BRICS demand wealthy nations fund global climate transition
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has touted the importance of the Global South in tackling global warming as he prepares to host the United Nations climate summit in November.
Still, a joint statement from BRICS leaders released on Sunday argued that fossil fuels will continue to play an important role in the global energy mix, particularly in developing economies.
"We live in a moment of many contradictions in the whole world. The important thing is that we are willing to overcome these contradictions," Brazil's Environment Minister Marina Silva said on the sidelines of the summit, when asked about the plans to extract oil off the coast of the Amazon rainforest.
In their joint statement, BRICS leaders underscored that providing climate finance "is a responsibility of developed countries towards developing countries," which is the standard position for emerging economies in global negotiations.
Their declaration also mentioned the group's support for a fund that Brazil proposed to protect endangered forests - the Tropical Forests Forever Facility - as a way for emerging economies to fund climate change mitigation beyond the mandatory requirements imposed on wealthy nations by the 2015 Paris Agreement.
China and the UAE signaled in meetings with Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad in Rio that they plan to invest in the fund, two sources with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters last week.
The joint statement from BRICS leaders also blasted policies such as carbon border taxes and anti-deforestation laws, which Europe has recently adopted, for imposing what they called "discriminatory protectionist measures" under the pretext of environmental concerns.
The opening of the BRICS summit on Sunday presented the bloc as a bastion of multilateral diplomacy in a fractured world and underscored the influence of 11 member nations that represent 40% of global output.
Leaders also indirectly criticized U.S. military and trade policy, while pushing for the reform of multilateral institutions now largely run by Americans and Europeans.
In his opening remarks at the meeting on Sunday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva drew a parallel with the Cold War's Non-Aligned Movement, a group of developing nations that resisted joining either side of a polarized global order.
"BRICS is the heir to the Non-Aligned Movement," Lula told leaders. "With multilateralism under attack, our autonomy is in check once again."
The Rio summit, the first to include Indonesia as a member, has showcased the rapid expansion of BRICS but raised questions about shared goals within its diverse group.
In a joint statement published on Sunday, the BRICS condemned military attacks on Iran and Gaza, but stopped short of a unified position on which countries should have seats on a reformed United Nations Security Council. Only China and Russia supported adding Brazil and India to the council.
Leaders including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa gathered in Rio to discuss economic and geopolitical tensions. But the meeting's political weight was diminished by Chinese President Xi Jinping's decision to send Premier Li Qiang in his place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Amazon shuts down Shanghai AI research lab, FT says
July 22 (Reuters) - Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab is shutting down its Shanghai artificial intelligence lab, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Century-old dam under strain as floods increase in US and federal funds dry up
More than 18,000 properties that sit downstream of a series of a century-old Ohio dam are at risk of flooding over the next three decades, according to climate data, as the Trump administration continues to roll back investments that would aid in keeping the waters at bay. In a part of the US that's largely flat, the view from above the Huffman dam in south-west Ohio is rare. From the bike trail atop the dam, the shimmering lights of downtown Dayton appear to the south. Cargo planes from a nearby air force base circle overhead and water from the 66-mile-long Mad River gushes underfoot. But the dam serves a far more pressing purpose: holding back up to 54bn gallons of water – enough to fill 82,000 Olympic-size swimming pools – during flooding events. Nearby, more than 21% of all properties downstream are at risk of flooding over the next three decades, according to First Street, a climate risk data modeling organization. That percentage accounts for 18,596 properties in Dayton. The five massive dry dams and 55 miles of levees west and north of Dayton were built in the aftermath of catastrophic destruction that befell the Ohio city in 1913, when 360 people died and flooding in three rivers that meet in the city center wiped out the downtown area. But today, it and many other communities around the midwest are once again at risk of flooding. 