By Maria Antonia Tigre, Florencia Ortúzar and Javier Dávalos*

With the largest rainforest in the world, the largest freshwater reserves on the planet and the most significant amount of arable land where food is produced, the importance of Latin America and the Caribbean in the fight against climate change is undeniable.

Unfortunately, however, the region is also highly vulnerable to the damaging effects of the climate crisis, despite not being significant emitters of greenhouse gasses. As a result, human and environmental rights are being threatened in a context where defenders are constantly at risk. Sadly, the region has been recognized as the most dangerous for environmental and human rights defenders.

Strategic climate litigation has slowly grown in the region as a critical tool to complement the work for the defense of the environment, the territory, and the protection of the rights of peoples and communities. Litigating in the Global South and Latin America is different from litigating in the Global North, with particular challenges that must be addressed strategically.

Cases in some of the most dangerous countries for environmental defenders might render them more vulnerable to attacks and threats. A lack of resources might leave plaintiffs, who bravely stand up for the cause, unprotected, and not only from violence but from subtler maladies, such as emotional stress or stigmatization.

Another huge obstacle is the grave corruption that affects the region, which implies excessive power for extractive companies. Corruption is a widespread and deeply rooted phenomenon, especially in multimillion-dollar industries such as fossil fuels and extractivism. There’s a risk that companies or governments might co-opt academics, and proving and battling corruption is extremely difficult and dangerous.

Finally, one of the most severe obstacles to making climate litigation effective in Latin America and the Caribbean is the difficulty litigators face when implementing favorable decisions. LAC presents some encouraging but at the same time alarming statistics around climate litigation. Although the vast majority of cases that have been resolved so far have had favorable decisions, the implementation of these has, so far, been unsatisfactory. There is much to be done on this front, including identifying administrative deficiencies of States that influence the difficulty of enforcing decisions; and considering, from the planning stage of cases, which remedies are sought and how implementation will be demanded.

Despite these challenges, climate litigation is already showing the power it beholds in promoting change. In Peru, a group of young people sued the government for failing to formulate and execute a national policy and plan to curb deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon (Álvarez et al. v Peru). In Colombia, the Wayúu indigenous communities promoted an action to annul the environmental permit of a colossal coal mine (Mina Cerrejon). In Mexico, Greenpeace promoted an injunction to stop atmospheric pollution and improve air quality in the State of Mexico (Greenpeace v Secretaría de Medio Ambiente). In Argentina, the Organización de Ambientalistas Organizados demanded that the Ministry of Environment halts the approval of offshore exploration of fossil fuels for its impacts on whales and climate change (Organización de Ambientalistas Organizados v Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development). In Ecuador, a group of nine girls questions the Ecuadorian State for authorizing oil companies to burn gas in the Ecuadorian Amazon (Caso Mecheros). In Chile, the NGO Defensoría Ambiental sued the government and all the companies operating in an emblematic sacrifice zone for the environmental damage caused after years of operations (Daño Ambiental en Ventanas). And these are only some examples.

 

 

The Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean has been created in this context. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a regional NGO that uses the law to protect the environment and the human rights of communities, has been leading the effort in close collaboration with regional organizations and litigators who have been behind some of the cases in the region.

AIDA launched the platform in a webinar, the recording of the event is available here.

The Platform, which is maintained in Spanish, offers information on the judicial cases in the region that use climate arguments in a friendly and intuitive manner. It also includes a section of downloadable resources that might be useful for stakeholders who are planning on using the law to advance their cases. The goal is to promote more cases and better outcomes. Thus, the Platform is a tool to deliver, share strategies, experiences, and arguments on climate litigation, help create and strengthen alliances and facilitate contact between people who work in favor of the environment and climate.

This initiative emanates from a collaboration with different organizations. It is a cross-cutting and participatory initiative that feeds on collective work. AIDA’s initiative fits well within the collaborative endeavors of the Sabin Center. In December 2021, the Sabin Center launched the Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation to enhance the field of study and practice in climate litigation and ensure broad and equal geographic representation in our Global Climate Litigation Database. The Network includes national rapporteurs who help us ensure the database is comprehensive and up-to-date. In addition, the Sabin Center is continuously partnering with regional initiatives that specifically analyze climate litigation within a national or regional context.

As part of this ongoing effort, the Sabin Center has partnered with AIDA to share information and facilitate the exchange between collaborators of the two projects.

