Latest news with #UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Moody's says updated climate goals may miss 2°C Paris Agreement aim
Moody's warns updated national emissions targets under NDCs may not limit global warming to under 2°C; credit risks tied to weak execution and external dependencies Puja Das Implementing updated national carbon emissions reduction goals is still likely to fall short of the Paris Agreement's objective of limiting global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, Moody's Ratings has warned. The warning assumes significance as the latest carbon reduction goals submitted by governments ahead of the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in November reflect heightened ambition. Credit implications, however, will depend on the pace and rigour of implementation. Achieving absolute global emissions cuts will remain difficult. Should emissions rise following the exit of the US — the world's second-largest emitter — from the Paris Agreement, other advanced economies (AEs) would need to increase their mitigation efforts. This has not been reflected in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to date, Moody's noted in a report on Tuesday. 'We expect that forthcoming emerging market (EM) emission reduction goals will remain more modest than AE submissions, reflecting their share of global emissions, financing obstacles, the need to address pressing social issues, support the agricultural sector and sustain industrialisation as economies grow. Even if fully implemented, it is unlikely that the updated NDCs would achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2.0°C,' the agency said. Over 20 countries, including major emitters like Brazil, the US, Canada, Japan and the UK — which together account for one-fifth of global emissions — have submitted updated NDCs. India, along with several other member countries, is yet to submit its third-round NDC or climate action plan to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The revised deadline is now September, ahead of COP30 in November. The UK has submitted one of the most ambitious NDCs; if implemented, it would place the country on track to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Other submissions have come from nations with minimal emissions but high climate vulnerability, such as Saint Lucia, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives. As national ambitions grow, more sectors will face exposure to policy, technology and demand risks stemming from the carbon transition. Moody's noted that mitigation activities outside the boundaries of national plans could also increase credit risks in some countries. India, the world's third-largest emitter, faces significant challenges in meeting its climate commitments while continuing to grow economically. On a per capita basis, India's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity is well below that of the US or China, according to European Commission data. India's overall emissions intensity had fallen by 55 per cent compared to 2005 levels as of 2023 — surpassing its 45 per cent reduction target for 2030. However, emissions could rise again due to growing middle-class demand for electricity and carbon-intensive products and services, alongside further industrialisation. Like many EMs, India's targets are conditional on receiving technological and capacity-building support from AEs, Moody's cautioned. The 2023 global stocktake found that fully implemented second-round NDCs project warming between 2.1°C and 2.8°C. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report last year warned that achieving the 1.5°C target would require up to six times the current levels of mitigation investment and a significant redirection of international climate finance to EMs. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2023 stated that, to keep the 1.5°C target within reach, global emissions must fall by 60 per cent by 2035. Few of the world's highest-emitting countries have raised their 2035 targets to above that threshold. Moody's also flagged that the conditionality of many EM NDCs on external financial, technological or capacity-building support could hinder their implementation. Additional uncertainty from geopolitical tensions affecting trade and financing may further dampen national ambitions and create new obstacles to delivery. Pointers: Credit implications will depend on the pace of implementation Updated NDCs unlikely to achieve Paris goal of staying below 2.0°C
Scientific American
13-06-2025
- Business
- Scientific American
Five Climate Issues to Watch When Trump Goes to Canada
CLIMATEWIRE | The world's richest nations are gathering Sunday in the Canadian Rockies for a summit that could reveal whether President Donald Trump's policies are shaking global climate efforts. The Group of Seven meeting comes at a challenging time for international climate policy. Trump's tariff seesaw has cast a shade over the global economy, and his domestic policies have threatened billions of dollars in funding for clean energy programs. Those pressures are colliding with record-breaking temperatures worldwide and explosive demand for energy, driven by power-hungry data centers linked to artificial intelligence technologies. On top of that, Trump has threatened to annex the host of the meeting — Canada — and members of his Cabinet have taken swipes at Europe's use of renewable energy. Rather than being aligned with much of the world's assertion that fossil fuels should be tempered, Trump embraces the opposite position — drill for more oil and gas and keep burning coal, while repealing environmental regulations on the biggest sources of U.S. carbon pollution. