August, 16 2016, 09:45am EDT
Syria/Russia: Incendiary Weapons Burn in Aleppo, Idlib
Increasing Attacks on Civilian Areas Since Joint Operation Began
Beirut
The joint Syrian-Russian military operation has been using incendiary weapons, which burn their victims and start fires, in civilian areas of Syria in violation of international law, Human Rights Watch said today. Incendiary weapons have been used at least 18 times over the past nine weeks, including in attacks on the opposition-held areas in the cities of Aleppo and Idlib on August 7, 2016.
Countries meeting at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva on August 29, 2016 should condemn the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in civilian areas of Syria in violation of the treaty's Protocol III on incendiary weapons. They should encourage Syria to join the protocol and press Syria and Russia to immediately stop using incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should also review the protocol and take steps to strengthen it.
"The Syrian government and Russia should immediately stop attacking civilian areas with incendiary weapons," said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. "These weapons inflict horrible injuries and excruciating pain, so all countries should condemn their use in civilian areas."
A Human Rights Watch review of photographs and videos recorded at the time of attack and of the remnants afterward indicates there were at least 18 incendiary weapon attacks on opposition-held areas in Aleppo and Idlib governorates between June 5 and August 10. At least 12 civilians were reported wounded by witnesses and first responders in five of these attacks.
The visual evidence that incendiary weapons were used includes the distinctive mid-air displays created by the bright burning trails of air-dropped incendiary weapons containing ZAB-series incendiary submunitions. Other indicators include the small but intense fires created by each submunition over the time it takes to burn out as well as markings on the bomb casings and submunitions.
Local activists, human rights organizations, first responders, and media organizations have reported the use of incendiary weapons on at least 40 other occasions, but no photographs and video footage were available, so Human Rights Watch could not conclusively determine if incendiary weapons were involved.
Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance, causing excruciatingly painful burns that are difficult to treat. The weapons also start fires that are hard to extinguish, destroying civilian objects and infrastructure.
An incendiary weapon attack on the opposition-held Idlib city on the evening of August 7 wounded at least two civilians, witnesses said.
"I saw with my own eyes two strikes, both 'phosphorus'--blocks of flame were falling from the sky," said. Ala' Abdel Aziz Hmeidan, an Idlib resident. "After that, there was a strike with a missile carrying cluster bombs. It was tragic, buildings were on fire, rocks were on fire." He said the area contains residential buildings and that there were no armed groups in the vicinity.
Syria Civil Defense, an opposition search-and-rescue volunteer group, reported an incendiary weapon attack on the residential area in al-Mashhad in opposition-held east Aleppo city at around 4 p.m. on August 7 that injured a child. Photographs taken immediately after the attack by Aleppo resident Malek Tarboush show at least four incendiary submunitions burning on the ground in a narrow street that contains at least one shop. Human Rights Watch was unable to identify the specific type of incendiary weapon used in the attack.
Incendiary weapon attacks in Syria have increased significantly since the Russian Federation began its joint military operation with the Syrian government on September 30, 2015. There is compelling evidence that Russian government aircraft are being used to deliver incendiary weapons or at least are participating with Syrian government aircraft in attacks using incendiary weapons.
More than a dozen countries have condemned or expressed concern at the use of incendiary weapons in Syria since 2013, including Colombia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, and the US in recent weeks. The other states that have condemned the use of incendiary weapons in Syria are Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
"The disgraceful incendiary weapon attacks in Syria show an abject failure to adhere to international law restricting incendiary weapons," Goose said. "The resulting civilian harm demonstrates the inadequacy of existing law on incendiary weapons, which should be strengthened urgently. From a humanitarian standpoint, a global ban on incendiary weapons would provide the best solution."
For more information about the incendiary weapons protocol, details of the recent attacks, and evidence of the use of incendiary weapons, please see below.
Goose and Human Rights Watch arms advocacy director Mary Wareham are attending the week-long CCW meeting that opens in Geneva on August 29, 2016.
The Incendiary Weapons Protocol
Russia is a party to the incendiary weapons protocol and has acknowledged the "significant humanitarian damage" caused by incendiary weapons in Syria, which it attributed to "improper use," in a November 2015 letter to Human Rights Watch.
Russia has not responded to criticism of its apparent involvement in recent incendiary weapon attacks in Syria. In November 2015, Russia urged "faithful observation" of international law relating to incendiary weapons, but rejected calls to revisit and strengthen Protocol III on incendiary weapons of the conventional weapons treaty as "counterproductive."
