Author: itmustbeNOW.com

A plethora of studies and surveys from 2000 to 2024 investigated the consumers’ perceptions of and willingness to pay (WTP) a premium to stay at a green hotel and pay more for sustainably produced or sourced products.

2000 TO 2023 STUDIES

Published in April 2023, a systematic literature review identified twenty-two studies from thirteen countries – Australia, Canada, China, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Taiwan, and the USA – focused on

1. Factors affecting choices

2. The willingness to pay a premium

3. The word-of-mouth intentions

4. The estimated monetary value of the premium that consumers would be ‘willing to pay’ to stay at a green hotel or for supporting green initiatives in the hotel sector

The review highlighted its importance to the hotel industry since the willingness of most hotel owners and operators to invest in green initiatives often depends on their knowledge of how much their customers would be willing to pay for greener hospitality services.

Willingness to pay a premium significantly influence consumer’s intention to visit `green` hotels, therefore the price is a crucial determinant of consumers’ purchasing behavior.

It is also important from both a policy and a managerial perspective:

– From a policy perspective, it is not enough for hotel owners and operators to know whether their customers are prepared to pay more for green services, they also want to know how much more, as the sustainability process involves large investments and usually increased operating costs. The lack of studies on the topic is a serious obstacle to the hotel sector’s efforts to reduce its environmental footprint.

– From a managerial perspective, it is argued that consumers who are ’willing to pay’ would accept a premium of around 5% on the price of the room per night stay for a green hotel that holds an environmental certificate and/or implements green practices (such as energy- and water-saving measures, waste recycling, etc.) or to offset their carbon footprint.

Two research questions focused on the size of the premium and the factors affecting the premium:

1) How much are consumers willing to pay to stay at a green hotel and for green hotel services?

Based on the positive estimates, more than 85% of the estimates report that consumers would be willing to pay a premium of 4% to 6% per room per night.

– The highest WTP acceptance rates (over 70%) were observed in studies conducted in Mexico, Ghana, Hong Kong, and Indonesia. The lowest rates (less than 15%) were observed in studies conducted in India, the USA, and Taiwan.

– In absolute terms, the premium is around USD 5 per room per night.

– Highest estimates, between USD 9 to 26 per night, were found in two USA studies using data on the room rates and amenities. Where national and foreign tourists were surveyed, it was observed that foreign tourists were willing to pay more.

– Two studies in the USA and Hong Kong estimated a premium of about 10% per room night. However, only 18% for business and 9.8% for leisure travelers were willing to pay in the USA.

– Lower estimates of around USD 1.5 to 2 were observed in developing countries Indonesia and Ghana, a premium of about 4% on the average cost per night.

Some studies have valued specific green products or services in the hotel sector. (Note: Values converted at an exchange rate of USD 1 = EUR 0.93)

– For hotels with environmental certification, hotel guests would be willing to pay a premium between USD 1.6 and USD 9 per person per night, or a premium between USD 1.55 per room per night and USD 9 to 26 per room per night. This is an additional 4.16% and 5.33% per room per night.

– To compensate for their carbon emissions, consumers would be willing to pay a premium of at least 1 to 5% or a premium of USD 3.8 to 5.3 per room per night and USD 11 per person per night.

– Practices aiming at energy efficiency interventions are valued between USD 0.9 and 1.5 per person per night. This is an additional 4.5–5.15% per room per night.

– Practices aiming at reducing water consumption or re-using wasted water are estimated between USD 2 and 4 per room per night and USD 2.4 to 2.8 per person per night. This is an additional 4.5 to 5.15% per room per night.

– Practices aiming at waste recycling and effective management policies are valued at USD 0.5 to 2.5 per person per night. This is an additional 4.5 to 5.15% per room per night.

– For boutique hotels with an environmental management system, customers would be willing to pay a premium of 5%.

Based on the negative estimate that reported the lowest WTP rate (i.e., 5.4%) of USD minus11.2, the study found that the consumers required a discount of USD 11 to accept their participation in the study.

2) Which are the factors affecting the premium that consumers would be willing to pay?  

Numerous factors affecting the size of the premium that consumers would be willing to pay for green hotels and their green products and services. The findings vary between studies.

