Canadian Basic Income Of $22,000 A Year Possible With Tax Hikes: Report

But businesses and higher earners would face a hit to their incomes.

Canadian Basic Income Of $22,000 A Year Possible With Tax Hikes:

CALVIO VIA GETTY IMAGES

MONTREAL ― A basic income of $22,000 a year to all adult Canadians is financially doable, and would nearly eliminate poverty in the country, a new economic analysis argues ― but not without tax hikes for higher earners and a higher corporate tax rate.

The analysis from the Basic Income Canada Network (BICN) used a simulation database and model from Statistics Canada to predict how three different basic income programs would work. It picked $22,000 as the level because it’s an approximation of the cut-off point for a number of measures of poverty.

It found all three options would virtually eliminate poverty in Canada, with the share of people living below the low income cut-off dropping by as much as 95 per cent, depending on the program type. Families in the bottom 10 per cent of earners would see their disposable incomes jump by 3.5 to 4.5 times current levels. The country would also see an immediate and significant shrinking of the income gap.

The BICN report was released on Thursday.

Watch: Ontario’s basic income pilot project was “a blessing” to these small business owners.

Part of the point of the analysis was to address concerns ― even within the basic income movement ― that a workable basic income could be designed, said Sheila Regehr, chair of BICN.

The analysis showed that “there are ways of doing this (that) meet our objectives of reducing poverty, inequality and insecurity,” Regehr said in an interview with HuffPost Canada.

The analysis found a large part of the cost can be covered by shuffling around money from existing federal and provincial programs that would be made redundant by a basic income, such as the Working Income Tax Benefit and the GST/HST credit.

But it would still require additional revenue to keep it from driving up deficits.

The proposed basic income programs would raise $17.4 billion in revenue through a variety of policies championed by progressive economists as ways to address rising inequality.

This includes hiking the corporate tax rate to 15 per cent from 10 per cent and the small business tax rate to 13.5 per cent from 10.5 per cent. That would return those tax rates to levels they were at earlier this century, before successive rounds of cuts.

And in a move that would ruffle the feathers of higher earners, capital gains ― increases in the value of investments ― “would be treated the same” as income earned from work under the proposed options. Currently, only half the value of a capital gain is taxed as income. People’s principal residences would continue to be exempt.

It would also mean higher income taxes for some. Those in the top 10 per cent of earners ― with an income above $148,000 ― would see their disposable income cut by between 7.2 and 10.2 per cent, depending on the type of basic income.

No benefits above $60,000

But even some who consider themselves solidly middle earners would see higher taxes, thanks to the elimination of some tax breaks and higher tax brackets. The basic income’s benefit would fade completely at around the $60,000 income mark, and those above it could expect to see some increase in taxes.

Earners in the $60,000 to $80,000 range would see a reduction in disposable income of between 2.9 and 6.9 per cent, depending on the type of program, the analysis found.

It’s to (corporations’) advantage to have a population that’s stable, where people are able to get a good education and to be consumers for the things they are making.Sheila Regehr, chair of BICN

Regehr stresses that these are suggestions based on BICN’s principles, which include creating a more equitable tax system. “We’re not saying these are the only sources of revenue,” she said.

For those businesses and capital owners who stand to take a hit to their pocketbooks, she suggests taking the broader view, making an argument many basic income supporters champion: That lifting people out of poverty will create a stronger consumer class, helping businesses.

“It’s to (corporations’) advantage to have a population that’s stable, where people are able to get a good education and to be consumers for the things they are making. There’s a lot of symbiosis in there,” Regehr said.

The analysis shows “we have the money in this country (but) we’re spending it very ineffectively,” she added.

BICN’s three basic income options

All three of these options would involve the tax changes listed above. The costs would be covered through funding from existing programs that are folded into the basic income, and through the tax hikes BICN envisions.

The first option would see everyone aged 18 to 64 receive a basic income that tops up their income so that no one has less than $22,000 per year. As a person’s income grows, the basic income would be scaled back, with recipients losing 40 cents for every additional dollar earned from work. Seniors would retain Old Age Security (OAS) and the General Income Supplement (GIS) ― which are themselves a form of basic income ― while parents would retain the Canada Child Benefit. Cost: $134.45 billion.