The Syrian government has ignored calls to join Protocol III, which 113 countries are party to, including Russia and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The protocol bans the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with "concentrations of civilians," but permits the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons.
Protocol III defines "concentrations of civilians" broadly as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees."
The treaty's member countries should support the call to revisit and amend Protocol III to fix the significant loophole permitting use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should revisit the definition of incendiary weapons in Protocol III as it is overly narrow and fails adequately to deal with multi-purpose incendiary munitions such as white phosphorus. These and other inconsistencies have undermined the protocol's effectiveness and failed to deter use of incendiary weapons over the past 35 years, Human Rights Watch said.
Idlib city, Idlib governorate, August 7, 2016
Syrian or Russian fixed-wing jet aircraft dropped incendiary weapons in an attack on the opposition-held city of Idlib on the evening of Sunday, August 7, wounding up to 10 people, witnesses reported. On August 9, Human Rights Watch interviewed four local residents who separately witnessed the attack, including two first responders.
Mouti' Jalal, a volunteer with Syria Civil Defense in Idlib told Human Rights Watch:
I was at home in Sarmin, Idlib. I heard volunteers radioing in about two strikes. They were saying it was phosphorus. I grabbed my camera and was on my way. I saw fire falling from the sky. But couldn't get to the area because the roads were under attack. The fire was so bright, you could see it from outside the city and everyone saw it. I had a clear view of the phosphorus falling on my way but unfortunately my camera was slow and couldn't get a picture at the right moment.
An Idlib resident, Mohammad Taj Al-Din Othman, provided Human Rights Watch with photos he took of the attack that contain metadata showing they were taken at 23:03 and 23:08 local time on August 7, 2016. Othman said:
The first missile disintegrated in the sky and fell down in pieces. It wasn't too loud but it led to a huge fire as soon as it hit the ground. Other explosions followed. And it made the fire worse. I could clearly see the flames bursting. Within 10 minutes, there were more strikes. The fire was unbelievable, it turned night into day. Across fifty square meters. And it kept getting worse for five minutes.
A second Syria Civil Defense (SCD) Idlib volunteer who asked not to be named said:
It was night and calm; we could clearly hear warplanes circling. It was a frightening sound. I also saw a missile get launched from the plane, a bright spot in the sky, along with a terrible blast. SCD was unable to determine the nature of the weapon used but we know for a fact that it was highly flammable.
Video and photos recorded at the time of attack and afterward of the remnants show the use of RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM bombs, an incendiary weapon that delivers 117 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary submunitions. The witness accounts and visual evidence confirm this was an incendiary weapon attack.
Each ZAB-2.5SM submunition burns for up to 10 minutes, starting fires that are hard to extinguish. Numerous photographs and videos from the Idlib attack clearly shows individual fires between residential buildings started by burning submunitions.
The ZAB-2.5SM submunitions delivered by RBK-500 bombs contain a small bursting charge to ignite the flammable substance as they are released from the bomb in mid-air. The fires started by incendiary weapons can also cause secondary explosions when they burn objects on the ground.
Jalal, the Syria Civil Defense volunteer, said that the multiple airstrikes that evening wounded approximately 10 people. He told Human Rights Watch: "Some had burns, but most had just concussions and fractures."
Yahya A'arja, the Idlib director of Syria Civil Defense, who responded to one of the August 7 attack sites, said the incendiary weapons "fell on the street, luckily not on homes, and only burned cars." He said that "the smell led to suffocation, injuring two. No burns at all, thank God. Only asphyxiation from the smell because it wasn't on their bodies." The victims were treated at the scene. "Oxygen therapy was administered inside the ambulance," A'arja said.
According to the unnamed Syria Civil Defense volunteer, the airstrikes consisted of four attacks [including] on "a large crowded residential neighborhood of Idlib city known as al-Dabbit." He said, "I can confirm that there is no military presence in that area."
Othman provided Human Rights Watch with a list of four locations in the city that were attacked by incendiary weapons on August 7:
- al-Dabbit, near the university's faculty of humanities;
- Hay al-Jam'aa, in the Dawar al-Mal'aab neighborhood;
- al-Konsorwa industrial area; and
- al-Ghazl industrial area.
