Climate Emergency

planet-of-the-humans

Planet of the Humans

Planet of the Humans is tearing through the climate activism community, spreading confusion, doubt, and even anger amongst many of the people who are interested in doing something about the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the movie is pedalling long debunked tropes about solar and renewable energy, and doesn’t add anything new to discussion of climate action at all.
The main thesis of the movie is that all climate action has been taken over by the banks and that all climate action is as destructive or more destructive than just burning fossil fuels. This is done through a strong focus on the worst form of biomass energy and sustained by using old footage from 2012 interviewing several people who don’t seem to understand how solar energy works.
There are some good points about companies pretending they’re doing something useful for the environment, but that’s called <a href="https://eco18.com/your-guide-to-greenwashing/">Greenwashing</a> and climate activists spend a lot of time and energy fighting that too.
Let’s dive into some of this to help unravel the facts from the misinformation that you’re probably wondering about after seeing this movie.

The movie repeatedly claims that solar is not powerful enough to be taken seriously.
<blockquote>
You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning the fossil fuels.
</blockquote>
The time it takes for a solar panel to pay back the energy used to build it is well under four years. Since it lasts three decades, it means 90 percent of the power it produces is pollution-free, compared with zero percent of the power from burning fossil fuels. &#8211; Bill McKibben
<blockquote>
Although the film was released in 2020, the solar industry it examines, whether through incompetence or venality, is from somewhere back in 2009. – Source: <a href="https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/04/22/new-michael-moore-film-charges-enviro-leaders-have-lost-their-way-and-sold-out-to-corporate-interests/">PV Magazine</a>
</blockquote>
This quote is talking about the part where the movie interviews some chap talking about solar panels being 8% efficient. He claims the “football field-sized” solar park they’re standing in only generates 63,000 kWh, which can “only power 10 homes a year” because they could not afford the ”NASA solar panels” which cost “$1 million dollars a square inch.” He also says they only last 10 years. There’s a lot wrong with this, so let’s unpack it all.
Standard solar panels for industrial or home usage are 15-20% efficient, not 8%. Some high end panels are 30% and <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32202373/solar-panel-record-efficiency/">researchers have created experimental 40% panels</a>, but 20% is probably what you’re looking at when you see the standard blueish solar panels on racks.

<table class="table" style="width: 100%; font-size: 18px;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="text-align: left;">
<th>Manufacturer</th>
<th>Model</th>
<th>Rated Efficiency</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Sunpower Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/sunpower/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunpower X Series</a></td>
<td>SPR-X22-370</td>
<td>22.80%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="REC Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/rec-group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">REC Solar</a></td>
<td>REC Alpha Series 380AA</td>
<td>21.70%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="LG Reviews " href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/lg-solar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LG Solar</a></td>
<td>High NeON R Module</td>
<td>21.70%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Canadian Solar Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/canadian-solar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian Solar</a></td>
<td>HiDM-345MS</td>
<td>20.46%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Panasonic reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/panasonic-eco-solutions-north-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Panasonic HIT panels</a></td>
<td>N340 HIT</td>
<td>20.30%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Do these ~20% panels cost $1milion a square inch? Absolutely not, that’s ridiculous. In the United States in 2019, the average rooftop installation cost $16,000 without any subsidies involved.
Ok but rooftop setups are dinky right? Well, a reasonable home roof setup in the States <a href="https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/">might be able to generate 6,000 watts (6kW) of electricity</a>. For every one hour a 1kW solar panel has good sun, it’s generating 1 “kilowatt hour”, (1kWh).
Most of the States <a href="https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-information/sun-hours-us-map">get between 3.5 and 6 hours of peak sun a day</a>, so our average rooftop solar panel will be generating that full 6kW for, lets say, 5 hours.
Five hours a day, 365 days a year, would produce 1825 kWh. This is a low number, because they’ll still generate a bit outside those 5 hours, so let’s just round it to 2000. Let’s see how many homes it would take to match 63,000kWh that football field sized farm is trying to power? 63,000 kWh divided by 2000 kWh equals 32.
So back to price, 32 homes * $16,000 (average cost of a rooftop solar setup) and we’re looking at $512,000. Half a million to match the entire output of that “football solar park”, not the nonsense $1million per inch.
That town could have paid to install a few residents rooftop solar panels without needing to take up the space of a football field either.
There’s another important thing to point out if you’ve not seen the movie. For some reason the solar panels featured are old, floppy, “thin-film” panels also known as “Amorphous Silicon Solar Panels”. Their bendy nature makes them well suited for applications on curved surfaces, like the top of a train, or other places where a bulky panel wouldn’t fit. They’re a terrible choice for being put on racks like the solar park featured in this movie, but even those panels have an <a href="https://solarmagazine.com/solar-panels/">efficiency of 11-15% these days</a>.
Finally, do solar panels only last 10 years?
No.
<a href="https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx">Standard solar panels come with 20-25 year warranties</a>, so if this solar park only has a 10 year lifespan that adds more credence to the idea these panels were second hand.
There’s a few explanations for this section.
The footage is a decade or two old 
The solar park operators cheaped out, dusting off some junk old panels from some warehouse basement 
They consulted somebody to set the solar park up, who didn’t know anything about solar panels
Whatever the cause, the numbers do not hold up to 2020 standards by any means, which is awkward as this premise is used as a foundation for most of the rest of the movie.

