If one wants to make a political link between Canada pulling out of Kyoto and also being the main producer of tar sands, he or she would not be wrong. Currently, Canada is viciously lobbying together with the oil industry to weaken the EU proposal on fuel quality and delete the value for tar sands.

Beyond closed-doors “comitology” meetings, there will be a debate in the EU’s the environment council about the fuel quality directive (FQD) and values for unconventional fuels, including tar sands. The issue is under the “Any other business” chapter.

Canada’s confirmation that it will withdraw from the Kyoto profile is regretful, according to UNFCCC Chief Christian Figueres.

Figueres also called on the country to act on its “moral obligations”.

“I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing,” said Figueres. “Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

“Industrialised countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions,” she said.

The country had pledged to reduce its Greenhouse Gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels by 2012 and instead has seen them rise by 17 percent.

“For Canada, Kyoto is in the past,” said Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister both on the rostrum in Durban on December 6 and in Toronto on Monday.

He denied that Canada was not doing its part for the climate and said that “Canada is carrying its weight, and proud to be doing its share”.

Kent has said that the Protocol is meaningless as it does not include major emitters such as the US and China.

An agreement in Durban to pursue negotiations for a legally binding deal that incorporates all nations will take force by 2020 at the earliest, leaving a gap of eight years without legal emission pledges. The terms for a second commitment period of Kyoto will be agreed upon at COP18 in Qatar.

Background

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, one day after an update was agreed on, saying the accord won’t work.

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he added.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year in Cancun, Mexico that they would not accept new Kyoto commitments, but Canada is the only country to repudiate it altogether.

The UN climate talks in Durban have been hailed an ‘historic success’ after agreement was reached on Sunday.

COP17 looked in trouble just before 2am, after India and China protested at the lack of equity in proposals put forward by the European Union (EU).

But a dramatic 15-minute ‘huddle’ in the centre of the plenary hall resulted in a form of words all parties could agree on.

COP17 President Mashabane called the agreement: “truly historical”, adding “You were prepared to show the required political will to move this process forward. It is without any doubt in my mind that we have worked together to save tomorrow, today”.

The deal should mean that every country in the world is committed to reducing its carbon emissions, although the fine details are still unclear.

Parties have signed up to an EU-sponsored roadmap that will see a new variant of the Kyoto Protocol negotiated by 2015, and come into force by 2020. A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which does not include the US, China or India, will be finalised at COP18, in Qatar.

Talks on this new, more-inclusive document, which must have “legal force”, will get underway in 2013.

The roadmap was further developed by the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries bloc (LDCs).

The Green Climate Fund has also been approved, although sources of funding are unclear, and states such as Bolivia appeared to reject the idea the private sector and carbon markets could be used to source finance.

The Durban talks were the longest in history, running almost 36 hours longer than the original cut-off point on Friday afternoon.

And at 0140 local time, COP17 looked close to collapse after an impassioned plea from India’s Jayanthi Natarajan, who accused the EU bloc of ignoring ‘equity’ in the text.

With the belief growing in the BASIC bloc that the EU timetable was overly legalistic and too tight, she directed her anger at COP17 President Mashabane, declaring “India will not be intimidated”.

Natarajan was backed by lead Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua, who delivered an angry rebuke to parties who he said had not fulfilled their current commitments.

“Look not what is said but what is done,” Zhenhua shouted, “We have been talking about this issue for the past 20 years. We are doing things you are not”.

But with support for a deal growing around the room, together with an intervention from US negotiator Todd Stern, Mashabane decided to call an impromtu ‘huddle’ for the main parties to come to a solution.

On agreement of the roadmap, the rest of the package was agreed with bewildering speed, Mashabane banging the gavel at regular intervals to speed the meeting along.

A framework for the Green Climate Fund – which could generate finances of $100 Billion a year by 2020 for developing countries – was adopted, although a venue for its Headquarters is as yet unclear.

There also appears to have been progress on REDD+ and deforestation measures.

Speaking to RTCC in the Plenary Hall, the UK’s lead climate diplomat John Ashton said the talks had been a success, adding the roadmap and accompanying measures “represented closure” after Copenhagen.

Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, warned there was still work to do but was enthusiatic about the deal. “There are still many details to be hammered out, but we now need to start negotiating the new legal agreement as soon as possible and there are still many details to be hammered out,” he said.

Adrian Macey, Chair of AWG-KP, the track of the talks dealing with Kyoto said: “We’ve got a package with clarity on the Kyoto Protocol, and importantly we also have clarity on the long term too, and it’s quite momentus I think looking at this longer term agreement. Better than people expected.”

Norway’s Climate Change Minister Erik Solheim told RTCC they were “very, very pleased, it’s in the upper range of what we hoped for. We’re pleased both with the substantive outcome and also the agreement on this process.

“For us this is a great outcome. The key aspect is that it is crucial, when you have a Kyoto Protocol with limited scope…[it's] crucial we get a legally binding framework for all major emitters and that’s the core here. It’s also important the deadline for the negotiation process is not too far into the future. So it’s the ambition level and also the urgency. We have somethig to take climate action forward and we now have an ambitious pathway to go forward,” said Solheim.

“It’s been a long two weeks and also the months leading up. Very tough for all parties,” he added.

NGOs were less pleased, with Greenpeace branding the deal “grim news”.

“Blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

“If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak.”

RTCC

As COP17 moves into its second week, heads of states and ministers join their delegations and the talks intensify, is the voice of women being represented sufficiently in the process?

Making up over 50% of the population – and 60% in some of the world’s poorest countries – the effects of climate change are more acutely felt by women.

With women also being at the heart of many households in the most climate vulnerable areas – both as care giver and as decision maker – there is a huge potential for them to act as agents of change.

Ahead of COP17 women’s day, where the Climate Change Studio will be joined by Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, Winnie Byanyima, Director UNDP Gender Team and Cecilia Njenga, from the UNEP, to name a few, we took at look at why gender and climate change is so important.

Climate Vulnerability

While in most communities both the men and women, particularly in the developing world, are either already experiencing or will experience climate change vulnerabilities, research has shown that this impact is being felt worse amongst women.

Women farmers account for around 45-80% of all food production. As droughts, flooding and other natural changes put their agricultural livelihoods at risk – both limiting the food for the household and for selling – work becomes much harder and research by the UN found that it is the women and the girls who experience the most noticeable health decline.

In most communities it is also the women who predominately collect the fuel for the home for example firewood and agricultural crops, and water. With women travelling further distances to find these sources of energy, they have less time for domestic tasks, less time to earn money and are also more at risk of injury or sexual harassment.

Finally with many climate impacts – flooding and drought – disease and illness spreads and with the traditional role of women as mother and caregiver, this puts even more stress of their daily lives.

When Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and founder of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice spoke at the Climate Change Studio last week, she said: “It is an issue that is fundamental to climate justice, to the idea of putting a human face on climate, the importance of both food and nutrition security and women for agents for change who are going to bring about the changes on the ground.

“They will be the ones who will have to adapt to the climate shocks that we have so they need to be empowered, they need to be valued and they need to be at the table at decision making. They are not there enough.”

Read more on RTCC.

Australia and Japan told delegates in Durban that they support a new legally binding deal, during an edgy meeting at the UN climate change talks yesterday evening. “The role of the forest is not for carbon stocks” said the head of the Bolivian delegation, as REDD+ talk’s progress at COP17.

The two countries, which have both rejected a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after it expires next year, are willing to look at a new agreement encompassing “major economies”. Australia said a deal must set obligations for a broad set of parties.

They were joined in their calls by the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and the EU during talks, which one delegate inside the room described to RTCC as “calm but tense”.

Colombia and the Marshall Islands demanded that work on the text of a deal should begin immediately. China sought to limit the conversation to the mere possibility of a deal, rather than its actual substance.

Grenada, representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said it preferred a second commitment period of Kyoto and accused some nations of having “a 2012 vision rather than a 2020 vision”. Venezuela went one step further saying that the failure to produce a second commitment period would represent “a wrongful act”.

There were also calls for a voluntary set of pledges, as suggested ahead of the Durban conference. These were dismissed by the representative of Bolivia as “untrustworthy”.

Bolivia: No to REDD+!

While REDD+ talks pick up speed at the negotiations in Durban, some delegations have suggested bringing forward issues that were intended for consideration at COP18, the Bolivian delegation spoke out in opposition of the scheme in its first press conference of the talks.