– Accommodation type: Customers who stay at more luxury hotels and pay more are also willing to spend more on green initiatives.

– Days of hotel accommodation: The days spent in a hotel seem to be positively correlated with the amount that customers are willing to pay.

– Nationality of the respondents: In some studies, there’s no evidence for variation in the premium where both national and international tourists have been surveyed or have been conducted in different countries for comparative reasons. Other studies indicated the opposite and differences are not attributed only to income inequalities but to cultural factors as well.

– Environmental awareness: In some studies, respondents’ attitude towards environmental concerns affect the size of the premium in some studies. Yet, other studies found that those who were willing to make sacrifices to save water during their stay at the hotel would pay a lower premium.  Note: The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale used in some surveys suggested that there is a positive relationship between NEP and the premium.

– Age of the respondents: Some studies suggest that younger customers are willing to pay more for green hotels or green initiatives, while other studies failed to find statistical significance.

– Gender: Some studies argue that gender affects the size of the premium, while others conclude the opposite. Others found that males are willing to pay a higher premium than females, but others found no difference between males and females.

– Income level: Some studies argue that income is positively correlated with the premium that hotel customers are willing to pay. Others found a negative correlation between income level and the size of the premium.

– Other demographics: Some studies found that educational level, number of children, and marital status have no influence. Others argue that family size and educational level have a positive impact on the amount that respondents would be willing to pay. Additionally, other studies found that tourists with higher education levels were willing to pay more.

2024 CONSUMER SURVEY

Published in May 2024, the PwC’s 2024 Voice of the Consumer Survey collected the perspectives of more than 20,000 consumers from 31 countries and found that consumers are willing to spend an average of 9.7% more on sustainably produced or sourced products, even when they are also weighed as cost-of-living and inflationary concerns weighed by cost-of-living pressures.

The survey found that almost nine-in-ten (85%) consumers are experiencing first-hand the disruptive effects of climate change in their daily lives and are prioritising consumption that integrates sustainability-focused practices.

46% say they are buying more sustainable products as a way to reduce their impact on the environment.

Personal actions consumers say they have taken include:

– Travelling less or differently (31%)

– Eating different foods (32%)

– Purchasing or planning to purchase an electric vehicle (24%)

– Making more considered purchases with the aim of reducing their overall consumption (43%)

CHARGING A PREMIUM WITH INTEGRITY

Premiums are called a variety of names – a sustainability fee, a green fee, an environmental levy, a SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) fee, etc. It is an additional charge to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability, to fund projects that support SDGs, to generate additional revenue that can be invested in improving operations and building, and to differentiate businesses from their competitors.

Today, businesses can feel confident about charging their customers a premium

– IF they can prove that they are accountable, regulation compliant and transparent around sustainability;

– IF they are taking responsibility for their total impacts on the environment and communities in the place where they operate; and

– IF they are committed to achieving Net Zero or better – Net Negative Carbon Emissions, with serious plans, budgets and timelines

NOW FORCE FOR GOOD LEADERS

Hospitality, like other industries, has a responsibility to manage its impact on our planet. Enforcing climate protection through rapid decarbonisation is vital through carbon reduction and offsetting.

For accountable, compliant and transparent hotels, one of the most obvious way to contribute to climate action is the introduction of a Carbon Emission Fee, or an SDG 13 – Climate Action Fee.

NOW Force for Good Leader – Soneva Resorts in the Maldives and Thailand – is the global leader in sustainability and have already achieved Net Negative Carbon Emissions.  Since 2008, Soneva charge a 2% carbon offset tax per guest night and an additional USD 6 per person per night Green Tax for food and beverages, transfers and other resort facilities. The money raised funds for the Soneva Foundation, which invests in a portfolio of carbon-mitigating projects, offsetting both direct and indirect emissions, including guest air travel.

Another NOW Force for Good Leader, Grand Hotel Huis ter Duin in The Netherlands, charge a SDG Transition Fee of EUR 8.56 per person per night and it is charged separately from the room rate and the city tax. Children aged 4 – 12 years receive a 50% discount and no SDG Transition Fee is charged for children aged 0 – 3 years. In addition to the hotel’s personal investment, they use the proceeds to support projects that contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Hotel guests can experience their positive impacts, as well as contribute to their local community and to other regions of the Netherlands and abroad in the high-integrity carbon offset projects to support SDG13 – Climate Action.