The second option is the same as the first, except that it would include seniors, and the OAS and GIS, along with its funding, would be folded into the basic income. The Canada Child Benefit would remain. Annual cost: $187.49 billion.

The third option, sometimes called a “universal demogrant,” would see the government hand out $22,000 to everyone regardless of income. This makes it far and away the most costly option, but much of the cost would be recouped from higher earners through higher income tax brackets. Cost: $637.86 billion.

SOURCE

Everything you need to know about the UN climate refugee ruling and Canada

The bridge connecting North and South Tarawa, an atoll in the Pacific nation of Kiribati that is facing the threat of rising sea levels from climate change, pictured in 2017. Asian Development Bank photo

A new human-rights ruling says deporting a person to a country where they could be killed or seriously mistreated as a result of the climate crisis would violate an international treaty to which Canada is a party, according to the country’s UN refugee agency.

UNHCR Canada has told National Observer the Trudeau government needs to examine the domestic implications of a recent ruling by the UN Human Rights Committee, that found countries can’t deport people seeking asylum as a result of threats related to the climate emergency.

It’s the first time a UN body has made this type of determination with respect to climate change. But the ruling by the 18-member committee, released Tuesday, is non-binding on Canada, and raises many complex questions as to how it will ultimately factor into Canada’s refugee system.

“In its decision, the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear that returning a person to a country where they face a risk to their life, or a risk of serious mistreatment, as a result of climate change-related environmental degradation would violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Melanie Gallant, head of communications for UNHCR Canada.

“Like all states party to the international covenant, it is incumbent on Canada to consider the committee’s decision and its implications domestically.”

The covenant is one of the main international human-rights treaties to which Canada is a party, along with others on subjects such as torture, genocide and racial discrimination.

Once someone is already in Canada, the country is obligated by those human-rights treaties to protect people who are considered to be refugees under the UN Refugee Convention, or whose removal would subject them to torture or severe mistreatment.

The UN Refugee Convention, however, does not explicitly mention climate change, which could complicate matters for climate refugees in Canada. The convention is concerned instead with well-founded fears of persecution for other reasons: race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group. Resettled refugees, who are referred to Canada by the UNHCR, and other categories such as private sponsorship are also recognized under the convention.

The same sort of grounds of protection apply when asylum seekers are considered for a pre-removal risk assessment. When an individual is subject to a removal order, an officer from the Canada Border Services Agency will tell the person if they can apply for the assessment. Then an official from the immigration department carries out the evaluation, which is supposed to examine whether a person would face persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the federal department, says it does monitor the implications of climate change on migration. But “we cannot speculate on future policy,” spokeswoman Shannon Ker said.

‘A very important first step in international law’

The definition of a convention refugee is laid out in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. But the interpretation of that definition is an “ongoing process,” says the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), the independent tribunal that decides refugee cases. “Some issues have been settled by the courts, others remain unanswered,” it noted in March 2019.

It is “incumbent on Canada” to consider a recent ruling by the UN Human Rights Committee on climate refugees, says @UNHCRCanada. It is the first time a UN body has made this type of determination.

Jamie Chai Yun Liew, an expert in immigration, refugee and citizenship law and an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, said no refugee-receiving country like Canada has within their own laws a recognition that speaks directly to people who are affected by climate-related situations and affords them refugee protection.

But while she said the ruling wouldn’t affect anything immediately in Canada, in the future it could lead to something more substantive. “This is a very important first step in international law, so to speak, for starting to recognize a legal basis for refugee protection for those that are affected by climate-related crises or situations,” Liew said.

For Francisco Rico-Martinez, co-director of the FCJ Refugee Centre, which looks at systemic issues newly-arrived refugee claimants face in Canada, the ruling could be useful when presenting in front of the IRB.

“I will go in that direction myself, to ask, ‘Why don’t we modify our humanitarian and compassionate program?’” Rico-Martinez said. “When a case like this has come to my office, we’ve always used the environmental situation, but we’ve tried to link it to other elements of persecution.”

UN Human Rights

Historic case opens door to asylum claims ➡️ UN finds that countries may not deport individuals who face climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.

👉 http://ow.ly/5V4m50y0EFL 

View image on Twitter
The Pacific nation in danger of being wiped out

Canadian law indicates persons in need of protection should be subjected personally to risks. In other words, the risk has to be faced by the person in “every part of that country” and can’t also be faced “generally” by others in the country. That, too, could complicate matters for climate refugees in the Great White North.