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Those moves illustrate his rejection of climate science and underscore his outlying positions on global warming in the G7. Here are five things to know about the summit. Who will be there? The group comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — plus the European Union. Together they account for more than 40 percent of gross domestic product globally and around a quarter of all energy-related carbon dioxide pollution, according to the International Energy Agency. The U.S. is the only one among them that is not trying to hit a carbon reduction goal. Some emerging economies have also been invited, including Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil, the host of this year's COP30 climate talks in November. Ahead of the meeting, the office of Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, said he and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva agreed to strengthen cooperation on energy security and critical minerals. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would be having "quite a few" bilateral meetings but that his schedule was in flux. The G7 first came together 50 years ago following the Arab oil embargo. Since then, its seven members have all joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The U.S. is the only nation in the group that has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, which counts almost every country in the world as a signatory. What's on the table? Among Canada's top priorities as host are strengthening energy security and fortifying critical mineral supply chains. Carney would also like to see some agreement on joint wildfire action. Expanding supply chains for critical minerals — and competing more aggressively with China over those resources — could be areas of common ground among the leaders. Climate change is expected to remain divisive. Looming over the discussions will be tariffs — which Trump has applied across the board — because they will have an impact on the clean energy transition. 'I think probably the majority of the conversation will be less about climate per se, or certainly not using climate action as the frame, but more about energy transition and infrastructure as a way of kind of bridging the known gaps between most of the G7 and where the United States is right now,' said Dan Baer, director of the Europe program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What are the possible outcomes? The leaders could issue a communique at the end of their meeting, but those statements are based on consensus, something that would be difficult to reach without other G7 countries capitulating to Trump. Bloomberg reported Wednesday that nations won't try to reach a joint agreement, in part because bridging gaps on climate change could be too hard. Instead, Carney could issue a chair's summary or joint statements based on certain issues. The question is how far Canada will go to accommodate the U.S., which could try to roll back past statements on advancing clean energy, said Andrew Light, former assistant secretary of Energy for international affairs, who led ministerial-level negotiations for the G7. 'They might say, rather than watering everything down that we accomplished in the last four years, we just do a chair's statement, which summarizes the debate,' Light said. 'That will show you that you didn't get consensus, but you also didn't get capitulation.' What to watch for If there is a communique, Light says he'll be looking for whether there is tougher language on China and any signal of support for science and the Paris Agreement. During his first term, Trump refused to support the Paris accord in the G7 and G20 declarations. The statement could avoid climate and energy issues entirely. But if it backtracks on those issues, that could be a sign that countries made a deal by trading climate-related language for something else, Light said. Baer of Carnegie said a statement framed around energy security and infrastructure could be seen as a 'pragmatic adaptation' to the U.S. administration, rather than an indication that other leaders aren't concerned about climate change. Climate activists have lower expectations. 'Realistically, we can expect very little, if any, mention of climate change,' said Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. 'The message we should be expecting from those leaders is that climate action remains a priority for the rest of the G7 … whether it's on the transition away from fossil fuels and supporting developing countries through climate finance,' she said. 'Especially now that the U.S. is stepping back, we need countries, including Canada, to be stepping up.' Best- and worst-case scenarios The challenge for Carney will be preventing any further rupture with Trump, analysts said. In 2018, Trump made a hasty exit from the G7 summit, also in Canada that year, due largely to trade disagreements. He retracted his support for the joint statement. 'The best, [most] realistic case outcome is that things don't get worse,' said Baer. The worst-case scenario? Some kind of 'highly personalized spat' that could add to the sense of disorder, he added. 'I think the G7 on the one hand has the potential to be more important than ever, as fewer and fewer platforms for international cooperation seem to be able to take action,' Baer said. 'So it's both very important and also I don't have super-high expectations.'
