Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

The World’s Most Vulnerable Nations Got Shut Out at COP28

A reminder that “consensus” doesn’t always equal agreement.

Kausea Natano, Prime Minister of Tuvalu.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the moments after Sultan Al Jaber, the president of this year’s COP, struck his gavel to finalize the text of the first-ever global stocktake, Anne Rasmussen, the lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, took the floor.

“We are a little confused about what just happened,” Rasmussen said. “It seems that you gaveled the decisions, and the small island developing states were not in the room.”

Rasmussen and her colleagues, it turned out, had left the room to discuss the changes they wanted to see in the text, with the idea that they could come back and present those changes to Al Jaber. But, as Tom Evans of E3G explained to me recently, COP works on the idea of consensus, which is reached when all the members who are in the room when a vote is called find common agreement.

Sometimes, consensus is used in odd political ways — the U.S. delegation for example, left the room during discussions around a loss and damage fund, which allowed the vote to go forward despite the U.S.’s hesitations. This may be what everyone thought the members of AOSIS were doing; when they re-entered the room, they received a standing ovation, which contributed to Rasmussen’s confusion.

But the moment had passed; there was nothing Rasmussen or her colleagues could do to get the text of the stocktake amended. So she used her time on the floor to stake her moral authority. I’m quoting liberally, because I think her words are worth taking in:

“AOSIS at the beginning of this COP had one objective, to ensure that 1.5 [degrees Celsius] is safeguarded in a meaningful way. Our leaders and ministers have been clear. We cannot afford to return to our islands with the message that this process has failed us,” she said. “We have come to the conclusion that the course correction that is needed has not yet been secured.”

Rasmussen continued, pointing out paragraphs and sub-paragraphs where the text failed to live up to its promise. It was, in short, a rebuke of what was supposed to be the most important statement to come out of this conference, the failed realization of a promise that was made when the Paris Agreement was written in 2015.

In many ways, that promise is personal for Rasmussen and her colleagues. AOSIS is the reason the 1.5 degree C target is in the Paris Agreement in the first place — as Justin Worland wrote in TIME in 2015, President Obama said the voices of the island nations were vital in those talks — and the passage of the stocktake without the presence of those nations is a cynical reversal of how things happened at that historic conference.

Rasmussen received a standing ovation when she finished.

Yellow

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

Offshore Wind Developers Are Now 3 for 3 Against Trump

A third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.

Donald Trump and offshore wind.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.

District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.

Keep reading...Show less
Sparks

New York’s Empire Wind Project May Resume Construction, Judge Says

The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.

Offshore wind.
Heatmap Illustration/Equinor

A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.

In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Sparks

How Trump’s Case Against Revolution Wind Fell Apart (Again)

A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.

Donald Trump and wind turbines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).

Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”

Keep reading...Show less
Blue