The UN committee ruling did involve a personal case: that of Ioane Teitota, from Kiribati, a country of islands in the Pacific Ocean being swamped by rising waters. Teitota argued violence and deaths over the remaining land in his country forced him to migrate from the island of Tarawa to New Zealand, which deported him after denying his asylum application.

This all means it is less likely the UN Human Rights Committee would automatically expect Canada to immediately grant refugee status to all climate refugees, and more likely to expect the country to consider the alleged grounds of persecution each applicant faces — ostensibly the process that is already in place.

IRCC “monitors the implications of climate change on migration and displacement patterns and flows,” spokeswoman Béatrice Fénelon confirmed.

“The government of Canada recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest global challenges of our time, with broad implications on health, agriculture, economy, trade, infrastructure, displacement and migration,” she said. “Developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, are the hardest hit by climate change.”

Fénelon also noted Canada can take action on a “case-by-case basis” in the event of a “natural disaster,” such as when it expedited immigration applications from Haitians with family in Canada after the 2010 earthquake.

“Canada’s refugee program is about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted. Canada remains steadfast in offering protection to convention refugees,” Fénelon said.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi speaks at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 22, 2020. WEF Photo

Refugees ‘can be part of the solution’

The UN human-rights committee ruling is the latest step in an international discussion sure to accelerate in the coming years, about how to deal with so-called “refugees of the blue planet” whose lives have been uprooted as a result of the degradation of the environment.

Scientists expect climate change to make sweeping changes to broad aspects of the planet that will affect hundreds of millions of people. The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has warned of “climate apartheid” where millions are cut off from food, water or housing.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi tried to underline the ruling’s significance at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday, telling Reuters “we must be prepared for a large surge of people moving against their will… we’re talking about millions here.”

Those millions would add to the more than 70 million people in 2018 who fled war, persecution and conflict, according to the UNHCR — the highest level of migration it has ever seen over its roughly 70-year existence.

Gallant from the UNHCR Canada office said they themselves were still examining the ruling and its potential implications.

“Climate change is a most pressing issue for us, and is at the heart of our work,” she said.

“Not only because climate change can be a cause of displacement, but also because refugees and the communities that welcome them can be part of the solution.” SOURCE

Manitoba’s tourism plan doesn’t adequately consider risk of climate change: auditor general

Travel Manitoba audit says province doesn’t have systems, practices in place to achieve tourism goals

Manitoba Auditor General Norm Ricard said the province’s tourism strategy identifies climate change as a low risk to tourism in the province, despite the fact that polar bears in Churchill, Man., are ‘a centerpiece’ of its marketing. (Cameron MacIntosh/CBC)

Manitoba has set goals to bring more visitors to the province, but isn’t doing enough to achieve those goals, the province’s auditor general says.

Among a variety of tourism issues highlighted by a new report is the fact Manitoba has not considered the risk climate change could pose to one of the province’s biggest money makers.

In the report released on Thursday, Auditor General Norm Ricard said Travel Manitoba, the government agency that oversees tourism in the province, needs to do a better job of assessing risks to the tourism industry — which is the third-largest revenue generator in Manitoba, after agriculture and mining.

Ricard said none of the Crown agency’s three strategic plans considered the risks climate change could pose to tourism in Churchill, Man., a town about 1,000 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg that makes up a large part of the province’s tourism strategy, in part because of its polar bears.

“Churchill is one of the main drivers of tourism to Manitoba and a centrepiece of Travel Manitoba’s marketing,” Ricard said.

“The loss of the polar bear’s environment due to climate change would have a significant impact on tourism. Yet, the plan identifies climate change as a low risk to tourism,” he said, in reference to the province’s tourism strategy.

Ricard said other risks to tourism have also gone underappreciated by Travel Manitoba, like a lack of tourist attractions, the need to update existing attractions with modern features to compete with other destinations, and a shortage of people trained in the service industry — which a spokesperson for the auditor general’s office said is a problem particularly in rural and northern Manitoba.

The report covered an audit of Travel Manitoba’s practices between April 1, 2015 and Aug. 31, 2019, and concluded that the province does not have adequate systems and practices in place to achieve the tourism goals and objectives it has established.