Rene Orellana, head of the Bolivian delegation said: “As people who live in the forest, we are not carbon stocks. We disagree with REDD because we oppose the commoditisation of the forest.”

“It’s a complex and dangerous situation to see forests as carbon stocks. The forest provides a role as food security, a water source and biodiversity for our indigenous population. REDD reduces the function of the forest to just one, carbon stocks.”

Currently the discussions around REDD+ are focussing on three main barriers to the implementation and scaling up of the scheme; how to monitor the carbon stored and saved in trees, how to safeguard populations in forest areas and questions remaining around the financial side – including how much finance will be available and where it will come from (i.e. market mechanisms, public finance etc).

Bolivia – a country which has 50% forest coverage – aims at putting forward a different proposal based on finding different sources of finance other than carbon credits, the recognition of multiple forest functions and methodologies for integrated forest management.

However, the Bolivian delegation said that no attention was being paid to the proposals they had put on the table.

Source: RTCC

The EU has declared that it will enter into a second commitment period of the Kyoto agreement, but only if the world’s other nations set down the path toward their own legally binding emission cuts.

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

Speaking at the first EU press briefing in Durban on the eve of the UN climate change talks, the bloc said a new phase of Kyoto commitments would depend on certain conditions being met by developing countries not included in the protocol.

“We need to see other countries agree to a roadmap whereby a timetable of negotiations for a legally binding deal is drawn-up,” said Tomasz Chruszczow, head of the Polish delegation in Durban. Poland currently holds the EU Presidency. “A deal must be agreed by 2015 and it needs to come into force by 2020.

“We need a roadmap that brings 100% of global emissions under one umbrella. The legal framework can be the same for all nations. The commitments and the deadlines can be different,” he said.

In addition to the pledges from other nations, Chruszczow also called for new market based mechanisms and robust carbon accounting procedures before the EU would commit to a second period of Kyoto.

The group also clarified its position in other areas of the talks including its long-rumoured deepening of emission cuts to 30%.

“I don’t even think the 30% question will be asked here in Durban,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, lead negotiator for the EU. “Nobody else is talking about increasing their level of ambition.

“Kyoto is not dead. It will continue to run for those countries that have ratified it, even those that have said they will not sign-up for a second designated commitment period. The framework remains. It is a very useful legal instrument and it has shown it can work. It needs some improvement and hopefully we can make those decisions here. Voluntary action is not enough,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Looking for a new deal by 2020 at the latest is not the same thing as postponing Kyoto, we will continue to press ahead for a second period of commitment under the Kyoto agreement but a new deal should come as soon as possible,” added Runge-Metzger. “We are not ditching our commitments. Others are. The Bali roadmap included provisions for countries to make moves toward binding agreements. That was supposed to happen in Copenhagen but we are still waiting.”

The EU represents 11% of global emissions and has stated its reluctance to persist with Kyoto unless developing nations begin their own works towards binding deals.

Eastern Europe, a coal burner

Environment ministers from six eastern EU member states have called for caution and further research before the negotiating block increases its carbon emission ambitions.

The statement comes just days after Artur Runge-Metzger, director of the international and climate strategy directorate at the EU Commission, said a 30 per cent emission reduction was very much still on the table. The current commitment is 20 per cent by 2020.

Ministers from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania signed a declaration after the meeting in the Prague. The statement highlighted “the importance for working on a roadmap towards the transition to a low-carbon economy and stressed that any future steps need to be carefully assessed from the angle of all the potential costs, benefits and impacts on the level of individual member states”.

A statement from the Czech Ministry of the Environment called for further EU reductions to be accompanied by similar commitments for China, the US and other significant emitters.

Several of the countries that signed the declaration, particularly Poland, are heavily dependant on coal and wary of being pulled into EU commitments that would prove costly.

Poland and the Czech Republic use coal for 92 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of their electricity generation.

Source: RTCC

The EU is “pleasantly surprised” by China’s progress on Climate Change, chief negotiator Arthur Runge-Metzger said.
Source: RTCC

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

While Beijing has made strides Runge-Metzger said the US was stuck in a difficult political position domestically that has thwarted its own headway in the climate negotiations.