Mint
12-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Why NSE, MCX are powering up with electricity derivatives
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Multi-Commodity Exchange (MCX) recently secured approvals from the equity market regulator to launch electricity derivatives. Not only would this minimise financial uncertainty for power distribution companies but they can also use electricity derivatives or futures contracts to lock in electricity prices in advance. Mint takes a look at what this means and why there is a sudden interest in electricity derivatives. What are electricity derivatives? Electricity derivatives are financial contracts that help power companies and other electricity buyers protect themselves from sudden price changes in the electricity market. Think of it like this: electricity prices can rise or fall sharply due to factors like demand spikes, fuel costs, or weather changes. For power distribution companies, or discoms, this kind of volatility can cause financial uncertainty. To avoid this, discoms can use electricity derivatives or futures contracts to lock in electricity prices in advance. Why is this important? In electricity delivery in the unlisted space, there's always a counterparty risk—a fear that the other party may default. But in the listed space, the risk is significantly reduced, said Trivesh D., chief operating officer at trading platform Tradejini. He added that electricity derivatives contracts also offer discoms a reliable way for price discovery. 'Once electricity is listed as a derivative, its pricing becomes market-driven, based on actual demand and supply, rather than manipulated practices," he said. How will electricity derivatives work? Rajesh Palviya, head of technical & derivative research at Axis Securities, said derivative contracts will allow buyers and sellers to trade based on their anticipated electricity needs without involving physical delivery of power. 'Companies and manufacturers can purchase electricity contracts for specific durations—ranging from a month to a year—locking in prices to hedge against future price fluctuations. Instead of physically receiving or supplying electricity, participants settle the contracts financially. At the contract's expiration, the difference between the contracted price and the market price is credited or debited to the respective parties' accounts," Palaviya added. What do NSE and MCX have to say? India's transition to net-zero emissions requires substantial investment of over $250 billion year-on-year till 2047, according to government think tank Niti Aayog. India announced its net-zero target for 2070 at the 26th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) in November 2021. A robust and dynamic electricity derivatives market is essential to attract this scale of climate finance from both domestic and global investors, NSE said on Wednesday. MCX said electricity contracts will allow participants to manage power price risks, which are becoming more dynamic due to renewables and market-based reforms. What is the Indian Energy Exchange's (IEX) role? IEX is the dominant platform providing spot electricity trading. But it does not offer an electricity derivative contract. However, with MCX and NSE now allowed to launch electricity futures contracts, discoms, power producers, and retail investors can participate through new platforms. 'This means IEX no longer holds a monopoly," said Kranthi Bathini, director of equity strategy at Wealthmills Securities. 'Also, with both NSE and MCX joining the segment, the market is expected to become deeper, more liquid, and capable of delivering better price discovery and broader participation," said Trivesh of Tradejini. Also read | NSE investors hold tight as price surges in grey market Who will regulate electricity derivatives? Under current rules, if electricity derivatives are cash-settled, they fall solely under the purview of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). If the contracts are compulsorily deliverable, regulatory oversight will be shared between Sebi and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'We have to try everything': Vanuatu envoy taking climate fight to ICJ
Tired of pleading for countries to act on climate change, Vanuatu upped the ante -- it asked the world's highest court if governments were legally obligated to do something about it. The landmark case has given Ralph Regenvanu a front row seat to history. As Vanuatu's environment minister, he has taken the decades-long climate fight by Pacific nations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, hoping to safeguard their islands' survival. Regenvanu has called the case among the most consequential "in the history of humanity". A ruling could come as early as next month. This interview, conducted by AFP on the sidelines of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, has been edited for length and clarity: Q: Why did Vanuatu go to the ICJ? A: "We thought it was necessary to take a legal approach to the issue of climate change because we feel that the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) process, which has been going for 30 years, has not done anywhere near enough. "We agreed to ramp down greenhouse gas emissions. We've seen the highest levels ever just recently. We've talked about climate finance. We haven't seen that. These pledges that were made in Paris? We've not seen them having any effect. "And so we wanted to see if we could get international law to actually start to impose some requirements." Q: Has it worked? "This request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ has been historic. It was the first request from the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion that was unanimous. No country opposed requesting this. "It has also mobilised youth. There's this global climate justice movement of youth now, and we have many of them here (in Nice). It's really raised the consciousness and political savvy of youth to engage with these kinds of processes. "A lot of countries would talk about what they're doing on climate