Confusion: "100% Renewable" and "Off-Grid"

Another claim made throughout the film is that solar doesn’t work because it needs a grid connection for backup. Grid-tied solar is the most cost effective way to run solar panels because it’s using the entire grid like a giant battery. You put what solar into it that you can, put back any extra you have, and take out more if you need it.
When claims are made of being powered by “100% renewable” energy, like the Earth Day concert, <a href="https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/">Apple</a>, <a href="https://cloud.google.com/sustainability/">Google</a>, or Tesla, they are definitely still connected to the grid, and that is not inherently bad.
Take Apple as an example. All of their independent buildings around the world will not always have perfect sun conditions, but they can make sure they’re putting enough into various worldwide grids to cover the energy they’re taking out. Imagine the inefficiencies of Apple installing solar plants that are only connected to their buildings. How ridiculous would it be for every company to run their own plants, trail their own power cables past thousands of homes and factories, just to go directly into their office…
<blockquote>
The way ‘x% renewable energy’ works is companies look at how much energy they consume, and buy from the grid the same (or some percentage) quantity of energy sourced from renewables. The grid is one big pool with buckets of energy in and out. This is a revelation to the filmmakers, but a boring reality for anyone remotely familiar with the mechanics of electricity grids. – source: <a href="http://ketanjoshi.co/">ketanjoshi.co</a>
</blockquote>
You generate what solar energy you can on site, store what you have the capacity to store in batteries, then if you&#8217;re producing more than you need you can put that power back into the grid. If you&#8217;re not creating enough, you take that back from the grid.

Myth: Electric Cars are “Powered By Coal Anyway”

When the sales people are suddenly jumped with the question “where is the energy coming from to power this car” they flounder and take a few stabs at answering the question, but it’s hard to answer this sort of stuff is super nuanced.
A car can be charged in various places. Your home, which can be powered by 100% renewable electricity via providers like <a href="https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/">Good Energy</a> in the UK, at the supermarket, petrol stations, anywhere. Some of those might be using energy providers which are still powered by coal plants, so does that mean you might as well just drive a petrol car around?
No.
<blockquote>
[Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge] found that in 53 out of 59 regions, comprising 95% of the world, electric vehicles and domestic heat pumps generate less carbon dioxide than fossil fuel powered cars or boilers. The only exceptions are heavily coal-dependent countries such as Poland.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In countries such as Sweden, which gets most of its electricity from renewable sources, and France, which is largely powered by nuclear power, *the CO2 savings from using electric cars reach as high as 70% over their conventional counterparts.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the UK, the savings are about 30%. However, this is likely to improve further as electric vehicles grow even more efficient and more CO2 is taken out of the electricity generating system. – Source: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/electric-cars-produce-less-co2-than-petrol-vehicles-study-confirms">Guardian, “Electric cars produce less CO2 than petrol vehicles, study confirms”</a>, 2020
</blockquote>
We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but that’s harder to do when our motors literally contain combustion engines. Whilst car owners switch from fossil fuel to electric, the grid is also switching from fossil fuels to electric, so over time the exact same electric vehicle is causing fewer and fewer CO2 emissions. The same cannot be said for a conventional car. Hopefully we continue to transition towards renewable energy, but if enough policy makers are brainwashed by this movie then that could be at risk.
One legitimate problem raised in the movie is that electric cars require batteries which degrade over time. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5">Lithium batteries can be recycled</a>, and before needing to be stripped for their raw components they can actually be reused as storage at solar farms to help with maintaining a baseline load to the grid. Reuse is always better than recycling, and thankfully both are possible.
<blockquote>
When the battery packs in a lithium-ion-powered vehicle are deemed too worn out for driving, they still have up to 80 percent of their charge left. So before they ever get to a recycling center, these batteries are used to prop up the grid, especially alongside energy sources that may not be quite as steady, like wind or solar power. The batteries can store power to help the flow of electricity stay on an even keel rather than ebb and flow with the weather. – Source: <a href="https://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled.htm">How Stuff Works</a>
</blockquote>
I’m under no illusion that we can all swap our internal combustion engine cars (ICEs) for EVs overnight, but the UK grid can handle a much quicker transition than we’re seeing. With the development of Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology, EV drivers can actually help balance the UK grid by providing energy from their vehicle batteries to the grid at times of peak demand.  This doesn’t change the fact that the grid still isn’t green enough. In the UK we’ve <a href="http://grid.iamkate.com/">averaged 25% renewables</a> (plus 20% low carbon, excluding biomass) for the last year. Governments worldwide need to increase spending on all sorts of site-relevant renewable energy projects, but we can help flatten this curve by simply not driving as much, or at all.
One part of the movie that is fully accepted by environmental scientists and climate activists is that there’s no magical silver bullet tech here, and we cannot just all switch cars for “green cars”, we need lifestyle changes too. For example, if your household has two fossil fuel cars, the ideal solution would be to sell them both, buy one electric car if a car is absolutely needed, or get into the car sharing economy with turo, cars2go, etc. The best bet is to switch to bicycles, and if that’s not viable due to physical limitations, <a href="https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/buyers-guide/9-of-the-best-e-bikes-under-1000-2020-electric-bikes-on-a-budget-2209">electric bicycles</a>, or even an <a href="https://urbanebikes.com/collections/electric-motorbikes">electric motorbike</a>, instead of needing that electric car.

image3-2

image3

<blockquote>
The mother of two uses this electric cargobike to take her children to school, go grocery shopping, and run her freelance photography business. “It can carry everything I need and go anywhere I need to go,” she says. “I also feel like we’re more part of the community, being out in the open where we can interact with the people around us.” – Source: <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/metrofiets-cargo-bikes/">Mozilla,  Working for Good: Metrofiets Cargo Bikes</a>
</blockquote>
Fossil fuel bans are taking the worst offenders off the road (like the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-50292596">diesel ban in Bristol</a>), but we need to drastically speed things up. Coronavirus is pushing this change forward, with hundreds of miles of bike lanes being set up across cities like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/milan-seeks-to-prevent-post-crisis-return-of-traffic-pollution">Milan</a>, <a href="http://www.leparisien.fr/info-paris-ile-de-france-oise/transports/deconfinement-l-lle-de-france-investit-300-millions-d-euros-pour-la-realisation-du-rer-velo-21-04-2020-8303484.php">Paris</a>, and <a href="https://council.nyc.gov/press/2020/04/17/1939/">New York</a>, who are all keen to see less driving in general in their streets. Active transport with minimal EV usage is the way forward here, but EV’s aren’t inherently bad simply because some of their power comes from coal during the transition phase.