4 recommendations

The report also highlighted communication issues, saying the tourism agency should make its reporting and public documentation easy to find without extensive searching.

“[It] is expected that Travel Manitoba do its part in fulfilling the government’s commitment to transparency,” the report read.

The audit also found while Travel Manitoba consulted with the business community for its plans, it did not consult separately with what the report called “key government departments” early on.

“By not having key stakeholders in the provincial government involved earlier in the process, barriers to achievement or other information not previously identified may have been overlooked or omitted,” Ricard said.

The 30-page report sets out four recommendations to bring Travel Manitoba more in line with its goals to promote tourism across Manitoba.

The auditor general recommends Travel Manitoba:

    • Conduct a risk assessment for all tourism strategies, including short-, medium- and long-term risks, and identify measures to mitigate significant risks.
    • Identify existing resources, funding required and funding sources, staff requirements, and which other stakeholders are needed to support the initiatives identified by the province’s tourism strategies.
    • Issue separate progress reports on its strategies, including achievements implementing the initiatives by other parties.
    • Ensure that monitoring and reporting information is easily locatable and publicly accessible.

SOURCE

Carbon emissions: Scale of UK fossil fuel support ‘staggering’

Oil refinery

A small government agency is supporting fossil fuel projects abroad with estimated carbon emissions of a country the size of Portugal, it has emerged. Getty Images

UK Export Finance (UKEF), a government agency in the Department for International Trade, is spending billions of pounds on the projects, Newsnight researchers have found.

This is despite a government commitment to cut down on carbon emissions.

The Conservative Environment Network (CEN) called the figures “staggering”.

The organisation, which describes itself as a forum for conservatives who support conservation and decarbonisation, said funding the projects was “a blemish on the UK government’s record on climate change”.

An investigation by Newsnight, in conjunction with Unearthed – Greenpeace’s investigations unit – found that UKEF has helped to finance oil and gas projects that, when complete, will emit 69 million tonnes of carbon a year, according to government estimates.

That’s nearly a sixth of the total annual carbon emissions of the UK.

The government calculated the UK’s total emissions to be 449 million tonnes of C02e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2018.

It said the 69 million tonne estimate was a “worst case” scenario – and the emissions of the projects may be lower when the projects are operational.

The UK is just one of a number of backers for these projects.

UKEF was set up a century ago – and aims to support British businesses abroad.

Earlier this week, Boris Johnson announced that the UK would no longer finance coal mining or coal-fired power plants abroad.

Newsnight’s investigation found all of UKEF’s current fossil fuel financing was for oil and gas projects, and not coal.

Newsnight research also found that – since 2010 – UKEF has financed £6bn of fossil fuel projects. Financing has been provided to some of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world.

The projects that UKEF helps to fund abroad include oil refineries, power plants and liquefied gas extraction.

Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published a report criticising UKEF as an “elephant in the room undermining the UK’s international climate and development targets”.

Kerry McCarthy MP, a Labour member of the EAC said: “It’s ludicrous that we would be funding something overseas, that we are purporting to be moving away from in our own country.

“There’s just a complete disconnect, there’s complete hypocrisy, that we boast of cleaning up our own act, but actually we are enabling other countries to carry on polluting.”

UKEF told Newsnight: “We are committed to working with countries across the world to unlock their renewable energy potential and support their transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives.”

As well as investments in fossil fuels UKEF has also financed some renewable projects.

The CEN’s Sam Hall said the government needed to solve the issue of what UKEF funds before COP26 – an international climate change conference due to be held in Glasgow in November this year. SOURCE

‘We’re Fighting for Our Rights’: The EPA’s First Bill of Rights Decries Trump’s Deregulatory Tactics

Illustration: Chelsea Beck (G/O Media)

For employees who’ve spent decades working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Trump administration is like nothing they’ve ever seen before. That’s exactly why—for the first time ever—the agency’s union employees have authored a Bill of Rights to set the agency back on track to meet its mission.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) began organizing EPA staff in the 1970s. Since then, the roughly 8,000 employees protected under the union have never felt the need to issue a Bill of Rights. After all, the EPA’s mission is simple: protect human health and the environment. It shouldn’t need reminding of that, right?

