Tag: Kyoto

CAN Intervention AWG-KP Opening Plenary Durban, November 29, 2011

Submitted by MBrockley on

AWG-KP_Opening_Intervention.pdf

Thank you Chair,

I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We call on Parties to acknowledge the urgency with which climate change needs to be addressed and to agree to ambitious and immediate emissions reduction targets that are in line with the Cancun Agreement to prevent global warming beyond two degrees Celsius. Kyoto Protocol parties must commit to a second commitment period at Durban. The legal and governance structure of the Kyoto Protocol is crucial to ensuring that mitigation commitments are legally binding and have environmental integrity.  

Loopholes represent an extreme threat to the environmental integrity and effectiveness of the post-2012 climate regime. The surplus of AAUs under the Kyoto Protocol amounts to 7.5-10 Gt CO2e, roughly one third of current 2020 emissions reduction targets pledged by Annex 1 countries. We call on Parties to fully address the issue of surplus AAUs generated during the 2008-2012 commitment period. Double counting for new market and non-market mechanisms must absolutely be avoided and accountability for LULUCF needs to be strengthened.
In LULUCF, Annex 1 countries have laid their cards on the table, proposing to hide forestry emissions and largely not account for emissions from other land uses. This undermines targets and the Kyoto Protocol. Durban is the last chance for countries, including developing countries that are committed to rules with environmental integrity, to reject the worst options on the table, and require robust rules.
Thank you, Chair.

Credit: Ingrid Næss-Holm

Tags: 
intervention
Topics: 
Mitigation
Organization: 
AWG-KP
Climate Action Network
Kyoto
UNFCCC
Related Event: 
COP17/CMP 7 – Durban

US: No More Denial!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Many hoped President Obama would be a breath of fresh air on American willingness to respond to the consensus of global climate science. The science says climate change is happening due to human activity, and it’s urgent. Yesterday, the US confirmed its denial on the second proposition.

The US received a Fossil of the Day for statements about the science of climate change by Jonathan Pershing, the US Deputy Special Envoy, in his first press briefing here in Durban. Pershing is a scientist himself, and was involved with the IPCC, but he implausibly said current collective mitigation targets are sufficient to avoid going over 2 degrees. His overall message was that the US stands on its position that avoiding runaway global warming is not urgent enough to expend much political capital on commitments in the UNFCCC.

The lowered prioritization by the US for global climate commitments started with its weak mitigation target, which the US also will not agree to make legally binding. The US target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 is so weak that momentum to achieve it may already have been met even without comprehensive climate policies, due to the recession and rising relative cost of coal-fired electricity.

By saying the US is only really concerned with post-2020 commitments, the Obama Administration’s negotiators are saying their boss doesn’t need to deal with this issue, since Obama won’t be in office after 2016 (assuming he wins another 4 year term). In his 2008 campaign, however, President Obama promised to be a leader on global climate disruption.  But expectations have now fallen so low that all we can ask is for the US to agree some very reasonable steps forward in the negotiations – for example, on a mandate to package commitments into a legally binding agreement by 2015.  That would give the world four more years, in addition to the Bali Action Plan, agreed by the Bush administration, which gave the world two. The climate may not wait. The world certainly cannot be dragged down by another US administration in denial.

Tags: 
Obama
ambition
commitments
ambition levels
Topics: 
Mitigation
Region: 
USA
Related Event: 
COP17/CMP 7 – Durban

EU: Stand and Deliver!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Where does Connie Hedegaard, and where does the EU, really stand?

ECO has learned that in a hidden room in the parking garage of the ICC, the European Commission is now pushing the 27 member states towards an 8-year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. What is going on? Why would the Commission so blatantly cater to corporate interests and delay action?

If it prefers an 8-year commitment period, the EU will imply a starting date no earlier than 2021 for the much needed comprehensive, legally binding agreement.

So EU, whose side are you on? Are you with those who want to delay legally binding global action to beyond 2020? What about your desired peaking year?

The vulnerable countries have rightly insisted that a 5-year commitment period is needed. The negotiating process must reflect a sense of urgency matching the climate’s fast-changing reality. ECO suggests that 2020 is an easy date to remember. But it also pushes political responsibility for hard choices far enough into the future that it will hardly matter . . . well, except to those millions for whom climate change, failing harvests or havoc-wreaking storms and floods are already a daily disaster. EU, whose side are you on!

