Tag: Kyoto

ECO truly appreciates that the European Union still supports the Kyoto Protocol (KP), and is heartened by the commitment of the EU to continue (what some might call) ranting about the importance of a legally binding regime. This week, ECO has been particularly pleased to see that the EU started to show some more readiness to accept a second commitment period of the KP. And ECO understands, from the EU’s stated preference for a comprehensive legally binding outcome of the future framework, that the commitments under the Protocol are going to be kept legally binding.

Of particular concern to ECO is that some representatives from particular European countries favor other positions. Understandably it can be hard to make 28 mouths express the same, clear and coherent position but this is, indeed, urgently needed.

ECO believes that the EU should fight harder to ensure that, in Durban, the KP will move into a legally binding second commitment period with broad participation and binding rules. How would anyone understand that the EU believes it would be easier to build a legally binding regime after abandoning the only legal building block we have?

It is in the EU’s, and the planet’s, own interest to ensure that its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol goes beyond a political declaration. Moreover, if the EU is really keen to get all countries to negotiate a legally binding outcome in the LCA, promoting a political commitment to the KP does not seem the best strategy. Increasing ambition means going up, not down.  

Next Monday, when the EU member states' environment ministers meet in Luxembourg, the EU has the chance to unambiguously put its position on paper and ECO believes the time has come to do so and take on a clear leading role. To accept and adopt a second commitment period of the KP does not require anything more than what the EU is already doing, so ECO would find it difficult to understand that the EU denied this breath of fresh air to the current climate talks.

ECO believes the EU could gain a lot if it could leave Durban as the Party that (once again) shaped the outcome of the COP and helped to save the only existing pathway to a global legally binding agreement.

One thing that developed country delegates might want to report to their ministers back home is how they spent the full week talking about measuring, reporting, and verification. This was done instead of getting serious about their need to increase their levels of ambition. The signs of chronic lackofambitionitis are clear and have dire 4°C symptoms –  including rising sea levels, disruption of food production, forest fires, increasing droughts and much more.

 The gigatonne gap, which negotiators have left largely untouched in Bangkok, Bonn and again in Panama, is now up to the ministers to pick up. Of course, it can still be hidden under the carpet of a number of technical COP decisions on mitigation, but ECO can’t believe anyone will be thinking that this related disease has been even remotely addressed.

 The cure is simple but requires a steely resolve.  Acknowledging the magnitude of the gap and resolving to close it, is the first step that ministers can take as they fly to South Africa for the pre-COP. A second step would then be to move the mitigation ambition to the upper end of the pledges. Extensive research has shown that countries like Australia and the EU can both reduce the symptoms of the broader disease and improve their own economic health by moving to the upper end of their pledges. Of course, the cure requires other countries to do more and thoroughly review their pathetic low pledges. This is the case for Canada and the US neither of which is planning to reduce their emissions much below their 1990 levels. And this is also the case for countries as Russia, Ukraine and Belarus whose pledges would assume emissions that are much higher than all business-as-usual projections. Preventing the deadly effects of lackofambitionitis requires industrialized countries to move their emission reduction targets to the upper end of the 25-40% pledge that was agreed in Cancun. We know that the cure is within reach as countries like Denmark, Norway, Germany and others have shown the way and thus deserve to be recognized as leaders in a race to the top.

One of the key emerging stumbling blocks for an outcome in Durban is the unrepentant blocking of progress by some countries on long-term sources of finance.  ECO is not amused by the strong arm tactics of the US, Japan, and Canada.  As part of the balanced package in Cancun, countries agreed to meaningful progress on finance, which didn’t just include creating institutions.  After all, why create bank accounts if you don’t fill them with some money?

These few countries are either confident they can get the money they have committed mobilized all on their own, and don't need to talk about how to do that here, or they weren’t serious in the first place.

Giving these countries the benefit of the doubt and assuming they’re serious about keeping their long-term finance commitments, it's not unreasonable for others to ask them what their plan to deliver on those commitments looks like.  Surely discussing the plan with others will also be mutually beneficial - after all, many heads are better than one.

A new process to discuss the mobilization of long-term finance would enable countries to bring their best ideas into the mix. It would enable all countries to start talking about how to implement a certain finance option or set of options. Instead of talking about the “many, many” reasons why they can’t do something, Parties could discuss how to find solutions. Last we checked, saying “no, no, no” doesn’t qualify as problem solving. 

ECO is disappointed that these countries – with so much finance expertise – wouldn’t see an opportunity to help mobilize the kinds of resources needed to address climate change.

Opportunities exist that can help the US, Canada, Japan and others to raise the resources they have committed, if they work with partners in this process, not on their own outside it. Spurring a process to price emissions from international shipping under the International Maritime Organization is just one example.  

So stop blocking and instead help to create a process to bring to bear your expertise in finding solutions. You are claiming that you are doing a lot to scale up climate finance, there will be no gap between 2013-2020 and that you are fully committed to deliver on your long term finance commitments. So why resist moving forward via having text as basis for negotiations?

We know that there are red lines issues, but this shouldn’t be one of them for the U.S., Japan, and Canada.