Myth: Solar / Renewable Has a “Huge” Carbon Footprint

An argument made over and over again throughout the movie is that solar panels and wind turbines are terrible because they require fossil fuel energy and minerals to create. Everything has a carbon footprint. The computer I’m writing on, the device you’re reading it on, the reusable coffee cup you’re drinking out of, and the <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/climate-emergency/climate-change-by-bike">bike I’ve been riding around Europe on</a> advocating for climate action, all has a carbon footprint. The important question is: what are the “lifecycle emissions” of the item in question, and is there a net gain from its existence.
The concept of lifecycle emissions analysis is its own science, with people studying for years just to be able to analyze certain types of products, but let’s do a quick example with a topic close to my heart. A bicycle requires fewer emissions to create and ship than a car. Cycling around creates emissions (eating and breathing!) yet still creates fewer emissions than a car. Then, recycling a bicycle takes less energy than recycling the components in a car. Overall, the lifecycle emissions of a bicycle are a mere tiny fraction of the lifecycle emissions of a standard car.
The <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html">National Renewable Energy Laboratory</a>, aggregated research into the full lifecycle of various energy sources, comparing the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour: an apples to apples comparison of how energy we get from each power source, compared to how much greenhouse gas was created to make it. See if you can notice a difference between renewable and fossil fuels.

image2-2

image2

This graph is a little tough to read at first, because the graph collates a whole bunch of sources for each. You can see there are 46 estimates for Photovoltaics (solar), 36 for Concentrated Solar Power (another type of solar), and 126 for Wind. The rectangles show the minimum and maximum, with the black line in the middle being the median (average). Generally, even the maximum carbon footprint for any renewable energy places it well below the most efficient gas or coal plants.
So, is renewable energy completely free of fossil fuels? Certainly not, but claims of renewable energy being “worse than fossil fuels” are demonstrably false. Patently untrue. Just completely incorrect.
You can read more about this on <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints">Carbon Brief: Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds</a>.

One claim made in this movie was from a random chap being interviewed, talking about ‘mountain-top removal’ for wind. I had to Google for a long time to find any reference of. The best I could find was this:

image1-2

image1

Mountaintop removal/valley fill is a mining practice where the tops of mountains are removed, exposing the seams of coal. Mountaintop removal can involve removing 500 feet or more of the summit to get at buried seams of coal. The earth from the mountaintop is then dumped in the neighbouring valleys. I’ve got friends who live in British Colombia, Canada, and they’ve pointed to gaps between two mountains where another mountain used to be. An entire mountain can be turned into a crater on the hunt for coal, and this is what that looks like:

image4

They’re not the same thing, and most wind farms do not require any logging. They’re placed in wide open spaces, or in the sea.
South Australia closed down its coal plant in 2016 and the state has, arguably, the country’s most reliable grid thanks to its battery storage. It is producing well in excess of 50 per cent of its electricity consumption from wind and solar, and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-could-reach-stunning-87-per-cent-wind-and-solar-in-four-years-11675/">could reach 87% in a few years</a>.
How could a country close its coal plants if it needed coal plants to always be running just in case the sun ran out or the wind stopped blowing?
Ah yes, batteries, the well known technology that the movie breezed past at a wonky rate. More batteries would help the renewable transition out a lot, but South Australia has managed to find enough to sustain a 50% renewable grid. Fingers crossed more regions and countries can catch up quick.

Population growth has been a huge problem for the planet. Of course 7.7 billion people are putting a bigger strain on the plant than the 300 million folks here 2000 years ago.
The population growth is slowing down, with the UN suggesting <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html">peak population will hit 11 billion in 2100</a>. From there, it’ll be going back down again. Those numbers are considered to be high by other sources, suggesting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/what-goes-up-population-crisis-wrong-fertility-rates-decline">the human population will top out between 8 and 9 billion in 2040-2050</a>, but the narrator doesn’t mention any of that.
The focus on population control touches on a whole bunch of concerning problems, because many of the countries with growing populations are much poorer. I’m not going to get into here, but… it sounds a little racist. Most of the population growth is in countries where the average person does not have a huge carbon footprint, unlike, say, the USA <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html">which has one of the highest carbon footprints per-person</a>.
Either way, the best thing to do to support the number of people on the planet is to continue to switch away from land and carbon intensive diets, and continue to help provide educations in developing countries, help push women’s rights around the world, and focus on reducing the wasteful lifestyles of the people most responsible for carbon emissions.
Kenya’s average carbon footprint per person is 0.3 tonnes, and the average footprint in the US is 15 tonnes, and the UK is 10 tonnes. We don’t need to worry about Africa we need to sort things out at home.