'Our system has experienced 2,170 storage events. The flood in April ranked 12th,' says MaryLynn Lodor, general manager of the Miami Conservancy District, the authority overseeing the regional flood prevention system that includes the Huffman Dam. The flooding early last April saw five to seven inches of rain inundate homes, roads and parks, and caused power outages for thousands of people across hundreds of miles. Extreme precipitation events are happening with increasing regularity at a time when, across a region that's home to the country's two major, high-discharge waterways – the Ohio and Mississippi rivers – decades-old flood prevention infrastructure is falling apart. From Indiana, where authorities in charge of a dam at a youth camp that sees 15,000 visitors annually warned of failure during last April's flooding, to Illinois and Minnesota, reports are appearing with increasing regularity of '100-year' floods threatening the integrity of, and in some cases destroying, dams. Five years ago, the Edenville Dam in central Michigan failed following days of heavy rain, prompting the evacuation of 10,000 people and the failure of another dam downstream. The dam is situated at the confluence of two rivers, and in 2018 its owner temporarily had its license taken away due to fears it couldn't pass enough water at high flood levels. Lawsuits and an expense report of $250m followed the dam failure. Data from Michigan's department of environment, Great Lakes and energy, found that of the state's recorded 2,552 dams, nearly 18% were rated as in 'fair', 'poor' or 'unsatisfactory' condition. Despite this, little change has been enacted in Michigan. 'The reason this is popping up everywhere in the country is because it's a massive ageing infrastructure problem,' says Bryan Burroughs, a member of a now-closed state taskforce that sought to investigate the status of dams across Michigan following the Edenville incident. He says the taskforce's recommendations have largely not been enacted. 'To date, the only ones that have been taken up and addressed to any level are the ones that our state department of environment, Great Lakes and energy are able to oversee themselves. Regulatory changes have not been picked up legislatively,' Burroughs continued. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration had made investing in America's ageing infrastructure over the course of many years a priority, with $10bn dedicated to flooding mitigation and drought relief. An additional $3bn was allocated in 2021 through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for dam safety, removal and related upgrades. Since Donald Trump entered the White House in January, the administration has vowed to roll back much of those investments. Hundreds of dam safety and other staffers working at dams in 17 western states have been laid off in recent months. Before the 4 July flood disaster in Texas, the Trump administration had pledged to close the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema). With more than 92,000 dams across the country, the Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of repairing the country's non-federal dams at $165bn. In Ohio, the Miami Conservancy District has been outspoken in highlighting that the dams it is responsible for are in need of repair – in particular, the upstream walls of two north of the city of Dayton. Levees it manages 'are subject to the costly, federally mandated Fema accreditation process, but there is no adequate funding source.' Last year, the district said it needs $140m to bring the region's dams and levees up to safe levels over the coming decades. Over the past 80 years, the organization has seen a 228% increase in the volume of water its dams store, meaning the structures today must work harder than they did in the past to hold back the water. 'As we're looking at having to make reinvestments, we are looking to try to secure some funding through the state and federal governments,' says Lodor. 'We have not gotten much support and federal dollars or state money to be able to do the system. It's already been invested in by the local communities; it would be very difficult for this to be on the backs of the locals.' Many dams hold back water that's used by fishers and recreators – an issue that's creating tension in many communities. In White Cloud, Michigan, authorities have had to draw down much of the lake water behind a 150-year-old dam due to fears for its structural integrity, angering locals. As in Texas, dozens of youth groups and Christian camps across the midwest use lakes and waterways downstream of ageing lowhead and other dams for programming and outdoor activities. Emails and messages left by the Guardian with the owners of an at-risk dam at a camp in Indiana used by thousands of children every year received no response. While compared with other parts of the US the midwest does not have a lot of dams whose main purpose is for flood control due to geological and topographical reasons, Ohio and much of the wider midwest have seen 'record-setting rain' this year. 'The weather has changed,' says Burroughs. 'What used to be a one-in-100-year flood event might have happened three times in the last 40 years.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
The UN's highest court will decide Wednesday on the climate obligations of countries
The UN's highest court is handing down a historic opinion on climate change Wednesday, a decision that could set a legal benchmark for action around the globe to the climate crisis. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory opinion, a non-binding but important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels have risen by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Any decision by The Hague-based court would be non-binding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
