas created from organic food waste. If you buy what Greenpeace Energy is saying, then it’s just a temporary phase on the path to providing 100% renewable energy and gas. Still, the sale of natural gas using the name of perhaps the most well know environmental name in the world, seems to contradict the spirit of Greenpeace. By PETER McKILLOP peter.mckillop@climateandcapitalmedia.com Editors note. Due to an editing error, a previous version of the story mischaracterized the size of Greenpeace Energy’s gas business. Unlike reported, the energy cooperative does not have 20 million customers but 30.000, natural gas sales are only 15% of total sales and the cooperative’s ‘near total reliance on gas’ is incorrect. These errors have been corrected with modifications suggested by Greenpeace Energy. Climate & Capital regrets the errors made. PEOPLE-POWERED NEWS is an initiative by Climate & Capital Media and We Don’t Have Time to democratize climate action through crowdsourced journalism. Climate & Capital Media is the Publisher of People-Powered News, but the articles will also appear on We Don't Have Time. How it works: Every day, members of the We Don’t Have Time community post several climate reviews on the platform. Each month Climate & Capital Media will select at least two climate reviews that have earned at least 250 agrees, dig deeper into the issues and publish news stories based on those reviews. So if you want us to write a story based on your climate love, climate idea or climate warning: Create a review, share it, and get at least 250 people to agree. Learn more about how to create a climate review, and see a list of companies and organizations that have replied and joined the climate dialogue.
Leela Hann-Soden
163 w
Did you know that morels and oyster mushrooms have been observed to grow on cardboard? Pictured: Left: cardboard house filled 1:1 with chunks of oyster mushrooms and cardboard Right: after being moistened and sitting a month in a loosely tucked plastic bag Not pictured: 3 dried oyster fruiting bodies after another month of sitting Disclaimer: I am not a mushroom farmer or consumer, but I thought that this could be fun for those looking for a home project. ✨
141 more agrees trigger social media ads
Pinned by We Don't Have Time
•
•
•
161 w
Hi Leela Thank you for posting an interesting climate idea on We Don’t Have Time. Next time, however, we would like to encourage you to direct your idea to a more suitable recipient. Someone who could implement this idea and scale it to create a climate impact. If your climate review reaches more than 100 agrees, We Don't Have Time will reach out to the recipient and ask for a reply. If your climate review reaches more than 250 agrees, then People-Powered News might select it for a news story. Good luck!
•
163 w
Fun home project !
Leela Hann-Soden
163 w
A tract of land known as “Wood Street,” in Emeryville, California, is home to 150 campers who live in dispersed bands under freeway overpasses, amidst heaps of trash, dilapidated vehicles and a barren environment overwhelmed by industrial waste. Despite the region’s notoriety for criminal activities, local cob builders are collaborating with Wood Street residents to construct a community center out of earth and materials found onsite. Volunteers with the “Cob on Wood” project have built a cob oven, a composting toilet, a water station, a kitchen, a clinic, and a free store. Among the paths between the buildings they have started veggie gardens. The Cob on Wood center is being used and maintained by local residents, who express optimism and enthusiasm for the project and what it means for the direction of Wood Street. Watch Wood Street residents’ reactions to cob buildings: https://youtu.be/9kIlImhPJ_8 Learn more about Cob on Wood at: https://m.facebook.com/CobonWood/ The Cob on Wood center and living spaces throughout the region are under threat of destruction by the city. Please sign this petition to legalize temporary & earthen dwellings, remediating soil, and growing local resources: https://www.change.org/ecocamping
84 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
153 w
This countries they should preach water and drink water not verse versa.
•
154 w
A well researched Article. Am new here,but am glad you take action when reviews reaches over 250 people.
•
154 w
Excellent article. there are many dark secrets scattered around our global economy where things grind on as they always have almost invisible and as if the Paris Climate Change Agreement was just something for one part of government or society to handle while the rest of the government, society or certain professions crack on as if the white light of reality had never shone on their activities, business or professional roles