Fact: Biomass Energy from Trees is Terrible

Various people were jumped on camera and asked to offer their position on a very nuanced topic: is biomass good or bad? Biomass is an umbrella term for “storing CO2 in biological matter” and “biomass energy” means “burning it to create electricity.”
At a very small scale, burning wood for fuel is technically carbon-neutral. If a tree falls in the forest, it will decompose, and that produces greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane). If you take it home and put it in your wood stove, it’ll release that CO2 through the process of burning instead. That checks out on paper, but of course giant power plants aren’t wandering around the woods carefully carrying small quantities of wood to a small burner. 
Most of us in the world of climate activism and environmental science absolutely agree on the negative impact of biomass power plants, and it’s devastating to see so many countries running with this as the way forward. 
Bill McKibben (the movie “baddie”): <a href="https://grist.org/climate-energy/burning-trees-for-electricity-is-a-bad-idea/">Burning Trees for Electricity is a Bad Idea</a>, 2016 
<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-uk-should-move-away-from-large-scale-biomass-burning">Carbon Brief: UK should ‘move away’ from large-scale biomass burning</a>, 2018 
<a href="https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/biomass-power-europe-coal-deforestation/">Europe urged to end coal-to-biomass subsidies over deforestation concerns</a>, 2019 
Of course, forests are not the only fuel source for a biomass energy plant, they’re just the biggest. The problem with biomass is not the idea, or that anyone ever supported it, it’s the unexpected size of the projects. <a href="https://www.drawdown.org/">Project Drawdown</a> words this rather well.
<blockquote>
Biomass energy is a “bridge” solution—one that can help the world transition from fossil-fuel power to 100 percent clean, renewable energy. Until energy storage grows and the grid becomes more flexible, it can help meet electricity demand, complementing variable wind and solar power. 
Biomass energy is a true solution only if it uses appropriate feedstock, such as waste from mills and agriculture or sustainably grown perennial crops. Using annual grain crops like corn and sorghum depletes groundwater and requires higher inputs of energy. Using native forests is nothing less than an atrocity. – source <a href="https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/biomass-power">projectdrawdown.org</a>
</blockquote>
Biomass energy was meant to be a bridge solution, not one that would continue to be invested in by major countries for decades. Converting coal plants to biomass is an expensive waste of money. Yay the coal plant is gone, but for the money spent, solar would have been a drastically better investment. Thankfully, in the UK <a href="https://www.biomass-uk.org/">biomass is only ~5% of our energy supply</a>, and I’d love to see that drop off. 
The movie, at one point, claims that Germany gets more electricity from biomass than wind and solar, but that’s not at all true. 
Biomass: 45.48 TWh 
Wind: 127.23 TWh 
Solar: 46.54 TWh 
Check the source yourself on <a href="https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&amp;period=annual&amp;year=all">energy-charts.de</a>, it’s a fraction of the overall energy use.
Ecologi hashave supported several two <a href="https://www.goldstandard.org/">Gold Standard</a> or <a href="https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/">Verified Carbon Standard</a>-backed biomass energy projects, including projects in <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/biomass-power-project-raipur-india">India</a> and <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/biomass-energy-generation-in-xinjiang-china">China</a> which burn rice husks, bark, dung, and other farm waste. They are smaller and designed to help rural communities which don’t have any alternatives, and clearly state their intentions to burn primarily farm waste on the Gold Standard and Verified Carbon Standard reports.
Biomass can also mean cutting down trees to build wood framed homes, which would effectively store the carbon away for decades, and compared to cement production, the footprint is far lower. In order to have enough trees to support this and to continue net growth in woodland, we need to be dedicating far more land to sustainable forest management. If we follow the UN advice of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7">cutting our meat intake by 50%</a> (which would massively reduce greenhouse gases), we’ll have far more land for farmers to switch from beef to wood plantations, and we can drastically increase the amount of wood used for construction.
<blockquote>Shifting to a diet rich in plants is a demand-side solution to global warming that runs counter to the meat-centric Western diet on the rise globally. That diet comes with a steep climate price tag: one-fifth of global emissions. If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. – Source: <a href="https://drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets">Project Drawdown</a></blockquote>

The director is taking a very real issue, corporate greenwashing, and using it to make a dangerous argument. We’re all on the same team &#8211; nobody wants greenwashing. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Loads of major banks are “eager to get involved” or eager to look like they’re getting involved, but really they’re funnelling trillions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry. $1.9 trillion was invested from major banks around the world in 2019.

image5-2

image5

Bill McKibben, the chap who was attacked throughout the movie, is one of the folks behind <a href="https://www.stopthemoneypipeline.com/">Stop the Money Pipeline</a>, which is trying to raise awareness for the importance of divesting from these major banks.
I’ve put together a bunch of resources for <a href="https://protect.earth/finance/">climate-friendly financial options</a> for those in the US, UK, and Europe, and I’d love help expanding this out globally.
Money works in mysterious ways. What if I told you big oil and energy companies spent 3.3 billion dollars on renewable energy in 2018? I’m surprised the movie didn’t mention this, I’m sure they’d use it to suggest renewable energy is a sham, and that clearly the big oil companies are benefiting from it.
The same information presented another way?
<blockquote>
Top oil and gas companies jointly spent 1.3% percent of their 2018 budgets on clean energy. – Source: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-renewables/big-oil-spent-1-percent-on-green-energy-in-2018-idUSKCN1NH004">Reuters</a>
</blockquote>
Ah, right, so… probably not some sort of evil scam, just “business as usual” from the companies shredding the natural resources of the world at our expense.
We need everyone, even big corporations, to invest in appropriate renewable energy, so let’s be vocal about how small their renewable energy investments are, and demand that they do better now.

The movie mixes some facts with a lot of fiction backed with outdated and false data to make the dangerous argument that renewable energy is inherently bad, and that the leaders of climate activism cannot be trusted. This is making people question climate action in general, which is only going to damage the entire movement.
Emily Atkin, author of the excellent newsletter <a href="https://heated.world/">Heated</a> puts it best:
<blockquote>
Planet of the Humans reminded me of an argumentative essay from a lazy college freshman—as if, after a few hours of studying, he realized there wasn’t enough evidence to support the argument he chose for the assignment. But he was so wedded to the original idea, and didn’t want to waste the hours of work he did, so he overcompensated by being an overly aggressive narrator instead of starting over with a new argument. – Source: <a href="https://heated.world/p/really-michael-moore">Heated</a>, Emily Atkin, ”Really? Micheal Moore?” 
If you’re not convinced then there are more than a few other reviews and explanations of the movie from subject matter experts.
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="6" data-line-end="7"><a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/">Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths</a>, Ketan Joshi</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="7" data-line-end="8"><a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change">Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil</a>, Leah Stokes</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="8" data-line-end="9"><a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/04/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-traffics-in-myths-errors-dangerous-misdirection/">“Planet of the Humans” Is Full Of Myths, Errors, &amp; Dangerous Misdirection</a>, <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/">Clean Technica</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="9" data-line-end="10"><a href="https://benwehrman.com/planet-of-the-humans-disaster/">6 Reasons Why “Planet of the Humans” is a Disaster of Misinformation</a>, Ben Wehrman</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="10" data-line-end="11"><a href="https://medium.com/@btincq/10-reasons-planet-of-the-humans-gets-everything-wrong-on-climate-and-energy-400f04b3b2ee">10 Reasons « Planet of the Humans » Gets Everything Wrong on Climate</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/@btincq?source=post_page-----400f04b3b2ee----------------------">Benjamin Tincq</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="11" data-line-end="12"><a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/2020/04/why-the-planet-of-the-humans-is-crap/">Why “Planet of the Humans” is crap</a>, <a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/author/tomaecoequity-org/">Tom Athanasiou</a>, <a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/">EcoEquity</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="12" data-line-end="13">_Planet of the Humans _Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism](<a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/planet-of-the-humans-comes-this-close-to-actually-getti-1843024329">https://earther.gizmodo.com/planet-of-the-humans-comes-this-close-to-actually-getti-1843024329</a>), Brian Kahn, <a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/">Gizmondo</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="13" data-line-end="14"><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/planet-humans-film-moore/">Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore</a>, Josh Fox, The Nation</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="14" data-line-end="15"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29042020/inside-clean-energy-michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-review">Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong</a>, Dan Gearino, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">Inside Climate News</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="15" data-line-end="16"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/">A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal</a>, Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="16" data-line-end="17"><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/movie-review-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-traffics-in-myths-errors-and-dangerous-misdirection">POTH Traffics in Myths, Errors, and Dangerous Misdirection</a>, John Rogers, Union of Concerned Scientists</li>
</ul>
Main image credit: Rumble Media
&nbsp;
<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/plan">Sign up to Ecologi</a> today to start taking meaningful climate action!