Well, these days it does. Many employees don’t agree with the direction the agency has taken under Trump as leadership pivots the EPA to rolling back regulations that will make pollution worse. They also don’t support the tactics the administration is using to prevent employees from doing the work they’ve been doing for years.

Since 2018, the administration has issued executive orders and directives that undermine workers’ rights by limiting the amount of time they can spend on union responsibilities and making it easier to fire them despite their union protections. A judge deemed these orders illegal in 2018, yet EPA leadership again tried to alter the workplace culture through directives last year. As EPA workers entered renewed union contract negotiations with management in December, they came ready.

EPA employees launched a campaign called Protect EPA in tandem with their Bill of Rights push. In many ways, it highlights how connected the Trump administration’s attacks on public health and the environment and civil servants are.

The bill lists 10 rights union members are demanding, starting with the right to scientific integrity, which has been a serious concern for both people within and outside the agency. The administration has stocked once-impartial outside advisory boards with industry shills and outright dissolved others. Scientific journal editors have spoken out about the Trump administration’s attempts to limit science as have experts with the New York University Brennan Center for Justice.
Workers also want the right to enforce environmental laws without political interference and the right to discuss solutions to climate change. For an agency tasked with protecting public health, these rights seem like a no-brainer.
Then, there are the obvious rights union members (and all workers really!) should be entitled to, such as the right to work-life balance. And they want to enshrine their right to a fair contract that is collectively bargained as opposed to unilateral directives without any input from union members.

These types of protections could help gird the agency’s civil servants from the frequent political attacks. Trump ran his campaign on promises to “get rid of it in almost every form.” Since then, he’s done his best to follow through.

The EPA has been ground zero for many of the environmental rollbacks. Trump most recently proposed dismantling the National Environmental Policy Act. He has also killed coal ash regulations and the EPA’s only plan to reduce emissions from coal. And just this week, the agency wiped out protections for wetlands that favor polluters. During the Trump years, EPA enforcement has fallen all while the administration has tried to slash the agency’s funding and force workers out. And it’s also been ground zero for the administration’s assault on the federal workforce.

For example, the agency has historically allowed its employees to work from home and has been pretty flexible about work schedules, Danita Yocom, the vice president of AFGE Local 1236 in San Francisco and an attorney at the EPA, told Earther. In addition to giving workers flexibility, it also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commuting. Now, the agency allows only one teleworking day a week.

You can imagine how this would impact working parents, in particular, who may work from home to ensure they pick up their kids from daycare or school on time. Or now if someone needs to take only the afternoon off to run an errand or take their kid to the doctor, that employee is forced to take the entire day off because of these new rules. These are the types of scenarios Yocom now faces.

“That’s time I could’ve been getting work done the entire morning, and I’m not able to do that now,” Yocom said. “It’s not really working well for families, and it doesn’t really work well for getting the work done, either.”

Morale is the largest issue with Trump’s changes, Yocom said. The changes the administration is implementing make it “more difficult, if not impossible,” she said, for these workers to do their jobs, whether that’s protecting bodies of water or reducing air pollution. That’s why they’re putting pressure on the EPA to let them do their jobs. The well-being of a nation is on the line.

“We really do want to see the agency focus on climate. We really want to see the agency make its decisions based on science,” Yocom said. “We really want the agency to continue environmental enforcement. This is really the first time we’ve come to this point where we feel we need to speak out in this way.”

Some of the impacts go beyond work-life balance and the science, as the Bill of Rights makes clear. Point nine demands the right to a hate-free and safe workplace. The agency has dealt with at least a handful of racist incidents since Trump entered office. At the Washington headquarters, offensive messages using the n-word were left on a whiteboard in November 2018, and the EPA didn’t take sufficient action to investigate the incident, Gary Morton, president of AFGE Council 238 and recent EPA retiree, told Earther. 