The launch of this regional Climate Litigation Platform is not only great news for Latin America and the Caribbean but also for the whole active global community that uses the Courts in favor of the planet.

Visit the Platform

 

*Maria Antonia Tigre is Global Climate Litigation Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney at AIDA and Javier Dávalos is coordinator of AIDA's Climate Program.

 

“Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act”.

- Greta Thumberg, addressing the World Economic Forum in January 2019.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report confirmed what we’ve all feared. With more refined scientific evidence than ever before, the report warns that climate change is intensifying, affecting all regions of the planet. Humanity's influence on this imbalance is now referred to as "unequivocal." As such, there’s no doubt that it’s our responsibility to confront the problem.

Recent and aggressive climate events demonstrate that the world is transitioning from mere warnings to real, apocalyptic experiences. The Panel is not exaggerating. Over the last few months, floods have killed hundreds of people in some of the richest countries on the planet, and fires have ravaged thousands of hectares across the globe.

Despite all this, there is still hope! And hope is our main ally in changing course.

The report projected five scenarios, from the least to the most ambitious, according to the mitigation measures that humanity could implement. All of them, even the most ambitious, result in exceeding the 1.5 °C average temperature of the planet by 2040. Despite the starkness of that forecast, the report also shows that, by taking aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could stabilize the increase at 1.4°C by 2100.

The battle is not over, let alone lost. The most important consequences of this planetary imbalance are still uncertain and are being played out in the field.

So what’s next?

Drastic reductions of greenhouse gases will only be possible with systemic changes at the government and corporate levels. We also need to adjust our narratives so as to not fall into defeatism and hopelessness, because there is no scientific evidence to support surrender.

Nor should we allow the environmental movement to become divided; we must be alert to the campaigns of fear and diversion practiced by our opponents. Hopelessness, defeatism and the division of our voices are precisely the winning cards of those who resist change.

Given the global context, what follows are some necessary and urgent actions that will allow us to advance toward the future we need:

• Aiming for a rapid and just energy transition that respects human rights and includes a gender focus; as well as a new type of development that does not bulldoze nature, but cherishes and respects it. These changes should not produce fear. The technology to generate energy with minimal emissions and environmental impacts exists, is proven, and has greater potential to create jobs than the fossil fuel industry. A world powered by clean, renewable energy is a fairer, greener world.
• Holding the industries and companies that drive our economy accountable for what their activities leave behind. The subsidy nature has paid in the name of economic development has already exceeded what is reasonable. Projects that impact the environment, that attack the balance of nature, are no longer viable. The institutional framework and the principles of national and international law that protect the environment and human rights are on our side. We must interpret and use them for what they are: sources of binding and obligatory law. 
• Ensuring the protection of natural sites that have not yet been disturbed, especially those of high environmental value. Nature has the capacity to regenerate and heal itself, but we must give it a chance. Indigenous and traditional peoples, guardians of their forests and territories, play a key role in this.
• Advocating for the correct use of climate funds at the international level, ensuring that they work toward climate justice and not false solutions that do more harm than the disease itself. National and international financial institutions move huge amounts of money each year to address climate change. Funds for mitigation and adaptation are available and projects to be financed must comply with environmental and social safeguards. The monetary cost of not acting or not acting enough is much higher than the cost of taking immediate, effective and decisive action. 
• Being strategic and relying on science to take advantage of every mitigation opportunity. One example is the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants, which were specifically addressed in the recent IPCC report. These pollutants have historically lacked the attention they deserve, despite the incredible opportunity their mitigation implies. One of them is methane, whose presence in the environment is at an all-time high. Methane—the sources of which include coal mining, fracking, large dam reservoirs and intensive livestock farming—has 67 times more power than carbon dioxide (CO₂) to warm the planet over a 20-year period, and its emissions cause almost 25% of that warming. Reducing these pollutants also means improving air quality in cities across the global. 
• Achieving ambitious results in international negotiations and honoring the treaties that protect the planet, taking advantage of the strength we have when we act in coordination. It’s true that we have been attending UN conferences on climate change for 25 years without managing to reduce emissions, but it’s also true that we have an agreement signed by all member states that is binding and that orders each country to do its part to avoid exceeding the dangerous barriers of warming. Let us not dismiss what has been achieved; rather, let’s continue to build on it.