It took place at the end of another worrisome year when our globe reached more than 1.5°C (or 2.7°F) of warming since pre-industrial levels which accelerated extreme weather that caused more severe droughts, more devastating floods, more catastrophic hurricanes, more disastrous typhoons, more fatal forest fires and more tragic deaths worldwide. Our world is having its hottest year ever … again … according to the European climate agency Copernicus.  

THE DEAL

Hugely responsible for historical climate change, rich countries agreed in 2009 to provide developing countries with an insufficient $100 billion a year by 2020, a pledge that was only met two years past the deadline.

COP29 focused heavily on finance, a politically controversial and vital climate issue with great expectations of funds for loss and damage, and for enabling the transition away from fossil fuels announced at COP28.

The loss and damage fund is up and running but dismally underfunded, even with the new climate deal which developing nations hope will come in the form of grants rather than loans that will trap them further in debt.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN process for negotiating an agreement to limit dangerous climate change, a breakthrough agreement was reached at COP29.  Known formally as the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), the deal reached will triple finance to developing countries, from the previous goal of USD 100 billion annually, to USD 300 billion annually by 2035 and secure efforts of all actors to work together to scale up finance to developing countries, from public and private sources to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

At the opening ceremony of COP 29, the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said, “It is vital for COP29 to achieve critical goals that align climate finance contributions with estimated global needs.  G20 leaders – whose economies account for three-quarters of global emissions – reaffirmed last month that they would shift away from fossil fuels, but the gap between what countries say and what they do is significant.”

At the closing of COP29, Stiell remarked:

“It has been a difficult journey, but we’ve delivered a deal. This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country. But like any insurance policy – it only works if premiums are paid in full, and on time. Promises must be kept, to protect billions of lives. This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing, helping all countries to share in its huge benefits: more jobs, stronger growth, cheaper and cleaner energy for all.”

“We needed this to be an enabling COP – one which helped translate the pledges of COP28 into real-world outcomes to protect people, prosperity, and the planet. And that’s what we have made possible.”

“At COP28 the world agreed to triple renewables. At COP29 we tripled climate finance, and countries will work to mobilize much, much more.”

“At COP28 the world agreed to boost climate resilience. COP29 will help finance real protections for those on the frontlines, especially the most vulnerable.”

“COP29 also reached global agreement on carbon markets, after almost a decade of hard work, where several previous COPs were not able to get this done.”

“But we are still a long way off course. Bold new climate plans on the way to Belém will be crucial to getting us back in the race. They must embed the targets we agreed in Dubai, including to rapidly ramp up renewables, transition away from fossil fuels, and transform societies, making them more resilient.”

“No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work to do. “

CLIMATE INJUSTICE FRUSTRATION AND FURY

The G77 group of developing countries had called for a sum of $500 billion which richer nations rejected as unrealistic given current economic circumstances.

Furious developing countries were damning in their criticism as soon as the gavel went down on the $300 billion per year commitment.

– Marshall Island climate convoy Tina Stege said, “We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need” and described the talks as showing the “very worst of political opportunism” with fossil fuel interests “determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we’ve worked to build.”

– Chandni Raina of India described the deal as “abysmally poor and a paltry sum” and the agreement as “unable to address the enormity of the challenge we all face” and “nothing more than an optical illusion.”

– Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute called the deal “a flawed compromise” that reflects the “harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in.”

FOSSIL FUEL INTEREST DOMINATE

Despite last year’s climate deal calling for the first time on countries to “transition away from fossil fuels,” major economies are still planning oil and gas expansions in the decades ahead.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in October that renewable technology like solar and wind is being rolled-out at breakneck speed but not fast enough to stop burning more oil, coal and gas.

COP29 took place in another petrostate for the second consecutive year and according to an analysis by a coalition of groups called Kick Big Polluters Out, all country delegations were outnumbered by more than 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists or industry players registered to attend the talks.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, once again pushed against ambitious action and publicly rejected any reference to oil, coal and gas in the deal.