Blog

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_header

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Header

Meet our Impact Team

Ecologi’s mission is to inspire and empower businesses to accelerate global climate action. In everything we do, we’re guided by our company values:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Planet first</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Always accountable</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change-makers</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Act, together.</li>
</ol>
Because of our values, we put impact for our climate, nature and people, right at our heart: and this is driven by our Impact Team.

<h2>Meeting the Impact Team </h2>
The Impact Team is responsible for directing our efforts toward meaningful climate action aligned with the latest science and industry best practice. The team’s role encompasses several key areas, including:
<ul>
<li>Ensuring adherence to best practice through our research bases, rigorous due diligence processes, and expert understanding of key sustainability frameworks.</li>
<li>Building and managing relationships with some of the world’s leading implementation partners to facilitate the delivery of high-impact climate solutions.</li>
<li>Delivery of emissions measurement and reporting projects, assisting customers with data collection, emissions calculations, and helping them identify effective decarbonisation strategies.</li>
<li>Engaging with academia, including the stewardship of the Ecologi Climate Committee — our advisory network of academic and industry experts on topics relevant to our work.</li>
<li>Providing climate and sustainability expertise and strategic guidance to align our products and services with the latest in environmental science and industry best practices and to guide our internal policy.</li>
<li>Driving our industry forward through participating in industry advisory groups, policy advocacy groups, consortia and alliances with Ecologi’s peers and partners in corporate sustainability, </li>
<li style="list-style-type: none;"></li>
</ul>
In this article, we’ll meet the team making it all possible!

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_sam_01

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_Sam_01

<h2>Sam Jackson, Director of Climate Science &amp; Impact</h2>
MSc, MA, PIEMA REnvP, FRSA
Sam is department lead for Impact at Ecologi, and a member of Ecologi’s senior leadership team. He is responsible for providing climate and sustainability expertise and strategic guidance to the business, with the priority of aligning Ecologi’s products and services with the latest in environmental science and industry best practice. Sam is an advisor to a number of industry groups and a regular speaker at sustainability industry events.
Sam has a varied background in climate science, international operations, development, and environmental governance. In his early career, he worked primarily in the charity and sustainable tourism sectors before moving permanently into climate and corporate sustainability. Sam holds Master’s degrees in International Relations and Climate Change Science and Policy from the University of Exeter and the University of Bristol. He is a Practitioner Member of IEMA, a Registered Environmental Practitioner with the Society for the Environment, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_eleanor_03

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_Eleanor_03

<h2>Eleanor Turner, Climate Solutions Manager</h2>
MSc, BSc, PIEMA 
Eleanor has a senior role within the Impact team, helping to guide our strategic direction and shape our theory of change, as well as supporting the team across all Impact functions. Eleanor leads much of our external engagement with academia, including managing the Ecologi Climate Committee: our advisory network of academic and industry experts across a wide range of topics relevant to our work. She also works cross-functionally around the business, to drive much of Ecologi’s own internal sustainability efforts.
Eleanor holds a Master’s degree in Environmental Science from the University of York, in addition to a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Geography. Eleanor’s career began as a sustainability consultant within the engineering and construction industry, focusing on BREEAM assessments and decarbonisation across the public sector. Eleanor then moved to an in-house sustainability role within the consumer goods industry, focused on internal sustainability strategy and greenhouse gas inventory management, before joining Ecologi as our Climate Solutions Manager.

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_george_04

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_George_04

<h2>George Gibson, Senior Carbon Accounting Manager</h2>
George provides technical expertise to support the development of the carbon accounting methodology underpinning our Ecologi Zero platform for businesses. George also leads the consultative delivery of emissions measurement and reporting projects with our customers, guiding them through data collection and helping them to identify decarbonisation strategies. Key to his role is ensuring compliance with the relevant standards and that the tool provides a comprehensive and accurate account of a business’ emissions.
With a degree in Economics and Management from Cardiff University, specialising in economic development, George has previously worked as a sustainability consultant providing insight into compiling greenhouse gas inventories to measure and report emissions, developing decarbonisation strategies, setting Science-Based Targets and supporting businesses in attaining B Corp certification.