“We are very much looking forward to seeing what other countries are doing about climate change and we were pleasantly surprised by China,” said Runge-Metzger. “It has already inserted its Cancun pledge in to its next five year plan. That is a very important step but there are many other countries that will have to follow suit. In some countries, the pledge is made, but the implementation is shaky.”

When asked if the United States had become an obstructive force in the process Runge-Metzger refused to criticise them too heavily.

“I think the United States is in a very difficult situation. The Obama administration is certainly committed to move on climate change but the situation in Congress and the Senate does not allow any movement forward and that is a huge problem because there are many other countries that can just hide behind that position,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Applying pressure to the US is something that we need to do collectively. It also important that those who hide behind the United States come out and are very clear out about being committed and showing sufficient political will to take this discussion forward towards real implementation.”

The US and Japan joined a chorus of objections to the $100bn GCF – Green Climate Fund’s proposed design during a heated session in Durban.

Issues over the use of private sector money and controversial fundraising mechanisms such as the financial transaction tax dominated discussions.

The US and Japan has stated categorically that they do not want to hold any discussions over a single source of funding, such as the so-called Robin Hood tax on banking transactions. Instead they insist that each individual country should be allowed to raise its share of the GCF. This national approach would also appear to rule out a system of international levies on shipping or aviation progressing in Durban.

Meanwhile a diverse range of parties including Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Egypt objected to the use of private sector money for the fund, which it is hoped will be worth $100bn per year by 2020. The current so-called fast start finance is worth $10 billion a year till 2012.

Less developed nations are also concerned that the use of private sector finance could see control and outcomes of projects farmed out to the corporations sponsoring them, rather than being in the hands of the governments on the ground.

“There’s a huge gap to close,” said Ilana Solomon, senior policy analyst with ActionAid USA. “The big question is whether discussions will continue productively or unravel.

“The good news is that despite their differences, all parties want to see progress,” said Solomon.

This statement was backed up by US negotiator Jonathan Pershing who has described the GCF as potentially “a major global institution for climate finance…if it is designed properly”.

The fate of the GCF will now be decided behind closed doors, although COP17 President Maite Mashabane sought to assure observers that this process would remain inclusive and transparent.

Source: RTCC online

The State of Qatar and the Republic of Korea have agreed to closely cooperate to make the next major UN Climate Change Conference at the end of 2012 a success.

Korea and Qatar to share the climate talks in 2012

The 2012 UN Climate Change Conference, COP 18/CMP 8 (the 18th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, plus the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol), will take place in Qatar from 26 November to 7 December 2012.

The Republic of Korea will host a ministerial meeting to prepare for COP 18/CMP 8. Such ministerial meetings are a tradition in the UNFCCC negotiations and are instrumental in clarifying, at a high-level, central issues in the weeks before a COP.

The announcement was made at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban (28 November to 9 December), following agreement among the Asian Group of countries.

“I congratulate these two countries on their commitment to work together in the lead up to and during the COP. Both countries are leaders in their own ways, and can generate strong synergies to put the world on a more climate-safe path,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. “All governments working together on the next essential climate steps can be inspired by this collaborative spirit,” she added.

The State of Qatar and the Republic of Korea will make joint efforts to globally promote and implement the green growth agenda at and in the run-up to the conference.

The Republic of Korea has championed the concept of the “green economy”, which links green growth to sustainable development and poverty eradication, and will be a central issue under discussion at the Rio+20 summit to be held in June next year in Rio de Janeiro.

The State of Qatar, as one of the world’s main energy exporters, expressed its eagerness in Durban to secure progress in the UN climate change negotiations, and support to the endeavours of developing countries, including small island developing States, in adapting to the inevitable effects of climate change.

The UNFCCCís annual Conferences of the Parties are rotated between the five UN regional groups, with the African Group this year hosting COP 17 in Durban, South Africa.

(REUTERS) Holder of the rotating EU presidency, Poland has been criticized for its environmental stance within the EU, which is seeking to lead the push for a new global pact to curb climate change.

Many have asked whether it is the right country to represent the EU in Durban, regarded as make-or-break for the Kyoto Protocol, the only global, binding pact to counter global warming.