There were also calls on zero-emission fuels in shipping and other transport sectors but these will require significant climate finance and little to no progress was made.

Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London observed, “It’s been another shady, oil-stained COP. Public interest in this COP has been low and cynicism feels like it has reached an all time high.”

Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network said, “This has been the most horrendous climate negotiations in years due to the bad faith of developed countries- This was meant to be the finance COP, but the Global North turned up with a plan to betray the Global South.”

Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative noted that the outcome “offers false hope to those already bearing the brunt of climate disasters,” and said, “We must persist in our fight, demanding a significant increase in financing and holding developed countries to account.”

– Pa’olelei Luteru, a Samoan diplomat who chairs the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) concluded, “Countries threatened by climate disaster were waiting in vain to see the sharp decline in fossil fuel production that was heralded.  Alas, saying something is one thing and actually meaning it is quite another.”

OPERATIONALISING ARTICLE 6 & BOOSTING AMBITION

After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders at COP29 reached a consensus on Article 6 of the 2015 Paris Agreement which will help countries work together to reduce their carbon emissions. It sets out two options for countries and companies to trade carbon offsets, helping them meet the goals they set to reduce warming gases in their climate action plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in a cost-effective manner, and in bolstering ambition in mitigation and adaptation.

– One allows two countries to set their own terms for a bilateral carbon trading agreement, this is known as Article 6.2.

– The second aims to create a central, UN-managed system for countries and companies to begin offsetting their carbon emissions and trading those offsets, known as Article 6.4.

Article 6 compliant markets will be a critical tool to channel more investment to developing countries and allow countries to target mitigation efforts to where the costs are lowest.

ISSUES LEFT HANGING

According to The Conversation article by University College of London professors – Mark Maslin, Priti Parikh and Simon Chin-Yee, a more realistic interpretation is that COP29 was a collective failure to provide the investment needed to shift the world away from fossil fuels. All this means we are still looking at a future with global warming above 3˚C.

Five critical issues are still left hanging:

1. Where is the money?

We urgently need to invest trillions of dollars in climate mitigation and adaptation—yet even though this was the finance COP, very little money was put on the table. Developing countries asked for US$1.3 trillion from developed countries by 2035, with added voluntary contributions from better-off countries still classed as developing, such as China. What they got in the early hours of Sunday, after the summit had overrun by 33 hours, was a much lower pledge of US$300 billion by 2035 from governments and the private sector.

2. China steps up, India stays at home and US says goodbye

China means business when it comes to carbon neutrality and investment in green technologies. That much was evident from strong engagement at COP29 from its ministries, private sector and experts. However, it wants to stick to the definitions of “developing nations” used when the UN’s climate framework was devised back in 1992. Under that definition, China—now the world’s second largest economy—is still self-described as developing and needs only make voluntary contributions to climate finance.

India, dismissed COP29 as a “technical COP” with the senior leadership staying at home in part due to elections in the state of Maharashtra. India’s delegation said that the US$1.3 trillion investment should come from developed nations (which do not include India). India did express its disappointment in a strong statement once the COP agreement was ratified.

The US said goodbye to serious action on climate change the very day Donald Trump got elected as president which led to subdued mood at the country’s pavilion and quite a few hotel room cancellations in Baku. Many have suggested the lack of financial ambition is in part because the US will not be contributing to the funds during a Trump presidency.

3. Saudi Arabia tries to wreck the party

Last year’s climate summit agreed a historic resolution to “transition away from fossil fuels.” Yet from the beginning of COP29, the Saudis tried to ensure that it was not restated this year, much to the annoyance of the UK, the EU and many other countries—including even fellow petrostate (and COP28 host) the UAE.

At the final hour, the resolution was included in this year’s COP agreement, but only by referring to it by paragraph and document number, so the words “fossil fuels” do not appear in this year’s agreement. However, the text does include “transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition.” This is largely a reference to natural gas, which is considered a transitional fuel. So another win for the fossil fuel lobby.

4. Methane commitments

There were some more positive outcomes from the summit, such as a pledge on methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and can be emitted by decomposing food and other organic waste, often in landfills. After agriculture and fossil fuels, this is the third-largest source of methane emissions from human activity.

