Today, 18 September 2015, the Environment Council of the European Union adopted its latest conclusions, setting out the EU position for the UN climate change conference in Paris this December. Although not groundbreaking, the conclusions state and reiterate the EU expectations for COP21and take a holistic view on outstanding matters, including pre-2020 considerations.
The 28 environment ministers agreed on a common stance on three major issues: the pillars of a legally-binding Paris Agreement in order to remain below 2°C of global warming, the implementation mechanisms for such agreement, and the mitigation steps to be taken pre-2020.
Welcoming the G7 Declaration of June 2015, the European Council calls for a “long-term vision of global and sustainable climate neutrality and climate resilience”.
The conclusions stipulate that greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2020, are reduced by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 1990, to eventually achieve carbon neutrality or negative emissions by the end of the century. They propose a five-year cycle within which Parties are required to “either submit new or updated commitments, without falling behind previous levels of commitment, or resubmit the existing ones”. This is important, considering that INDCs submitted thus far suggest that the agreement will fall short of achieving reduction commitments necessary to stay in a 2°C world. With decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies and improved understanding of the substantial co-benefits of climate action - complementing the sustainable development agenda- countries need a regular mechanism to adjust ambitions upwards.
In addition, the EU’s commitment to climate finance and the Green Climate Fund are reaffirmed, with more details to be discussed by finance ministers in November this year.
According to Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete the conclusions represent a solid position based on which the EU will be “a deal maker and not a deal taker” in the upcoming Paris negotiations.
The scope of national security is expanding beyond violent threats to encompass a broader array of dangers. In an article for World Politics Review, CFR's Stewart M. Patrick assesses the implications of COVID-19 and climate change for the theory and practice of national security.
Although there is no causality nor direct and automatic link between climate change and conflict, we can see that climate change can intensify conflict drivers and make it harder to find stability. The online workshop "Climate change, conflict and fragility: Increasing resilience against climate-fragility risks", organised by the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO) and adelphi, looked into this complex relationship.
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous parallels have been drawn between this health crisis and the climate crisis. Science plays an important role in advising decision makers on how to ensure sustainable crisis management and a precautionary approach to avoid harmful repercussions, particularly where we do not yet know all the consequences of our actions. [...]
Decarbonisation won’t come as fast as the pandemic. But if fossil fuel exporters are not prepared for it, they will face an enduring crisis. The EU can help.