Joanna Mackowiak-Pandera, undersecretary of state in the Polish environment ministry. Photo: WWF.eu

“We understand the different positions from different countries. We are also a kind of developing country,” Joanna Mackowiak-Pandera, undersecretary of state in the Polish environment ministry, told Reuters by telephone before her flight to Durban.

Winning confidence is particularly important for the EU when its sovereign debt crisis has left the rest of the world doubting the ability of the bloc as a whole to take a lead.

“It’s a fact that the current economic situation and uncertainty will affect the negotiations,” Mackowiak-Pandera said.

“We should really take a long-term vision. I know how difficult that is. The economic situation in Europe is critical. Many countries outside Europe look at the situation in Europe and maybe there is a lack of trust.”

The EU’s aim at Durban is to maintain pressure for a new deal no later than 2015, although that leaves a so-called blank period after the first commitment to carbon cuts expires at the end of 2012.

Mackowiak-Pandera said there had been progress in working groups in Durban this week ahead of next week’s crucial ministerial phase, but there was no “comprehensive text on the table for a second commitment period.”

Forging a new deal is a mammoth task.

“My assessment of the situation is very critical,” Mackowiak-Pandera said, citing Canada’s failure to deny reports it was preparing to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.

BOULDER NATIONS

Together with Russia, Japan and the United States, Canada has made clear it no longer supports the Kyoto Protocol, but formally abandoning it would be a bigger step.

In previous climate talks, China has also been grouped with the so-called boulder nations seen as barriers to progress.

The EU, however, has hopes China can break the deadlock between rich and poor nations, who want the developed world to carry on bearing the brunt of the financial cost of adapting to climate change.

As a developing nation, China was not included in the first round of Kyoto cuts agreed in 1997. Since then China has leapfrogged developed nations in terms of emissions and its economy.

Mackowiak-Pandera said the Chinese were “open to discussing a second commitment period” and had several meetings planned with them in Durban.

She saw a need for a realistic pace of progress to allow all nations to adapt.

“The tempo of increasing reduction targets has to be appropriate,” she said.

Poland drew sharp criticism when, earlier this year, it blocked EU plans to raise its goal for reducing carbon emissions. At 20 percent by 2020, it already exceeds the bloc’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

“Poland is 90 percent dependent on coal. Everybody knows it. For us, 20 percent is ambitious,” Mackowiak-Pandera said.

“The 20 percent reflects the different positions of the different EU countries. It is a legally binding and realistic target. If some countries want, they will do more.”

Adaptation for all had to be a major discussion Mackowiak-Pandera said, as even European countries such as Poland coped with low river levels and water shortages.

In addition to adaptation finance, nations needed practical planning on measures including river basin management.

“Maybe in 10, 20, 30 years we will see the effects of a (carbon) reduction. For adaptation, that is something we can see in five years,” she said.

“Until now, little was known about banks’ role and responsibility for global warming. While most large commercial banks provide figures on their annual investments into renewable energy, they neither track nor publish their annual investments into fossil fuel projects. Many banks have made far-reaching statements on climate, but are they putting their money where their mouth is?” This is the research question on which a German non-profit group built a study that analyzes direct relations between finance and coal fired carbon intensive power plants. The research conclusions were released at the COP17 in Durban, South Africa.

The study presents new research on the portfolios of 93 of the world’s leading banks. It examines their lending for the coal industry, the prime source of global CO2 emissions. It provides the first comprehensive climate ranking for financial institutions and identifies the top “climate killers” in the banking world.

“By naming and shaming these banks, we hope to set the stage for a race to the top, where banks compete with each other to clean up their portfolios and stop financing investments which are pushing our climate over the brink. We want banks to act and we want them to act now,” authors say.

This study was produced by the environment organization Urgewald from Germany, the social and environmental justice organizations groundWork and Earthlife Africa from South Africa, and the international NGO network BankTrack.

Role and Power of the Finance Sector

Coal-fired power plants are not cheap to build. Typically, a 600 Megawatt plant will cost around US$ 2 billion.4 Power producers therefore rely heavily on banks to provide and mobilize the necessary capital for such ventures. As  much of this financing is indirect – delivered through corporate loans and bonds – banks have for the most part been successful in keeping these investments hidden from public scrutiny.