change. But when we got to the court, it became very clear that they weren't prepared to do what they were talking about. So it exposed the hypocrisy of a number of countries as well." Q: Do you think others will take the legal route? A: "We're going to have to do a far greater range of things outside these UN processes -- in courts, in each and every fora we can find, to push for real climate action. "We went to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea -- we got an advisory opinion. We're waiting for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the same question: the obligations of states to prevent greenhouse gas emissions, and what are they consequences if they don't. "Along with Fiji and Samoa, we've submitted a resolution to the Rome Statute -- the International Criminal Court -- for a new crime of ecocide to be created. That's in process. "We will continue to call for the strongest action in all fora including this one, the United Nations Ocean Conference. "Anything and everything we can -- because what we're doing is not enough." Q: Why keep going if you're constantly disappointed? A: "Going to the climate COPs is a very depressing exercise. Last year, for example, Papua New Guinea said we aren't going anymore. I could perfectly understand that. "The problem is, when we're not at the table, we're on the menu. And so we have to be there, so people see us and realise -- and hopefully have a little bit of conscience -- that there are these people in the world who are going to perish as a result of your actions." Q: Why is this ocean summit important? "The ocean has been feeding us. It's been our spiritual home. It's been our highway. It has been the basis of our cultural heritage, our identity. We've been surviving off the ocean for as long as we've existed, which is thousands of years. "And we see the change, and the change is impacting us. We know that if we don't address climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and if we don't take serious steps to reverse global warming, but also keep the biodiversity that has always been sustaining us, it threatens our very existence." np/klm/giv
France 24
11-06-2025
- Politics
- France 24
'We have to try everything': Vanuatu envoy taking climate fight to ICJ
The landmark case has given Ralph Regenvanu a front row seat to history. As Vanuatu's environment minister, he has taken the decades-long climate fight by Pacific nations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, hoping to safeguard their islands' survival. Regenvanu has called the case among the most consequential "in the history of humanity". A ruling could come as early as next month. This interview, conducted by AFP on the sidelines of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, has been edited for length and clarity: Q: Why did Vanuatu go to the ICJ? A: "We thought it was necessary to take a legal approach to the issue of climate change because we feel that the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) process, which has been going for 30 years, has not done anywhere near enough. "We agreed to ramp down greenhouse gas emissions. We've seen the highest levels ever just recently. We've talked about climate finance. We haven't seen that. These pledges that were made in Paris? We've not seen them having any effect. "And so we wanted to see if we could get international law to actually start to impose some requirements." Q: Has it worked? "This request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ has been historic. It was the first request from the United Nations General Assembly for an advisory opinion that was unanimous. No country opposed requesting this. "It has also mobilised youth. There's this global climate justice movement of youth now, and we have many of them here (in Nice). It's really raised the consciousness and political savvy of youth to engage with these kinds of processes. "A lot of countries would talk about what they're doing on climate change. But when we got to the court, it became very clear that they weren't prepared to do what they were talking about. So it exposed the hypocrisy of a number of countries as well." Q: Do you think others will take the legal route? A: "We're going to have to do a far greater range of things outside these UN processes -- in courts, in each and every fora we can find, to push for real climate action. "We went to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea -- we got an advisory opinion. We're waiting for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the same question: the obligations of states to prevent greenhouse gas emissions, and what are they consequences if they don't. "Along with Fiji and Samoa, we've submitted a resolution to the Rome Statute -- the International Criminal Court -- for a new crime of ecocide to be created. That's in process. "We will continue to call for the strongest action in all fora including this one, the United Nations Ocean Conference. "Anything and everything we can -- because what we're doing is not enough." Q: Why keep going if you're constantly disappointed? A: "Going to the climate COPs is a very depressing exercise. Last year, for example, Papua New Guinea said we aren't going anymore. I could perfectly understand that. "The problem is, when we're not at the table, we're on the menu. And so we have to be there, so people see us and realise -- and hopefully have a little bit of conscience -- that there are these people in the world who are going to perish as a result of your actions." Q: Why is this ocean summit important? "The ocean has been feeding us. It's been our spiritual home. It's been our highway. It has been the basis of our cultural heritage, our identity. We've been surviving off the ocean for as long as we've existed, which is thousands of years. "And we see the change, and the change is impacting us. We know that if we don't address climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and if we don't take serious steps to reverse global warming, but also keep the biodiversity that has always been sustaining us, it threatens our very existence."