At COP29, 30 countries representing nearly 50% of global methane emissions from organic waste signed up to reduce those emissions as part of their future climate action plans. This pledge will pave the way to develop methane capture technologies, especially in landfill sites, and to use some of that methane as bio-gas for heat or electricity.

5. Youth focus

At COP29, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, addressed youth representatives: “You have every right to be angry. I am angry too.”

The UK was the first out of 196 countries to sign up to the universal youth clause designed to be integrated into the pledges countries make to cut their carbon emissions (known as NDCs). If adopted by other nations, this clause would put children and young people center stage both as stakeholders affected by climate change, but also as agents of change. Given the political backlash in many countries against climate action, this empowerment of the youth is essential, as they will take the reins to secure the future for themselves and generations to come.

WHAT’S NEXT

The next submissions of the National Determined Contribution (NDC) is due by February 2025 in accordance with Decision 1/CP.21, and Article 4.9 of the Paris Agreement​.

COP30 will be held in the Amazonian city of Belém do Pará in Brazil from November 10 to 21, 2025, marking the ten-year anniversary of the Paris agreement.

Climate extremes are relentless … some parts of the world are drowning, some are burning, some are drying up, and the poorest and most vulnerable people everywhere are struggling to cope and survive.

Against this background of accelerating disasters, rising climate anxieties and the environment as a victim of war, the global climate conference COP29 will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22.

THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP21 in December 2015, the 197 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that are parties to the agreement have been challenged to enhance ambition and enabling climate finance and action.

Signing the agreement became binding through ratification which committed governments to submit their plans to cut emissions to keep global temperatures well below 2°C above pre-industrial times and to “pursue efforts” to limit them further to 1.5°C. As of 2024, three countries – Iran and Libya, both among the 14-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) – as well as Yemen have not ratified the agreement.

The Climate Action Tracker assessed the announced COP28 initiatives of UNFCCC members and found that few will meaningfully contribute to closing the emissions gap and many lack the ambition, clarity, coverage or accountability needed to really make a difference. On the total emissions savings that could be achieved by the pledges, around a quarter is already included in government nationally determined contribution (NDCs), around a quarter is additional and achievable, and around half is unlikely to be achieved without further action to improve the initiatives.

Equally concerning, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service reported in early November that 2024 will likely be the warmest ever recorded and the first year our planet will exceed the Paris Agreement threshold.

COP29 PRIORITIES

The UN Climate Change Conference COP29 is the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.

COP29 priorities are ongoing sources of contention:

1. Advance the Paris Agreement’s commitment to limit global warming and boost ambition on national action plan.

The first UN Global Stocktake Report was concluded at COP28 in October 2023, an inventory that looks at where the world stands on support and climate action. It found that the world is not on track to achieve the goals set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement, and there remains a vast gap between the pledges and actions planned to cut their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

A failure to increase ambition in these new NDCs and start delivering immediately would put the world on course for a temperature increase of 2.6-3.1°C over the course of this century. This would bring debilitating impacts to people, planet and economies. COP29 must bridge the vast gaps, turn pledges into available finances, and action decarbonization.

2. New global climate finance targets and action plans need to be set.

It was agreed during climate finance debates since the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, that developed nations which had benefited from decades of polluting industries, should contribute $100 billion a year by 2020 to support climate action in developing nations. This goal was not reached until 2022. The target amount expires in 2025 and nations will have to agree on a new figure. Some analysts estimate the developing world needs anywhere from $500 billion to $6 trillion to enact its climate plans.

A ‘Carbon Brief analysis on Which countries are historically responsible for climate change? ‘ explained the historical responsibility for climate change at the heart of debates over climate justice. This is the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution.

A point of contention for over a decade, China has self-designated itself as a developing country and allowed concessions on emissions and access to global funds, even though it is the world’s second largest economy after the United States! Developing nations—including China—want an enormous increase for climate finance to more than $1 trillion a year.

The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is still being contested and creative financial solutions will be vital. The ambition is for it to replace the former Paris Agreement pledge of US$100 billion per year for developing countries, which was not met in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. It was only met for the first time in 2023.