We must demand these actions and not settle for less. We must be on alert to vote for leaders who have what it takes to lead us that way.  Every small victory, every ton of CO₂ that is kept in the ground, every natural space that is preserved, moves us away from the worst effects of this crisis.

It's our turn, and nature must come first. We owe it to those who will inhabit this beautiful planet in the near and distant future.

 

Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.

GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.

In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists.

 

Recording

 

panelists

• Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch: CSOs participation in GCF processes at the national level: Engaging with National Designated Authorities (NDAs) and Focal Points.
• Collins Otieno, PACJA: Experiences from Africa’s regional node.
• Tunga Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN); and Titi Soentoro - Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice: Experiences from Asia's regional node.
• Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Experiences from Latin America’s regional node.

Moderator: Claire Miranda, climate justice advocate.

 

Presentations

1. Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch:

 

Presentations

1. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung:

Presentation in French

Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.

GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.

In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists.

 

Panelists

• Florencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.
• Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.
• Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021.

Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch.

 

recording

 

PRESENTATIONS

1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC):

International Environmental Law (IEL) is a discipline that involves the whole world in the protection of a common good: our environment. At AIDA, we apply it every day to help individuals and communities defend the environment and the fundamental human rights that depend on it.

But where did this global discipline come from and how has it evolved? Its rules have not been dictated by a national institution or an international authority. Rather, it is a compendium of declarations, treaties and rules—some binding, some voluntary—that have developed alongside scientific knowledge and awareness of the current state of our natural world.

The history of IEL can be divided into three stages, separated by two of the most relevant international conferences held so far: the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (1992). And in 2016, with the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new stage began to confront humanity's most important natural challenge: the current climate emergency.

The beginnings: Before Stockholm

Before the 1960s, there was little environmental awareness and only a few isolated international environmental regulatory initiatives. One of these was the failed London Convention of 1900, which sought to protect African wildlife. It never came into force because it was not signed by the minimum number of parties. It was replaced 33 years later by the 1933 London Convention, which was implemented in much of colonized Africa through the creation of nature parks and species protection.

During those years, other initiatives were carried out in isolation. But things really started to change in the 1960s, when public opinion became aware of the dangers threatening the planet.

Some of the events that marked this era were the publication in 1962 of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which documented the negative effects of pesticides on birds and the environment; and the release of the image known as Earthrise, taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission.

The Stockholm Declaration

A product of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm Declaration (1972) was the first international document to recognize the right to a healthy environment through 26 principles, many of which have played an important role in the subsequent development of IEL.

Principle 21, for example, confirmed one of the cornerstones of IEL: the responsibility of States to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other States. The Declaration also established the Principle of Cooperation, which is crucial in the further development of IEL, by recognizing that countries should unite their  efforts to meet the global challenges of our shared environment.

Also in Stockholm, the UN General Assembly created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the central body in charge of environmental affairs today.

Between Stockholm and Rio

After Stockholm, changes began to be seen in national governments: the first green political parties were formed, some Ministries of Environment were created, and a significant amount of local environmental legislation began to be developed.

In 1983, the UN created the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission. Its work, which focused on the difficult relationship between environment and development, resulted in the report Our Common Future (1987).

That document coined the concept of sustainable development - defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" - which is the basis for the evolution of IEL.

At this time, some of the global environmental problems that still afflict us today began to manifest themselves--including the depletion of the ozone layer, risks to biological diversity, and the threat of climate change. International cooperation was absolutely necessary and developed countries would have to help poorer countries if humanity was to be able to meet such challenges.

In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed to combat the depletion of the ozone layer. This international agreement has been an example of successful international cooperation.Because of it, it’s believed that the ozone layer could recover by 2050.

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 

In 1992, during this Conference, two conventions were presented to be signed by national governments: the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Rio Declaration was also established, which reaffirmed the Stockholm Declaration and the Agenda 21 action program, which continues to guide governments and non-state actors in environmental protection activities. In Rio, in the face of growing evidence that human activities in pursuit of economic growth were responsible for major environmental threats, the central concept continued to be sustainable development.

Two principles of the Rio Declaration deserve special consideration: the Precautionary Principle, the most advanced form of prevention and important to the formation of modern IEL; and Principle 10, which recognizes the right to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. In 1998 Principle 10 gave rise to the Aarhus Convention, binding in Europe and Central Asia. The Aarhus Convention is the predecessor of the Escazú Agreement, which seeks recognition of these rights in Latin America.