Just in case it needs repeating: ECO fully supports the EU’s aim of launching negotiations on a legally binding treaty between all parties, to be concluded in 2015 at the latest. That agreement should become operational in 2018.  A 5-year commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol would make the EU’s demand for a mandate more credible and send a persuasive message.  And we can all hope it will allow for some others at the table to come round to understanding how highly dangerous their current low level of ambition is.

Europe must stand with the most vulnerable countries in challenging those that want to freeze mitigation for this decade. Freezing mitigation does not counter global warming, delaying ambition does not generate ambition. Last but not least, don’t repeat old mistakes by slowing down negotiations because of a lack of action by the USA. That’s an excuse the world won’t buy ever again.

Tags: 
Kyoto Protocol
eu
commitment
Second Commitment period
2CP
EU Commission
Commission
Topics: 
Legal Issues
Region: 
Europe
Related Event: 
COP17/CMP 7 – Durban

Canada Wins 1st and 2nd Place Fossils – Threatens KP, Insults LDCs

Submitted by MBrockley on

FoD-Durban-Nov_28_2011.pdf

       
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                         28 November 2011
Contact:
Kyle Gracey
kylegracey@sustainus.org
+27 799 129 153
Canada Wins 1st and 2nd Place Fossils – Threatens KP, Insults LDCs
Durban, South Africa – The first day of the United Nations climate change
negotiations started off badly for Canada. It earned the First Place Fossil of the Day
for failing to support a Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol, and
abandoning even its current participation in Kyoto. It also took Second Place Fossil
for insulting the Least Developed Countries, some of the nations that will suffer most
from Canada and other industrialized countries' greenhouse gas pollution. Rounding
out the awards, the United Kingdom received Third Place for helping to move tar
sands oil into Europe.
The Fossils as presented read:
“The 3rd place fossil of the day is awarded to the UK, following revelations that UK
Ministers have done a deal with the Canadian government to support the entry of tar
sands into the European fuel supply chain, undermining proposed provisions of the
European Fuel Quality Directive. The UK does not appear as frequently as Canada on
the fossil roll-call, but when they do, they do it in style. Despite claiming to be the
'Greenest Government Ever', the ruling coalition in the UK has become champion for
the world's dirtiest fuels.
The UK might have a different opinion from Canada on the value of the Kyoto
Protocol (we hope so), but there is one thing they can agree on - a Government's best
friend is its oil lobby.”
(over)
"The 2nd place fossil of the day is awarded to Canada following statements by their
environment minister that they are coming to Durban to “play hardball” with
developing countries. This quotation from Canadian Environment Minister Peter
Kent, doesn’t even require paraphrasing in typical fossil humour – it is sufficiently
outrageous on its own:
‘Emerging and developing countries need to stop “wielding the historical guilty card”
and asking for a free pass on emissions reductions just because in the past,
industrialized countries had more emissions than the rest of the world’.
Hands off, LDCs; that “free pass” on emissions reductions belongs to Canada!"
"The 1st place Fossil also goes to Canada. Although Canadian environment Minister
said he hoped to win less fossils then his predecessors, he is not off to a very good
start!
Canada has proven its fossil track record with 4 consecutive fossil of the year awards,
but if you can believe it, it seems they are even worse than we thought!
Environment Minister Peter Kent has articulated clearly that they will not budge with
international pressure on a second commitment period of Kyoto (a great attitude to
have in negotiations). This is unfortunately not necessarily a surprise, Canada has
been ‘separated’ from its Kyoto targets for years, but it seems they are headed for
divorce.
In fact, reports are saying that on Canada’s side it is already a done deal, and yet hear
they are, planning to spend two weeks negotiating a treaty they intend to soon
abandon.
This is a tough one for fossil because it is hard to joke about. Canada is here in
Durban in bad faith. Countries should be asking themselves why Canada is sitting at
the Kyoto negotiating table with a secret plan to formally withdraw from the protocol
mere weeks after the talks end.
This move is a slap in the face to the international community. Canada is further
isolating itself in these talks as a country that not only is refusing to take meaningful
action at home (tar sands anyone?), but also one that does not deserve trust and
respect from the international community here in Durban.
Shame on Canada."
_____________________________________________________________________
About CAN: The Climate Action Network is a worldwide network of roughly 500
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and
individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable
levels. www.climatenetwork.org
About the fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate
talks in 1999  in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations
climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action
Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress
in the negotiations in the last days of talks.
###

Tags: 
Fossil of the Day
COP17
Region: 
Canada
Europe
Organization: 
AWG-KP
Climate Action Network
Kyoto
UNFCCC
Related Event: 
COP17/CMP 7 – Durban

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Kyoto