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_katie_02

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_Katie_02

<h2>Katie Pownall, Impact Partnerships Manager</h2>
MBiol, MRSB, ACIEEM
Katie works closely with Ecologi’s reforestation and other implementation partners, ensuring that funding from our community goes to the best projects, and sharing stories about the projects with the Ecologi community. As Ecologi continues to grow, Katie is helping to identify new types of impact projects, enabling Ecologi customers to fund cutting-edge climate action with some of the most well-respected organisations around the world.
Katie has a Master’s degree in Biology from University of York, where she focused on ecology and conservation, and during which she worked in the North York Moors National Park’s Conservation department, where she gained knowledge about protected species, habitat management, and on-the-ground conservation work. This  hands-on experience combined with her understanding of the theory of conservation and ecology helps Katie to guide Ecologi’s decisions so that we optimise our positive impact on people, biodiversity, and the planet.

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_lucy_05

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_Lucy_05

<h2>Lucy Gemmell, Carbon Portfolio Manager</h2>
In her role as Carbon Portfolio Manager, Lucy drives our in-house due diligence to identify top-tier carbon avoidance and removal projects, manages our relationships with project developers, and helps to educate customers in ensuring they are communicating about their impact correctly. In her work, she manages our relationships with a number of our key strategic impact partners including Sylvera and Earth Blox. Lucy originally joined Ecologi in 2022 as part of our Commercial team and spent a year working cross-departmentally, immersing herself in the voluntary carbon market before transitioning permanently into the Impact team. 
Lucy has a diverse background, having managed a boutique real estate brokerage in her earlier career and chaired the board of an education-based NGO in Johannesburg, South Africa. She is currently pursuing a Master&#8217;s degree in Climate Change and Development, following the recent completion of an ESG Specialisation from the Corporate Finance Institute.

Alongside the Impact team, we have some incredible individuals who assist us in reaching our goals and supporting our work. Collaboration is at the heart of everything we do, and their contributions help us stay on track and maintain momentum.

blog_meet_climate_impact_team_banner_monsoon_06

Blog_Meet_Climate_Impact_Team_Banner_Monsoon_06

<h2>Monsoon Modi, Commercial Operations Executive</h2>
Monsoon originally joined Ecologi in 2022 as part of our Customer Success team and spent a year working cross-departmentally before moving into the Commercial team, now as an Operations Executive. 
Key to her role is optimising commercial projects, building commercial resources and providing support for small businesses along their sustainability journey. Monsoon also supports the Impact Team with internal educational material, project reports and administrative tasks. 
With a degree in Politics and International Relations, Monsoon is currently pursuing a Master&#8217;s degree in Environmental Sustainability at the University of Edinburgh.

<h2>Climate Committee </h2>
Ecologi’s Climate Committee was founded in 2021 to bring together industry experts and research professionals who sit outside of the business to bring specialist knowledge and support to maximise our climate impact. Our committee members bring best-practice thinking, and ongoing developments with regard to global climate science, carbon accounting methodology, nature-based projects and the voluntary carbon market through our three working groups, Nature, Climate and Policy.
The committee supports the Impact team through providing expert knowledge across specialist fields which help shape the future of the team, and the wider business. In turn, this improves our internal decision-making and strategy development through staying at the forefront of industry developments and innovation.

Schedule a call

Case studies

blog_case_study_focusrite_01blog_case_study_focusrite_header

Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_01Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_Header

Case study: the Focusrite Group

<h2>About the Focusrite Group </h2>
<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/focusritegroup" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Focusrite</a> is not your average audio technology group. This passionate bunch is united by a single objective: to smash through barriers and unleash boundless creativity in the world of sound.
Founded in 1985 and based in High Wycombe, this team of over 500 is on a mission to remove barriers to creativity. And they believe that technology can play an important role in breaking down other barriers too, including geographical, social, economic, and even environmental. 
Focusrite is an organisation that’s driven by purpose, with a keen desire to be a force for good in the world. Responsible practices are an essential part of how they do business, and that includes keeping a keen eye on their impact on the environment.

blog_case_study_focusrite_banner_stats-2

Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_Banner_Stats (2)

<h2>Issue</h2>
Focusrite has been working to reduce its environmental impact for many years and in 2020 developed a carbon accounting process that now provides near real-time data on Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions.
This progress has allowed the team to set goals, but they are in the process of applying to set Science Based Targets (SBT) to replace them. In the meantime they are already aligning their approach with SBT guidelines. 
As a UK-based company, Focusrite is committed to 2050 as the ultimate deadline for net-zero, but they want to get there quicker. So their approach is not to set a net-zero target year until they have gone through the SBT application process by 2026 at the latest, and instead use carbon reduction metrics and targets to set them up for long-term success.

bst-hyde-park-2013-london-mla-andrew-land

BST Hyde Park 2013 - London - MLA - Andrew Land

<h2>Challenges</h2>
The team at Focusrite use emissions data to guide action, and their emissions are largely dominated by their hardware products, which account for 96% of GHG emissions. 
They have already made good progress in reducing the use of aluminium, plastic, and product packaging, with many more areas under review. As they roll out changes across their product range, the team aims to increase the pace of their reductions, with any new products being designed from more sustainable materials from the start.
Focusrite is striving to become a sustainability leader in its industry, setting the standard for peers to emulate. Environmental stewardship is a big part of that, and the message from the entire employee base is that they want to support nature beyond their value chain. This is why they reached out to Ecologi to help them do more good for our planet.

<h2>Solution </h2>
Focusrite has worked with Ecologi since 2021. Ecologi supports the team to fund tree planting for internal initiatives like employee charity fundraising, but also to offset the wood used in their products. The wood used is already FSC certified, so by planting trees with Ecologi they replace more than they consume. 
Focusrite also works with Ecologi to support projects to mitigate any remaining Scope 1 and 2 emissions they can’t avoid. So far they have funded 17 projects, including a solar power project in Morocco, supplying high efficiency cookstoves in Somalia, and preserving Amazonian rainforest in Brazil.
The team isn&#8217;t shy about sharing Focusrite’s success. They talk about their climate impact prominently in their annual report and employee newsletter, and dive into the details in their dedicated environment and climate reports. 
Taking such positive climate action has boosted Focusrite’s reputation with customers and colleagues alike. They have enjoyed press coverage for their tree planting, which positioned them as a leader in their industry, and they have even had employees join the company purely because of their environmental sustainability programme.

blog_case_study_focusrite_banner_profile-2

Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_Banner_Profile (2)

<h2>Outcome</h2>
Since 2021, the Focusrite Group has funded the planting of 89,080 trees, supported the prevention of 132 tonnes of CO2e from being emitted, and funded the removal of 81 tonnes of CO2e from the atmosphere. In total 17 different projects have been funded.

blog_case_study_focusrite_banner_quote-1

Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_Banner_Quote (1)

blog_case_study_focusrite_banner_fop-1

Blog_Case_Study_Focusrite_Banner_FOP (1)

<h2>Is your business ready to take climate action?</h2>
If this article has inspired your business to start its climate journey, talk to our team today.

Schedule a call with our team

cop29_blog_whatshappening_header

COP29_Blog_WhatsHappening_Header

What happened at COP29

This year’s Conference of the Parties is underway in Baku, Azerbaijan and will run until the 22nd of November. Our team at Ecologi are monitoring the daily events to give you real-time analysis and reactions to the developments and agreements taking place. 
What is COP29? Click <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/uncategorised/what-to-expect-at-cop29" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> for a comprehensive guide to all things COP29. 
What happened at COP28? Click <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/whats-happening-at-cop28" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> to read a full report of the event in 2023.

<h2>Overall sentiment &#8211; COP29 wrap-up</h2>
The overall sentiment at COP29 reflects a little bit of progress and an awful lot of frustration. As is often the case at the climate COPs, any progress that does get made is often overshadowed by the missed opportunities – and this one is no exception on that front.
The largest positive from this COP is in the agreements made on operationalising carbon market standards under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. This consensus signals hope for greater transparency, higher standards, and clear opportunities for businesses to engage in global climate action projects, in a new carbon market managed under the UN framework. These draft documents on Article 6 were published on the first day of the COP and have stayed relatively static since then – indicating that agreement was achieved early. They did come under criticism though, with the Presidency offering up documents to be accepted as-is, with no opportunity for countries to scrutinise the wording.
The COP as a whole, and its broader negotiations on a range of other topics, have been marred by tensions, frustrations, and geopolitics. Proceedings were thrown somewhat, by world leaders disappearing from the world leaders’ summit at the conference and reconvening in Brazil (next year’s COP host country) for the G20 – leading to <a href="https://www.gov.br/planalto/pt-br/media/18-11-2024-declaracao-de-lideres-g20.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a multilateral G20 declaration</a> which seemed to both celebrate and chastise the country negotiators back in Baku. 
Geopolitics making things difficult – COP29 has taken place against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions between a wide range of countries, which have diverted attention and resources away from climate action and have complicated negotiations. Add to that the problems coming from the COP itself – from country boycotts, to backhanded oil and gas deals, to threats to drop out of the Paris Agreement by Argentina (a threat which was later clarified as rescinded) and by the USA (which is likely to be upheld under the incoming administration) – and it’s easy to wonder how nearly 200 countries can be convinced to agree on anything at all. Let alone an issue with the gravity, urgency, and complexity of climate change.
Poor management by the Presidency – if you’ve followed our daily coverage you’ll have spotted over the past two weeks how this COP has felt quite chaotic and frenetic. It hasn’t really felt throughout proceedings that the Presidency is in control of things – and this applies on the diplomatic level but also in a practical sense, with uncomfortable stories coming out of the conference centre about poorly-managed bathroom facilities and catering. On the draft decisions, the Presidency’s strategy has been cavalier and uncharitable, with something of a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ attitude to negotiations which isn’t helpful or conducive to compromise. On the last day of the COP, the Climate Action Network awarded the Azerbaijani Presidency their Fossil of the Day award because it “doesn’t understand the gravity of the Presidency, or for that matter the value of civil society”. This is a damning assessment, but one which is hard to disagree with.
Somehow, fossil fuels are still the elephant in the room – we heard from UNEP before COP29 started that <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024" target="_blank" rel="noopener">global emissions are still rising</a>, driven by continued fossil fuel use – and yet COP29 has failed to advance any fossil fuel reduction commitments. In Dubai last year, we saw the agreed cover text mention the “phase-down of unabated coal power”, the “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems” and the “phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” (which was pretty weak in itself). This year, the fossil fuel lobby was typically massive – with over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that fossil fuels must stay in the ground, the dominance of fossil fuel interests has continued to undermine progress, with the Arab Group in particular this year refusing to back any texts that reference the phasing out of fossil fuels. The COP29 texts on the UAE dialogue and the Mitigation Work Programme (which ought to have been used to further the outcomes of last year’s Global Stocktake) were meant to enhance climate mitigation. The final version of the MWP fails to mention the transition away from fossil fuels, the 1.5ºC warming goal or the Global Stocktake and its outcomes, and the UAE dialogue on how to proceed on the Global Stocktake wasn’t adopted at all. Interestingly, the earliest drafts did mention the 1.5ºC warming goal and the seriousness of 2023 being the warmest year on record. As the drafts progressed this messaging was removed, despite many calling for the final text to be more ambitious and specific. A deal on the MWP was adopted during the closing plenary session without any intervention. 
Article 6 and UK government provide a few reasons to be positive for businesses 
Whilst the overall sentiment at this year’s COP29 has been disappointment, particularly regarding the pace of global climate action and the lack of firm commitments from key global players, there are still some glimmers of hope for businesses. Among the more promising developments is the aforementioned progress on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and the UK government’s climate commitments. The outcomes on Article 6 pose a step forward for businesses. By advancing frameworks for international carbon markets, COP29 has created a clearer pathway for companies to engage in high-quality carbon offsetting and trading, fostering transparency and credibility in the process. This opens up new opportunities for organisations globally to progress towards net-zero targets whilst supporting climate action projects and global emission reductions. 
The UK government’s renewed focus on climate policy has created incentives such as increased funding for green technology, support for nature based projects and streamlined regulation for sustainable investment, catalysing innovation and market growth. The developments at COP29 have reinforced the role of businesses as a key actor in the fight against climate change when world leaders fall short on agreeing ambitious climate goals. Through embracing innovation, adopting bold emission reduction targets and funding climate action, companies can fill the leadership gap and accelerate progress where governments falter.