This recognition is also considered an important milestone in the creation of IEL because it shows the emergence of civil society as an increasingly important and active player in global environmental protection.

After Rio and into the Future

After Rio, all major economic treaties began to include environmental protection. A case in point is the Marrakech Agreement, which created the World Trade Organization in 1994 and was the first economic treaty to recognize the goals of sustainable development and environmental protection.

The Convention on Climate Change of 1995 deserves special mention, since its signatories have met every year at the so-called Conference of the Parties (COP). Within this framework, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was presented. Despite not having been successful in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first international agreement to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries.

In 2000, 189 countries adopted the Millennium Declaration in New York, which strengthened the importance of sustainable development by recognizing the need for sustainable economic growth with a focus on the poor and respect for human rights.

Two years later, in 2002, representatives from 190 countries attended the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to follow up on the commitments of the Rio Summit. On that occasion, they adopted the Declaration on Sustainable Development, which focused on development and poverty eradication with a legal-economic approach on "public-private partnerships”.

And in 2012, the UN organized the third Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio + 20, which brought together 192 Member States, private sector companies, NGOs, and other organizations. The result was a non-binding document called The Future We Want. In the document, States renewed their commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of a sustainable future.

Modern Times

The Kyoto Protocol to address climate change gave way to the Paris Agreement (2016).  In this agreement, the signatory countries committed themselves to doing everything possible to prevent the average temperature of the planet from rising by 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, and hopefully staying below a 1.5°C rise. The relationship between human rights and climate change was recognized in its preamble. Having been ratified by almost all countries in the world, it has immense potential as an instrument of international law. In fact, recently the first ruling that prevented a project (the expansion of an airport) was made in England, on the grounds that by proceeding the country would not be complying with the Paris Agreement.

A contemporary landmark of great relevance, especially for Latin America, is Advisory Opinion 23 (2017) on the environment and human rights of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In it, the Court recognized for the first time the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence, as well as the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the current construction of an international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In recognition of the crucial role that the ocean plays in the health of the planet and especially in the stability of the climate, safeguarding the vast and mysterious areas in the high seas seems to be absolutely necessary.

Conclusion: Where do we stand?

After reviewing the most important milestones related to global efforts to address the serious environmental crisis we are experiencing, it is inevitable that we will be plunged into deep concern.

Global initiatives have not succeeded in motivating the change of direction we need for our planet to begin to regain its health. As it stands, no one can ensure that future generations will be able to meet their needs as past and present generations have done.

Despite the disappointments, it is important to continue promoting global initiatives where common policies are discussed and where IEL takes shape. Although these initiatives have not yet been able to stop the environmental crisis, they have strengthened IEL as an instrument to defend our causes, something that we make the most of at AIDA.

Likewise, world conferences often become platforms for large-scale protests and awareness-raising campaigns directed by global civil society, which has become increasingly alert and determined to defend our environment.

Today, much of the hope for change lies in the strength of civil society, especially in the young people who have awakened and come to the defense of the planet. This force finds in IEL a point of support to demand what we need: a resounding change in the model of development that still guides the affairs of the planet, and which is causing so much damage.

 

Forty percent of the energy produced and consumed in Chile comes from burning coal. Just 28 thermoelectric plants, concentrated in five locations across the country, generate that enormous amount of energy.

In these so-called Sacrifice Zones, inhabitants live immersed in pollution. The result is severe health damages, children with learning disabilities, and poisoned seas.

The serious detriment of living in one of these areas has been amply documented. A recent report from the Catholic University of Chile, commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile, shows that living in a Sacrifice Zone translates into greater risks of illness and premature death.

The country’s current social unrest represents a historic opportunity for transformation.

Pushed by the voice of its people, and in the Presidency of this year’s international climate negotiations, Chile can lead a structural change focused on the redistribution of burdens and benefits, both social and environmental.

The result would be a cleaner and fairer country.

The road to decarbonization

In June, after a year of discussions with industry and other stakeholders, President Sebastian Piñera announced a schedule for the decarbonization of Chile. In the agreement, industry leaders pledged to close all coal-fired power plants by 2040.