The $700 million Loss and Damage Funds raised to date falls short of replenishing the estimated $400 billion in losses that developing countries face each year. Adaptation resources and financing need to be secured to help the most vulnerable communities adapt to the change that’s already occurring. New and innovative sources of funding from the private sector need to increase to help developing countries cope with climate change.

3. Operationalise Article 6 of the Paris Agreement

Article 6 created principles for carbon markets and ways countries could cooperate to reach climate targets. Negotiation is needed to establish the necessary guidance to operationalise the rules agreed to at COP26.

4. Transition to Clean Energy

It is important to fast track the energy transition without leaving countries behind and increase the emissions to be slashed before 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5° C (2.7° F) above pre-industrial levels.

6. Collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and local communities and use of natural climate solutions

It is vital to mobilise inclusivity in the discussions, decisions and implementation of solutions, and put nature, people, lives and livelihoods at the heart of climate action to deliver on most of the sustainable development goals by 2030.

COP29 KEY PLAYERS

With nearly 200 countries attending COP29, reaching a consensus will be a massive challenge.

CHINA is the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter emitting about 30% of the world’s annual carbon emissions by producing the most energy from climate-warming fossil fuels and also from renewable energy sources. Beijing rejects calls for it to contribute to climate finance for developing countries.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the world’s largest historic emitter and the second largest emitter with 4.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) in 2023 – a decrease of 2.7 percent from the previous year. While the Biden Administration has contributed hundreds of billions of US dollars for climate change mitigation and adaptation, it continues to break records as the world’s biggest oil and gas producer. Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election risks another pull out of the 2015 Paris Agreement and reduced the chance of a strong deal on a new global finance target.

EUROPEAN UNION emitted an estimated 897 million tonnes of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2023 and contributed the most global climate finance with 28.6 billion euros ($30.8 billion USD) from public sources.  EU member states include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

UNITED KINGDOM is “back in the business of climate leadership” according to its new Labour Party government but it is unclear how much it will contribute.

THE TROIKA are the host countries of COP28 (United Arab Emirates), COP29 (Azerbaijan) and COP30 (Brazil) and among the world’s 10 biggest oil producers.

G77 + CHINA is a negotiating bloc alliance of 77 developing countries and China who says rich countries have a bigger responsibility to cut CO2 than poorer nations.

AFRICAN GROUP is a negotiating bloc of African countries pushing for more climate finance and getting the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 on carbon market rules into force by early 2025. Challenge a decision to place the fund’s technical assistance body in the high-cost city Geneva instead of Nairobi.

ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES is a negotiating block of countries focused on securing trillions of dollars in climate financing for serious climate impacts, notably sea level rise, and advancing global efforts to phase out fossil fuel use.

LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRY GROUP is a negotiating block of 45 highly vulnerable nations that have contributed little to climate change and asking for significant grant funding from developed countries.

ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL HOST COUNTRY

There are huge concerns that COP is once again being hosted by a petrostate for the second year which might hinder any progress for key countries to commit to “transition away” from fossil fuels.  Oil and natural gas bring in around 90 percent of Azerbaijan’s export revenues and finance around 60 per cent of the government budget, according to the International Energy Agency.

The president of COP29 Mukhtar Babayev worked at Azerbaijan’s state oil company for more than two decades before his present role as his country’s minister for ecology and natural resources since 2018.

To limit global warming, the world needs to cut fossil fuel production rapidly in the coming years, yet an analysis shared with UK newspaper the Guardian revealed that Azerbaijan plans to increase its fossil fuel production by over a third in the next decade. A recent secret BBC recording shows the chief executive of Azerbaijan’s COP29 team, Elnur Soltanov, discussing “investment opportunities” in the state oil and gas company with a man posing as a potential investor.  Soltanov is also the deputy energy minister of Azerbaijan and is on the board of Socar.

For the third year running, the host country is also another authoritarian state with a dubious human rights record. It also ranks close to the bottom of Transparency International’s annual list.

IT’S NOW OR NEVER … AGAIN!

We need a strong signal of progress on climate action.

It is vital for COP29 to achieve critical goals that align climate finance contributions with estimated global needs.  G20 leaders – whose economies account for three-quarters of global emissions – reaffirmed last month that they would shift away from fossil fuels, but the gap between what countries say and what they do is significant.