COP29 - Daily updates 

cop29_lookfeel_v2co29_blog_banner_01

COP29_Look&Feel_V2CO29_Blog_Banner_01

The two-week conference, scheduled for November 11th-22nd will bring together representatives from all countries that have agreed to be bound by the UNFCCC. The conference takes place annually to negotiate new measures, develop policy and review progress against the goal of limiting climate change.
Azerbaijan, the host nation, has received its fair share of criticism for becoming this year’s COP president. Oil and Gas make up 92.5% of the country’s GDP per capita, and President Ilham Aliyev has stated his support for oil and gas producing nations to continue investing in the sector, clashing with last year’s COP28 outcome in which all nations called for accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels.

cop29_lookfeel_v2co29_blog_banner_02

COP29_Look&Feel_V2CO29_Blog_Banner_02

<h2>The key talking points and priorities in the run up to COP29</h2>
This year, priorities are focused on climate finance, with COP29 being coined the Finance COP, this is reiterated by the programme of scheduling with Finance, Investment and Trade taking priority spot on the first day of discussions.
Energy and Science are also high on the agenda, while Nature and Biodiversity and Oceans and Coastal Zones take more of a back seat, only being scheduled for the final day before negotiations; naturally, this comes as a disappointment as this signals these areas of discussion are considered lower priority when compared with energy and finance.
It is likely momentum and attendance will decrease by the end of week two and could undermine the urgency needed to address the implications of climate change on nature globally and reduce their integration into wider climate strategies.
The following key priorities are expected to lead discussions at COP29;
<h3>New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)</h3>
Developing countries, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change, require substantial financial support to transition to green economies and adapt to climate impacts. COP29 aims to agree on a new commitment to provide annual climate finance to developing countries, replacing a goal of $100 billion per annum set in 2009 at COP15. The World Economic Forum states that ‘the NCQG must be ambitious yet realistic, balancing the financial capacities of developed countries with the urgent needs of developing nations’.
<h3>Growing the loss and damage fund</h3>
Established and operationalised at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, the loss and damage fund acknowledges the disproportionate burden that climate change places on vulnerable nations. It is a financial mechanism that helps countries cope with the loss and damages they face due to climate change – this includes loss of life, damage to infrastructure and displacement.
At COP29, there is hope to see significant progress in the fund’s operationalisation and funding. Countries are expected to make substantial pledges to the fund to ensure it can meet the needs of developing countries. To date, major contributors include the UAE, Germany and the United States. Other big-emitting countries such as China and Saudi Arabia are yet to announce their intention to contribute to the fund.
<h3>Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)</h3>
At COP29, nations will be encouraged to commit to more ambitious and robust Nationally Determined Contributions; these are climate action commitments made by countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation, aligning with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
NDCs are submitted every 5 years to the UNFCCC, and with the next global stocktake approaching NDCs are to be put forward by February 2025, demonstrating increased ambition and concrete action plans. At COP29, there is likely to be a push to provide financial and technical support to developing countries to enable them to outline and implement NDCs of their own.
<h3>Article 6 of the Paris Agreement</h3>
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement aims to promote the use of carbon markets to achieve their climate targets. At COP29 we can expect discussions with regards to how a robust and well-regulated international carbon market can be developed and maintained. A key goal of COP29 is to finalise the rulebook for Article 6, which will provide clear guidelines for its implementation, and address concerns with regards to the quality of carbon credits, double counting and sustainable development.

cop29_lookfeel_v2co29_blog_banner_04-2

COP29_Look&Feel_V2CO29_Blog_Banner_04 (2)

<h2>Who is attending COP29</h2>
With just 2 months to go until COP29 kicks off, there has been minimal discussion with regards to which World Leaders we can expect at the event.
From the UK, Ed Miliband, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, is confirmed to be leading UK negotiations for COP29. However, with the USA election taking place just 5 days before COP29 begins, it is unlikely that the President will be in attendance. As the event draws closer, we can expect more countries to confirm which delegates will attend.

cop29_lookfeel_v2co29_blog_banner_03

COP29_Look&Feel_V2CO29_Blog_Banner_03

<h2>What to expect during COP29</h2>
An anticipated 40,000 participants are heading to COP29, almost half the number of attendees than at <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/whats-happening-at-cop28" target="_blank" rel="noopener">COP28</a> in Dubai last year; this poses the question of if bigger is necessarily better, fewer attendees reduce the environmental impact of the conferences, with the UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/04/24/peak-cop-un-looks-to-shrink-baku-and-belem-climate-summits/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying he hopes to see fewer people attending COPs </a>as size does not necessarily translate to the quality of outcomes.
COP29 still presents a crucial opportunity to make significant strides in climate action, by focusing on climate finance and reaffirming climate goals, countries can collectively work together to provide the funding and tools necessary to shape the trajectory of global climate efforts.

<h2>Partner with us for COP29 and beyond</h2>
Over the next 12 months we want to support as many businesses as possible to tackle climate change.
If your business is interested in a partnership to help scale climate action or starting its climate journey during COP29 or beyond, get in touch.

Picking apart Michael Moore’s The Planet of the Humans

Myth: Solar Power Is Inefficient

Confusion: "100% Renewable" and "Off-Grid"

Myth: Electric Cars are “Powered By Coal Anyway”

Myth: Solar / Renewable Has a “Huge” Carbon Footprint

Myth: Wind Requires Mountain Top Removal

Population

Fact: Biomass Energy from Trees is Terrible

Myth: Banks Support Green Energy

Summary

More posts

Meet our Impact Team

Case study: How the Focusrite Group is setting the sustainability standard in the audio technology industry

What happened at COP29

Follow us

Members

Resources

© 2025 Ecologi

Stay in touch with Ecologi