As positive as it may seem, an in-depth analysis of the proposal leads to the conclusion that the government’s goal is not ambitious enough to achieve the prompt justice that affected communities deserve.

The timetable sets the nation’s eight oldest plants up for the closure by 2024, but fails to give dates or details on the closure of the remaining 20 plants, leaving it to the goodwill of future administrations. Under those terms, there is no way to guarantee that the plan will be implemented.

Moreover, waiting 20 more years is not an acceptable deal for those who have already carried too much of the burden for far too long. Nor is it a move toward maintaining our planet’s climate equilibrium, a battle in which we have no time to spare.

Another criticism of the government's proposal is that shortly after it was announced, the energy company Engie inaugurated a new coal-fired power plant in Mejillones, a Sacrifice Zone in the north of the country. The new plant has more than double the operating capacity of two thermoelectric plants in Tocopilla, which the same company would have closed after signing the decarbonization plan.

But it's not all bad news. A month before social protests broke out in Chile, the government signaled a more ambitious decarbonization goal. In September, the Chamber of Deputies approved an initiative asking the President to move the closure of coal-fired power plants up by ten years, to 2030.

The request is based on a study commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile and completed by the consulting firm Kas Engineers. Their research shows the technical and economic feasibility of reaching decarbonization by 2030.

Chile’s current social crisis erupted in the midst of the search for a binding agreement to achieve decarbonization.

Social unrest in Chile

Chile is in the midst of a historic moment. Social discontent—generated by the injustices, inequality and lack of equity endured for years by the most vulnerable segments of the population—triggered ongoing protests, which have yet to abate.

What’s happening in Chile is a mirror of what could happen in many countries of the world, particularly in Latin America. The metaphorical grass is dry and any spark could surely ignite social mobilization, uncovering chambers that have for years accumulated injustice and discontent.

The figures confirm that Chile has grown and there is less poverty, but neither the benefits nor the burdens have been equitably distributed. Authorities have failed. Confidence is running out and disillusionment is increasing.

The Sacrifice Zones are a very clear example of the structural problems afflicting our society: certain communities bear all the costs and enjoy none of the benefits. This is unacceptable.

A new direction is possible

Fires, floods and other extreme weather events, which uproot people’s lives, show us that nature will not stop protesting until we respect her.

Society is also calling for respect, with an urgency that has gained the attention of decision-makers. Changes that once seemed impossible are within reach.

It’s not that social demands are more important than environmental demands, or vice versa. Environmental demands are also social demands.

Although the climate crisis and pollution affect us all, the damage is much greater for the most vulnerable populations.

Changes that favor our planet can and must be made with a social justice perspective, and in harmony with nature. 

In the case of Chile, decarbonization—and with it, an end to Sacrifice Zones—is the change that will make us a better country. Because one of life’s greatest injustices is being forced to live in an unhealthy environment.

 

Speaking in front of more than 500 people was a unique and beautiful experience, above all for the reason I came together with such an amazing group of people. We were seven diverse individuals with two powerful things in common: our love for the natural environment and our work to preserve it.

We were in Santiago, Chile as part of the conference, “Nature first: a new deal with the environment.” The great interest the audience had in the event filled me with such joy, as did the opportunity to speak beside my colleagues from The Naturalists, a series of interviews in which professionals from distinct environmental professions were invited to speak about what being a naturalist implies in the modern world. 

The video series and this event was put on by Ladera Sur, an online platform and community built around nature, the environment, the outdoors, travel, and much more. It was Ladera Sur that introduced us as 20^thCentury Naturalists, a great honor and an even greater obligation.

But what does “nature first,” a title with such urgency, really mean?

It means that, for too long, nature has been subsidizing our technological advancements and even our quality of life. We live in a world in which those who have the means can do practically anything. Perhaps some of us have stopped to think about tomorrow, and how it may be difficult for our children or grandchildren to enjoy even the simplest things in life. But the time has come to reorganize our priorities. We have neither the time, nor the credit, to continue borrowing from nature.

Before proceeding with any potentially harmful project or activity, we first must demonstrate that the activity would not hurt the health of the planet. Only after assuring that is it worth asking whether a project is also good business, or if it will make our lives easier or more comfortable. 

This is not the position of an eco-terrorist, nor is it counter to economic development. It’s simply looking ahead at the reality of a living on a sick planet—a planet on whose health we depend.