“Now, is the moment for all actors to make a quantum leap in ambition and action,” says Takeshi Kuramochi, co-author of the 2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report which indicates that if only “current policies” are implemented the world could heat up to a disastrous 3.1C.

In an industry-leading move for two successive years, Whatley Manor achieves net-negative carbon status by maximising its carbon reduction on property and supporting a nature-based carbon sequestration project to remove more hard-to-abate carbon emissions than emitted for 2023.

Whatley Manor has taken its climate action to the next level by entering into a 3-year purchase agreement to invest in 8,250 high-quality carbon credits produced by the San Jerónimo Coatlán Carbon Sequestration Project in Mexico which support Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 17 for impactful social, economic and environmental benefits. The project works with Climate Action Reserve (CAR), a high-quality carbon credit registry that establishes rigorous standards involving multi-sector stakeholder workgroup development and local engagement, and issues carbon credits in a transparent and publicly available system. The Reserve carbon credits program demonstrates that high-quality carbon credits, known as Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRT), foster reductions in GHG pollution that are real, additional, verifiable, enforceable, and permanent.

This November, Whatley Manor retires 1250 high quality carbon credits to offset more than the 1057.2 tonnes of CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emitted in 2023. An additional 7,000 carbon credits will be retired in the following two years to offset more than the projected CO₂e from anticipated renovation work and guest travel to the hotel in 2024 and 2025.

“At this most urgent of times, we believe that we are responsible for our total impact and helping other remote communities, as well as be accountable, transparent and compliant in our actions,” noted Christian Landolt, owner of Whatley Manor.

“This bold step is one of Whatley Manor’s most robust contributions to our decarbonization journey. After achieving 98% carbon reduction in Scopes 1 & 2, five years ahead of SBTi (Science Base Targets Initiative) targets, we are turning our attention to all that Scope 3 entails,” says Sue Williams, sustainability advisor to Whatley Manor and founder of Positive Hospitality.  View Whatley Manor’s SUSTAINABILITY REPORT

Whatley Manor’s strategic actions to maximise carbon reduction before offsetting includes converting from Natural Gas to Bio Gas renewable energy, upgrading insulation throughout the building for energy efficiency, reducing waste by 31% per guest night and the remaining waste confirmed as Zero to landfill, sending all food waste to an anaerobic digester to make Bio Gas, auditing their full supply chain and holding supplier knowledge building events to increase collaboration, investing in new technology that will generate energy from waste on property in 2025, and a Tree and Biodiversity Audit in 2024 which led to garden improvements, establishing an effective composting regime, the removal of all pesticides and the introduction of BioChar to the soil to ensure all garden waste is put to good use.

NOW founder Alexa Poortier elaborated, “Net-negative carbon emissions (previously known as Climate Positive) is achieved by rigorously measuring, reducing and removing more CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) than is emitted. CO₂e is a standard unit for measuring carbon footprints which calculate the environmental impact and global warming potential of all greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor). Whatley Manor’s owner and team are ‘forces for good’ with the strong will, determination and courage to surmount sustainability challenges and support SDGs, and to lead on climate action and prove that luxury and sustainability can thrive together.”

Accountable, Compliant and Transparent (A.C.T.)

Whatley Manor is EarthCheck Silver Certified, a science-backed verification standard with a rigorous carbon footprint calculation process, and an independent audit conducted every year.

Whatley Manor is a member of NOW Force for Good Leaders which provide hotels access to a sustainability academy and coaches/specialists to support implementation and compliance, a Sustainability Reporting Tool for transparency to stakeholders and access to high-integrity carbon offset projects with financial rebates to support bold climate action.

Since 2001, the United Nations declared November 6^th as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

The UN reported that war is on the rise since 2012 and it is unfolding in over 120 armed conflicts around the world, involving over 60 states and 120 non-state armed groups.  Peace-making is in crisis and diplomatic efforts to end fighting are failing with more leaders pursuing aggressive military action and getting away with it.  More people are being forced from their homes and in need of lifesaving aid or dying in armed conflict around the globe.