“That’s why we want a hate-free and safe workplace,” he said. “We’re fighting for our rights.” MORE

RELATED:

Ontario heading for a troubling investor-confidence tipping point

Troubling as it is, the revocation of the Nation Rise Renewable Energy Approval is only the latest in a series of actions negatively impacting wind-energy investment stretching back to the current government’s election. This includes its cancellation of 758 renewable energy contracts, including the contract of the already under-construction White Pines wind project in Prince Edward County, in July 2018.
The government has also now directed the electricity system operator to review generation contracts, with a focus on those expiring within the next 10 years, for cost-saving opportunities.
CanWEA has made it clear that there are more than 95 operating wind projects in Ontario, which are owned by a multitude of investors, each with different financial models, Community Benefit Programs, land-owner agreements etc., demonstrating there is no simple one-size-fits-all approach to realize cost savings.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Todd Smith, Minister of Economic Development, speak at a Toronto-area factory on Feb. 14, 2019. Jack Boland/Postmedia News
Recognition of this fact is critical because any decisions taken here have the potential to create significant negative repercussions throughout Ontario communities, and the broader private equity and investment communities. MORE
RELATED:

Ban The Fossils From Climate Talks Starting With #COP26 in Glasgow

In order for climate talks to succeed, organizers must ban the fossil fuel industry—the fossils—from all future climate conferences starting with COP 26 (Conference of the Parties) in November 2020 in Glasgow, Scotland. Click on button below and say “I Agree”.

Ban the Fossils from Climate Talks

It's Time To Ban The Fossils From Climate Talks Starting With COP 26 in Glasgow, Below2C

The World Needs Fossil-Free Climate Talks

Previous summits going back decades —including COP 25 (Madrid) — have been supported financially by sponsorship deals from the fossil fuel industry. And it’s not unusual for the fossils to actually have a spot at the negotiating table. “Company representatives are often invited by governments to join their delegation and allowed to hold side events during the summit,” reports The National.

Why even the Paris Agreement (COP 21) “was guided to its inevitable conclusion by the veiled hand of Big Oil and its corporate and political allies,” writes Donald Gutstein in The Big Stall. According to Gutstein, Big Oil got its deal in Paris. The Agreement is weak lacking in both ambition and any means of enforcement—exactly what the fossils wanted.

Nothing in the Agreement is obligatory, prompting ecological economist Clive Splash to call it “a fantasy which lacks any actual plan to achieve the targets for emissions reduction…no mentions of greenhouse gas sources, not a single comment on fossil fuel use, nothing about how to stop the expansion of fracking, shale oil or explorations for gas and oil in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

In the euphoria following the approval of the agreement in Paris in 2015, many media outlets, climate experts and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) proclaimed victory calling it the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. But then, the fossil fuel industry got to work and doubled down.

Always Set Up to Fail

There have been four COPs since the Paris Agreement (COP21) and all have failed to move the climate action needle forward. Commenting on the recent COP25 failure in Madrid, Dr. Peter Carter (Director of Climate Emergency Institute and an IPCC expert reviewer) shared these observations during a video interview.

He called COP25 “yet another circus…it’s another delay. — Dr. Peter Carter

“Oh, it’s always been set up to fail….the first two COPs were pretty successful and ever since then things have gone down down down…it just takes a couple of countries to be able to veto any major decision…it is unbelievable what these high-emitting fossil fuel producing countries are doing.” And this is so because of the “consensus” approach adopted for COPs including COP21 which produced the Paris Agreement in 2015. Peter Carter is also the co-author of Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival.

Year after year major oil-producing countries such as the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others are blocking the science from the negotiations that are necessary to achieve solid climate success. Mitchell Beer, curator for The Energy Mix, reports that “there was no doubt that fossil interests are still by far the dominant corporate voice.” “They are inside government writing the rules,” Greenpeace International Executive Director and COP veteran Jennifer Morgan said of the business representatives following the meeting.

“Big polluters and the countries most historically responsible for the climate crisis have been able to ruthlessly advance the fossil fuel industry’s profit agenda over our collective futures,” said Catherine Abreu in Madrid.

Ban the Fossils from Climate Talks

We have a global climate emergency. Climate talks are failing. We don’t have time to wait any longer. We are failing our children and grandchildren.

The Fossils should not be a major player in climate talks. They should not be at the negotiating table. Governments hosting climate conferences should not seek nor accept sponsorship deals from the Fossils. Their goal is to slow down and block action on the climate.

The goal of the Agreement is to decrease greenhouse gases and hold the warming of the planet to well below 2C. But that isn’t happening five years later nor will it ever happen as long as the Fossils control the process.

The World Needs a Fossil-Free COP 26 in Glasgow. It starts with this petition to the United Nations. Click on the button below, and then click on “I agree”.

Ban the Fossils from Climate Talks