The good news is that the changes we need to make to resolve the environmental crisis are not only achievable; they are what people living on this planet actually want.

A world with low emissions is a cleaner and more just world; a world driven by renewables means less pollution and more equitable access to energy; a world with more protected natural areas is a greener, healthier, more verdant world; it is rich in biodiversity and has a greater capacity to provide clean air and water.

See the complete video of the conference below.

 

The international scientific community has spoken: the only thing that can save us from a climate catastrophe is a radical and immediate change. The next 11 years are the most important in the history of the planet, in terms of climate change. Our response to their message will determine our future.

In its most recent analysis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations establishes the impacts that could occur if the planet’s average temperature increases by more than 2°C, and compares those with what would happen if we stop warming, or at least keep it below 1.5°C.

The 2016 Paris Agreement, an international accord to curb climate change, aims to keep warming well below 2°C with respect to pre-industrial levels, and to continue global efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

The impacts of global warming

The IPCC experts’ conclusions are piercing. Those extra 0.5°C would be lethal for millions of people and their ways of life. If the Earth warms 2°C or more, we would experience:

• more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts and floods;
• sea level rise of an extra 10 centimeters, implying coastal flooding and filtration of salt water into agricultural areas and freshwater sources—a matter of life and death for roughly 10 million people;
• double the risk of habitat loss for plants and vertebrates, and triple the risk for insects, considering more than 100 thousand species which were studied;
• the disappearance of more than 99% of coral reefs, while 10 to 30 percent of what remains could be saved if we were to stabilize the planet’s temperature below 1.5°C;
• an increase in the range of mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as malaria and dengue; and
• the devastation of crops and livestock, severely affecting global food security.

So, how are we doing now? Not so well.

The planet has already warmed 1°C since preindustrial times, and in 2017 the emissions responsible for warming increased again.

The commitments nations made to comply with the Paris Agreement are insufficient. Settling on that level of ambition would take us to 3°C warming by 2030, a reality with unimaginable consequences.

Changing our climate destiny

Let’s talk about solutions. Ensuring that the planet’s warming doesn’t exceed 1.5°C is possible, but it will require unprecedented action.

Emissions must lower by 45 percent between 2010 and 2030, and we must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That means not emitting more than what the world’s forests and natural carbon sinks can absorb.

This will require that:

• the most polluting industries, particularly those producing fossil fuels, implement radical changes;
• renewable energy is the norm by 2050, accounting for between 70 and 85 percent of total energy production;
• coal-fired power plants disappear;
• transportation runs with clean, renewable electricity; and
• we expand, maintain, and care for forests and other natural carbon sinks, which are responsible for removing emissions from the atmosphere.

The IPCC report also recognizes a monumental opportunity: the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)—including black carbon or soot, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and tropospheric ozone.

More climatically intense than carbon dioxide, SLCPs are responsible for half of global warming. Because of their short duration in the atmosphere, they could play a key role in reducing warming in the short term. In addition, the reduction of SLCPs brings important benefits for human well-being, including the reduction of pollution that affects public health and better yield of crops.

But few countries have included the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their national commitments on climate change. At AIDA we’re working so that Latin American nations advance in the control of these emissions.

As the region with the greatest potential for renewable energies, Latin America has the opportunity to be an example for the rest of the planet.

The threats facing the region are great and avoiding them is well worth the effort. Climate change threatens to shake us from our very roots—melting Andean glaciers, increasing droughts and floods, diminishing freshwater supplies, driving species to extinction, increasing wildfires, favoring the spread of invasive species, losing corals and marine biodiversity, affecting food security, and wreaking havoc on people’s health and livelihoods.

The outlook is clear: maintaining global warming below 1.5°C is not an easy task, but science holds it’s possible.

We have the scientific knowledge, and the technological and financial capacity to achieve this goal. The responsibility now lies with governments, decision-makers and the private sector—together they must drive unprecedented changes.

We must remember that implementing these changes is not just possible, it’s desirable. A world with fewer emissions is a cleaner and a fairer world for us and for future generations.

What’s not to like?

 

By Florencia Ortúzar and Monti Aguirre*

Hydroelectric energy has been one of the largest drivers of development in many Latin American nations, and still represents a large portion of the region’s energy matrix. But is it really the best option?

In response to a blog by the Inter-American Development Bank reflecting on the future of the hydroelectric sector in Latin America, we’d like to reflect on what it means to continue betting on large dams in Latin America.