Worldwide, the daily news report on horrific war casualties focused on the wounded and dead soldiers and civilians, traumatised children, destroyed cities and livelihoods around the globe, but the news rarely cover the environment as ‘a victim of war’ with crops torched, soil poisoned, water wells polluted, animals killed, and forests cut down to gain military advantage.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), times of war can result in rapid environmental degradation as people struggle to survive and environmental management systems break down resulting in damage to critical ecosystems. For over 6 decades, armed conflicts posed critical threats to conservation efforts as they expanded to more than two-thirds of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. At least 40 percent of all internal conflicts have been linked to the exploitation of natural resources with high-value such as timber, diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce resources such as fertile land and water. Conflicts involving natural resources have also been found to be twice as likely to relapse.

The UN attaches great importance in ensuring that action on the environment is part of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding strategies, because there can be no durable peace if the natural resources that sustain livelihoods and ecosystems are destroyed. Climate change is clearly an environmental challenge that profoundly affect people with lives lost, livelihoods destroyed, and communities displaced; and it also disrupt peace and security. Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change are often those that are most vulnerable to conflict and fragility. 

THE HIDDEN CARBON COST OF WAR

The tragedy and destruction of war may impact a territory, but its escalating carbon emissions will impact everyone’s climate worldwide.

Russia invaded Ukraine on the 24^th of Feb. 2022. An international effort to hold Russia accountable for the climate impact of its invasion in Ukraine is known as the ‘Initiative on GHG Accounting of War’. Seven experts in four countries produce two reports a year that influence decision-making by the Ukrainian government and international organizations.

– This includes the efforts of a team led by Lennard de Klerk, a 50-year-old Dutch carbon expert-turned-hotelier who owns an ecolodge in Hungary’s countryside, and former colleagues who are working to compute emissions from all types of war-triggered emissions. They collect reports of Russian attacks and then verifies them using open-source satellite images delineating burnt areas to appraise the carbon emissions of hostilities-related wildfires. They closely track reports of fuel shipments to areas nearing the frontlines since military tanks and fighter jet vehicles are big fuel-guzzlers. They track fires set off by explosives, the fuel consumed by tanks and armored vehicles, and the tailpipe pollution from cars driven by Ukrainians fleeing their homes.

– The first report presented in 2022 revealed at least 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in direct, indirect and prospective reconstruction-related emissions for the first seven months of the war, a figure equivalent to the Netherlands’ entire emissions over the same period. A  second report of the war’s first 12 months updated the figure to 120 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The Israeli war in Gaza since the 7th of October 2023 is the latest in seven decades of war and conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, with severe humanitarian impact and alarming environmental destruction. Decades of military occupation and conflict have degraded Gaza’s resources. Deforestation for buffer zones has worsened environmental degradation. 90- 95% of the water is undrinkable rendered by blockades and recurring
violence.

– The study, titled “A Multitemporal Snapshot of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Israel-Gaza Conflict” estimates that the total emissions of direct war activities (bombing raids, reconnaissance flights, and rocket attacks) in the first 120 days of the conflict to be between 420,265 and 652,552 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).

– To date, it is estimated that the rebuilding of Gaza could release more than 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MILITARY EMISSIONS

Nations disclose their national emissions and commit to cutting them under the 2015 Paris Agreement adopted by 196 parties at COP21, but with the exception of emissions from military activities which allow for limited data reporting. The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty adopted in 1997 aimed to reduce the emission of gases that contribute to global warming, carved out reporting exemptions that cover large portions of military emissions abroad, and that loophole remains, explains Axel Michaelowa, a senior researcher at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

According to estimates by two U.K. based nonprofits – Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Conflict and Environment Observatory – the direct and indirect emissions of militaries might account for 5.5 percent of total global emissions, which is the annual emissions of the world’s entire fleet of passenger cars.

As an institution, the US military is the world’s largest energy user of fossil fuel, therefore it is also the world’s largest carbon emitter, with 30 percent from bases across the world and 70 percent from operations.

“The global military expenditure has now exceeded 2.1 trillion with the Russian war in Ukraine and the Israeli war in Gaza and Lebanon giving it an extra boost. Every time military expenditure increases, military emissions increases”, explained Nick Buxton, author and researcher from Amsterdam based Transnational Institute.

The big question: Who will take responsibility for military emissions resulting from war and armed conflict and the emissions to rebuild devastated territories?