Othman said during the attack on the university's faculty of humanities at al-Dabbit, incendiary bombs "fell between houses and people were terrified and started panicking, they even went out of their homes." He described Hay al-Jam'aa as "a typical residential area" that was hit first by incendiary weapons that "fell in the middle of the street" rather than on homes, thereby minimizing damage. He said the university still functions, but there were no classes at the time of the evening attack. The area also has a small supermarket and a coffee shop. He said the al-Konsorwa industrial area that was attacked has a factory that is no longer used and is "not residential per se but there are many displaced people there." It "used to be a Syrian army checkpoint."
Othman said that "armed groups are stationed around the city but they weren't targeted" in the incendiary weapon attacks on August 7. He said "the strikes were repetitive and you could hear the plane in the sky, it was very loud and continuous. I only saw the plane when it launched the first missile. I think it was Russian. And it was just one plane."
Two teams of Syria Civil Defense volunteers from Idlib extinguished the fires started by the attack and gathered and destroyed remnants of the incendiary weapons even though they had no expertise with them. Jalal said they were told to use gravel to extinguish the fire because "water makes it worse."
A Syria Civil Defense volunteer who responded to the attack told Human Rights Watch:
The fire was vast, spreading hundreds of meters, difficult to put out. It reacted with water so we had to use other material, like foam and powder, even gravel. The fire took over everything, houses, cars, oil tanks, and even grass. We heard explosions. It was huge, it required immense efforts to extinguish. The tall, crowded buildings did not make things easy. It took us around an hour to control the situation. It was so bright you could see the buildings as if was daylight. It was absolutely abnormal. Honestly, words cannot describe it.
Technical Background and Recent Attacks
Since November 2012, Human Rights Watch has recorded the use of four types of incendiary weapons in Syria, all ZAB-series (Zazhigatelnaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba) incendiary aircraft bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union:
- RBK-500 ZAB 2.5SM bomb, each containing 117 ZAB 2.5SM incendiary submunitions
- RBK-250 ZAB-2.5 bomb, each containing 48 ZAB-2.5 incendiary submunitions
- ZAB-100-105 bomb, each containing nine cylindrical incendiary cartridges
- ZAB-500 unitary incendiary bomb
ZAB-series bombs contain a substance believed to be thermite that ignites while falling, leading witnesses to describe the incendiary submunitions as "fireballs." It is not napalm or white phosphorus, which are notorious flammable substances used in other incendiary weapons.
The majority of witness accounts collected by Human Right Watch and video evidence indicate that fixed-wing jet aircraft and helicopters have been used to deliver air-dropped incendiary weapons in Syria. There has been at least one incident involving the use of a surface-launched incendiary weapon.
The Syrian government has used factory-made incendiary weapons since November 2012, particularly air-dropped bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union such as RBK-250 series bombs and ZAB-100-105 bombs. Syrian government forces have also used air-dropped weapons consisting of improvised canisters or "barrel bombs" filled with a napalm-like flammable substance.
Footage broadcasted by Russian state media on June 18 shows RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary bombs mounted on a Su-34 fighter-ground attack aircraft at the Russian air base at Hmeymim, southeast of Latakia city, in Syria. Only the Russian air force operates this type of aircraft in Syria.
Documented Incendiary Weapon Attacks, June 5-August 10, 2016
Date | Location | Casualties (source) | Type of Incendiary Weapon | Visual Confirmation |
August 10 | Qubtan al-Jabal, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
August 7 | Idlib city, Idlib | 2-10 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
August 7 | Aleppo city, Aleppo | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | Not available | |
July 7 | Kafr Hamrah, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 26 | Saraqib, Idlib | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 26 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | Media N/A |
June 24 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 23 | Khan al-Asal, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 22 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 22 | Kafr Naya or Urum al-Kubrah, Aleppo | 2 reported wounded (SCD, witness) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 (approximate) | Hraytan (Haritan), Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 19 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 16 | Ma'ar Shoreen, Idlib | None reported | Not available | Photos on file |
June 15 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 11 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | 6 reported wounded (Smart News Agency) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 10 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 5 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM |
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders Praises FTC Challenge of 'Junk' Patents for Drugs Including Ozempic
"We can no longer tolerate Novo Nordisk charging the American people $969 for Ozempic when that same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to manufacture."
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday lauded the Biden administration for expanding its "campaign against pharmaceutical manufacturers' improper or inaccurate listing of patents" for a wide range of drugs including Novo Nordisk's Ozempic.