What follows are three reasons why we must say no to more large dams:

1. Better alternatives to hydroelectricity exist, and should be considered in project planning

Before selecting an alternative energy source, governments and companies should develop a strategic plan that analyzes energy needs and the best way of achieving them. In this analysis, all options must be considered. It’s worrysome that this doesn’t already happen.

For example, in the case of the Hidroituango dam—thought to be the largest in Colombia and associated with serious socio-environmental damages—the government decided to not conduct a prior evaluation of alternatives. Although the law did not require it at the time, the evaluation was recommended and is an international standard that large financial institutions should apply when investing in projects of this type.

Today, other energy sources—like wind and solar—are proven to be economically competitive, can be constructed more quickly, and do not aggravate climate change. Innovations in smart grids, power storage and batteries also solve intermittency problems and make hydroelectric plants unnecessary. Geothermal, tidal, and wave energy are alternatives, the potential of which we have not even glimpsed.

The promotion of large dams only delays adoption of the truly clean energy solutions that Latin America and the planet desperately need.

According to the Bank’s own studies, Latin America has the largest quantity and most varied sources of renewable energy in the world. The region's renewable resources could provide almost seven times the installed capacity worldwide, excluding hydroelectric power.

Therefore, although the region still holds great potential for untapped hydroelectric power, it’s necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the situation, taking into account the costs and benefits as compared to other energy options. Only then can governments decide whether it’s worth continuing to invest in hydropower, or whether it’s better to opt for other types of energy—thus avoiding the social, environmental and financial impacts that come with large dams.

2. Large dams cause socio-environmental damage and are not profitable

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the socio-environmental impacts of hydroelectric plants are greater than initially considered. In addition to forced displacement and the criminalization of those who oppose them, large dams flood land, reduce river flows, and change the ecosystems of downstream wetlands, destroying habitats and contributing to species extinction. All this impacts the lives of nearby communities, limiting their ability to adapt to climate change.

In economic terms, a study by the University of Oxford concluded that “even before accounting for the negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” In it, researchers show that the budgets and timeframes of large dam projects are consistently underestimated. Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam, for example, ran two times over its original budget, making it the most expensive public works project in the Amazon region. The budget of Chile’s Alto Maipo Dam has doubled four times over since the project was approved in 2009.

Recognizing that the costs far outweigh the benefits, some countries have opted for dismantling large dams. And private companies have scrapped hydroelectric projects altogether because they are neither economically viable nor profitable. The United States government  has adopted a policy to refuse any loan, donation, strategy or policy supporting the construction of large dams.

3. Large dams contribute to climate change

Climate change must be considered when discussing the relevance of hydroelectricity. Reservoirs generate significant quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, which is 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Likewise, the construction of dams endangers valuable carbon sinks like rivers and forests. For that reason, a proper analysis of carbon dioxide and methane emissions should be conducted before choosing a dam project—a process that usually doesn't occur.

Another aspect to consider is the vulnerability of dams to climate variations. Extreme rainfall increases sedimentation, which can cause structural problems and reduce the dam's lifespan. Droughts, now increasingly frequent, can render dams inefficient. As more dams lose efficiency, Latin America—now highly dependent on hydroelectricity—will be more vulnerable to energy shortages.

Even more serious is the threat posed by large dams in extreme weather events. In a dam gave way during bad weather, erasing entire villages. In Laos earlier this year, mass evacuations were ordered after heavy rains threatened a dam collapse. In Kerala, India, torrential rains, coupled with the mismanagement of several dams, have caused unprecedented flooding. In certain countries, the risk of dams overflowing or collapsing has already been recognized as a serious problem. Over time, more hydroelectric plants will begin to deteriorate and will require large investments to safeguard the communities living downstream.

As civil society representatives working for a more just and sustainable Latin America, we urge financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank to support the change we as a region need. We call on them to stop investing in large dams, which have been demonstrated time and again to be dangerous to the environment and local communities, costly for countries, and unsuited for our rapidly changing climate.

It’s time for a better energy plan. And it’s time to invest in non-conventional renewable energy based on thorough, independent and high-quality social and environmental impact assessments, the planning and implementation of which respect human rights.

---

* Monti Aguirre is the Latin America Program Coordinator for International Rivers.