In order to lift this veil of secrecy and to be able to rank banks according to their negative climate impacts, we commissioned the research institute Profundo to investigate the contributions of 93 large international banks towards financing the coal industry since 2005.

Methodology

For a “climate killer ranking” of the banks, we did not differentiate between banks’ financing of coal mining and coal-fired electricity production, but instead computed a total based on their financial engagement in both areas. As banks often also hold assets of these companies, the study also included the most recent data (2011) on banks’ asset holdings in these companies.

Profundo reviewed the annual reports of coal mining companies and coal-based energy generation companies, their stock exchange filings and other publications, such as archives of trade magazines and the financial press as well as specialized financial databases such as Thomson ONE and Bloomberg to trace financial transactions between these  companies and commercial banks.

For each financing relationship, an assessment was made which portion of the finance was used for the coal activities of a company (the coal percentage).

In total, the research identified 1405 transactions involving 93 different banks. The total value of coal financing provided by these banks since 2005 (the year the Kyoto Protocol came into force) amounts to 232 billion Euro!

Smokey Findings

How financing for the coal industry has evolved since the Kyoto Protocol came into force? The following graph shows the development of coal finance provided by commercial banks between 2005 and 2010.

Although financing goes up and down from one year to the next, the overall trend shown by the graph is that bank’s investments into the coal sector are on the rise. Even during the financial crisis in 2008, the annual total is still higher than the baseline in 2005. In 2010, financing for the coal industry was almost twice as high as in 2005.

Top Twenty Climate Killer Banks

Together, the top twenty banks in the study’s ranking provided over 171 billion Euros to the coal industry since 2005.

This is 74 percent of the total financing the authors identified. For a full list of finance provided to the coal industry by all 93 banks included in the research, see the online annex at the end of the briefing. The top twenty climate killers include banks from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, China, Italy and Japan.

Top 20 of Climate Killer Banks

This ranking is in sharp contrast to the everyday rhetoric of these banks. Almost all of the top twenty banks have made far-reaching statements regarding their commitment to combating climate change. Here are short excerpts compiled from the banks’ individual websites, their environment statements and their Corporate Social Responsibility Reports. They show the complete “disconnect” between banks’ portfolios and their words when it comes to financing coal, the major contributor to climate change.

Cash for Greenwash. Banks’ Climate Commitments

JPMorgan Chase: “Helping the world transition to a low-carbon economy”
Citi: “Most innovative bank in climate change”
Bank of America: “The most formidable challenge we face is global climate change”
Morgan Stanley: “(…)make your life greener and help tackle climate change.”
Barclays: “Managing the climate change risks of our operations and those of our clients”
Deutsche Bank: “Climate change is the dominant environmental issue of our time and one where we can make a significant contribution.”
Royal Bank of Scotland: “As a financial services group our direct impact on the environment in terms of climate change (…) is limited”
BNP Paribas: “A strong commitment to combating climate change”
Credit Suisse: “Credit Suisse cares for climate”
UBS: “Addressing climate change on a global scale will require an unprecedented mobilization of private sector investments”
Goldman Sachs: “Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change”
Bank of China: “As a responsible corporate citizen with a global presence, we are committed to responding to the challenge of climate change”
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China: “As an advocate and executor of “green banking”, the Bank is actively advocating a low-carbon way of living”
Credit Agricole: “Combating climate change is central to our strategy”
UniCredit: “The group reiterates its commitment to the achievement of the goals of the Kyoto Protocol in all countries where it has a presence”
Mitsubishi Financial Group: “We will channel our full capabilities into working toward the benefit of the environment and future generations”
Societe Generale: “As a community of 135,000 employees, we are aiming to control and reduce our own carbon footprint”
HSBC: “HSBC adopts a cautious approach to activities which contribute significantly to climate change”

The entire process from mining through combustion to waste disposal has a dire impact on the environment, human health and the social fabric of communities living near mines, power plants and waste areas. It severely disrupts ecosystems and contaminates water supplies. It emits other greenhouse gases like nitrogen oxide and methane as well as toxic chemicals such as mercury and arsenic. It displaces communities and destroys livelihoods. Of course, none of these costs are reflected in the price of coal. All these costs are paid by society – and the heaviest price is often paid by the poor.