"Let me commend the Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of Chair Lina Khan, for taking bold action today against the bogus patents Novo Nordisk has filed to prevent Americans struggling with diabetes from receiving a generic version of Ozempic at a much lower price," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
Sanders—who leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee—stressed that "Novo Nordisk must not be allowed to make billions in profits by delaying generic competition for Ozempic by unlawfully filing junk patents that have nothing to do with the drug itself, but the injection pen."
"Last week, the HELP Committee, that I chair, launched an investigation into the outrageously high prices Novo Nordisk is charging for Ozempic and Wegovy in the United States," he noted. The former name is used when the patient is taking the medication for Type 2 diabetes and the latter is used when it is prescribed to treat obesity in adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity.
"In my view, we can no longer tolerate Novo Nordisk charging the American people $969 for Ozempic when that same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to manufacture," said the senator. "I look forward to working with the Biden administration to take on the greed of Novo Nordisk and substantially reduce the price of Ozempic and other prescription drugs."
After disputing more than 100 patents in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book in November, the FTC on Tuesday sent warning letters to 10 companies and notified the agency that it challenges the accuracy or relevance of over 300 listing across 20 different brand name products.
In addition to Denmark-based Novo Nordisk, the FTC sent letters to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Covis Pharma, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and some subsidiaries for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and weight loss drugs.
"By filing bogus patent listings, pharma companies block competition and inflate the cost of prescription drugs, forcing Americans to pay sky-high prices for medicines they rely on," said Khan. "By challenging junk patent filings, the FTC is fighting these illegal tactics and making sure that Americans can get timely access to innovative and affordable versions of the medicines they need."
Sanders was not alone in praising the commission and its leader—an appointee of President Joe Biden—for the ongoing efforts to battle Big Pharma's greed.
Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program advocate, Steve Knievel, said that "it's becoming harder for drug corporations to use patent shenanigans to thwart competition, thanks to the FTC and Chair Lina Khan."
"Improperly listing patents in the FDA Orange Book stymies generic competition, which is proven to dramatically lower prescription drug prices, saving patients and the public billions of dollars," he said, echoing Khan. "Today's letter is yet another demonstration from the Biden-Harris administration that Big Pharma business-as-usual monopoly abuses and price gouging will not be tolerated."
"The FDA should supplement FTC's action by clarifying guidelines for patents that can be listed in the Orange Book," he continued, noting that such action has been proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "The government should also explore using licensing authorities to overcome pharmaceutical monopoly abuses, leaving no option off the table."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Biden Plans to Reschedule Marijuana, Advocates Say 'Fully Legalize' It
Sen. Cory Booker urged fellow lawmakers to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
Apr 30, 2024
U.S. marijuana legalization advocates greeted Tuesday's news that the Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing rescheduling cannabis to a less restrictive class by calling on President Joe Biden to fully deschedule the plant, which is approved for recreational or medicinal use in the vast majority of states.
The Associated Pressreported the DEA is proposing rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I—which includes heroin, MDMA, and LSD—to Schedule III, a far less restrictive class that includes ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and over-the-counter products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dose. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
While it would not legalize cannabis for recreational use, the DEA proposal—which is subject to review by the White House Office of Management and Budget—would affirm medicinal marijuana and recognize that the plant has a lower potential for abuse than other widely used recreational drugs.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)—which works to end the failed 53-year War on Drugs—warned that "under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)."
While running for president in 2020, Biden repeatedly vowed to decriminalize marijuana and expunge the criminal records of people convicted of cannabis possession. In 2022 the president issued a "full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" convicted of simple federal marijuana possession—a move that affected thousands of people but excluded those who are in the United States without authorization.
The following year, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed that his department would recommend rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Tuesday urged Congress to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."
"Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. Thousands of people continue to bear the devastating collateral consequences that come with a criminal record," the senator continued. "Legal marijuana businesses, especially those in communities hardest hit by the War on Drugs, still have to navigate a convoluted patchwork of state laws and regulatory schemes."
"I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those who represent constituents benefiting from medical or adult-use programs, join me to pass federal legislation to fix these problems," Booker added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "it is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear."
"While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act," he added.
Booker and Schumer were among the 21 senators who last week sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram noting that it's been 18 months since Biden ordered HHS October to review cannabis scheduling and eight months since the agency's rescheduling recommendation.
"While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana's misguided placement in Schedule I," the letter states.
Legalization advocates, meanwhile, pushed the Biden administration to go much further, as 24 states plus the District of Columbia have approved adult-use recreational marijuana and 38 states have legalized medicinal cannabis.
"Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling," DPA director of drug markets and legal regulation Cat Packer said in a statement. "We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, well-being, and safety of our communities—particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country's racist enforcement of marijuana laws."
"Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won't address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities," Packer added.
Dasheeda Dawson, chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and founder of Cannabis NYC, said: "The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it's an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization."
"We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies," Dawson added. "Descheduling is not just about legality; it's about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
G7 2035 Coal Phaseout Pledge Called 'Too Little, Too Late' to Match Climate Emergency
"If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," one advocate said.
Apr 30, 2024
The Group of Seven Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministerial concluded a meeting in Turin, Italy, on Tuesday with a commitment to phase out "unabated" coal use by 2035.
While the agreement is "unprecedented" for the U.S. and Japan, which had not previously set an expiration date on their burning of the dirtiest fossil fuel, it still does not align with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C.
"The commitment to phase out coal is simply too little, too late. If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," Greenpeace International global climate politics expert Tracy Carty said in a statement. "And the climate emergency demands they just don't stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—is urgently needed."
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice."
In their Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministers' Meeting Communiqué, the countries agreed to "phase out existing unabated coal power generation in our energy systems during the first half of 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways."
The agreement comes days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule mandating that all coal plants that plan to operate after 2039 must slash their climate-heating emissions by 90% by that date. Like the "unabated" language in the G7 communiqué, the EPA plan leaves open the possibility that coal plants could continue to run if they can effectively eliminate their carbon dioxide pollution with carbon capture and storage. However, this is an unproven technology that has not succeeded at scale; for example, Oil and Gas Watch News reported last Thursday that a taxpayer-funded CCS project at an ethanol plant in Illinois had only captured up to 10-12% of CO2 emissions each year for the past decade.
"It is past time that the U.S. made concrete commitments to phase out coal power," Jeff Ordower, the director of 350.org North America director, said in a statement. He added that while 350.org welcomed "this and all steps toward phasing out fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's recent announcement to further limit coal-fired power plants' CO2 emissions, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake."
Further, Ordower said that the U.S.' plans "must not rely on unproven technologies like carbon capture, or dangerous, expensive, and unequal ones like nuclear just so they can continue business as usual."
Similarly, 350.org Japan campaigner Masayoshi Iyoda said, "Japan agreeing to a specific deadline to phase out domestic coal power generation is momentous and long overdue."
"As an historic outlier among G7 countries on making coal phaseout commitments, and with the highest share of power generated from coal among its G7 peers, this is a step forward. However, 2035 is too late to meet the 1.5°Ctarget set in the Paris agreement," Iyoda continued.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed."
Amnesty International also criticized the timeline of the deal.
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice," Candy Ofime, Amnesty International's climate justice researcher, said in a statement. "Commitments put forward by G7 members—which have burnt coal for power for more than a century—to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats."
Ofime pointed out that the deal appeared to make no mention of phasing out coal in steel production, despite the fact that the process burns up around 30% of total coal use. She also argued that the language around "unabated" coal use was "misleading."
"Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks," Ofime sad. "Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used."
Campaigners also criticized the G7 countries for focusing their timeline on coal and not oil and gas, especially since all nations agreed to work toward "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner" at last year's COP28 United Nations climate talks in Dubai.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed," said Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International's global policy campaign manager.
Oil Change pointed out that G7 countries are responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions from new oil and gas production, as well as 27% of production overall. At the same time, they subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $25.7 billion a year between 2020 and 2022, compared to only $10.3 billion for renewables. While the countries did reaffirm a pledge to end "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or earlier, they did not offer any more details on the timeline.
"While the G7 focuses on coal, it conveniently omits to stress that limiting warming to 1.5°C means they also need to end fossil fuel expansion at home, going fastest in phasing out existing production," Ioualalen said. "They must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms. If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future."
The ministers also reaffirmed the importance of natural gas deliveries to Europe to help it replace Russian gas in the wake of Russia's ongoing war on Ukraine. However, European officials have said that they will have enough gas supplies to last through the next decade despite a Biden administration pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export approvals.
"Faced with climate catastrophe, the G7's persistent endorsement of fossil gas is alarming," Carty of Greenpeace said. "Gas is not needed, not cheap, and is certainly not a 'bridge fuel' to a safe climate. The biggest fossil fuel threat today by wealthy nations is coming from the rapidly expanding LNG industry. An urgent shift is needed towards less, not more, gas—and massively expanded renewables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular