Submitted by Anonymous on
Under international accounting rules significant emissions from bioenergy are not being accounted for, meaning that bioenergy is not fulfilling its potential as a climate mitigation tool and in some cases emits more carbon than fossil fuels. This briefing explores the reasons for this accounting failure and what must be done to resolve this issue.
Submitted by MBrockley on
Saudi Arabia Take First Place, Qatar Earns Second
Bonn, Germany – It was a neighborly Fossil awards ceremony the second Monday of
the Bonn climate negotiations, as “next door” countries Saudi Arabia and Qatar swept
the nominations. Saudi Arabia took first for trying to delay discussions on addressing
losses and damages from climate change impacts in developing countries. Close
behind them in the voting, Qatar earned second place for trying to direct oil taxes
away from low-carbon transport development and toward their own coffers.
The Fossils as presented read:
“The Second place Fossil goes to Qatar for suggesting that they should be
compensated for the tax that developed countries add onto Qatari oil.
At the Joint SBSTA/SBI Meeting on impact of the implementation of response
measure, Qatar presented a graph and emphasised that taxes in developed countries
add more to the selling price of oil than their wholesale price. For example, in the UK
oil's initial price is $200 and the tax is $850; that sums to $1,050. Then Qatar had the
gall to suggest that if developed countries were to give the tax amount to Qatar, then
Qatar is happy to provide the oil for free. This tax money should clearly be spent on
developing green alternatives to carbon based transport and to deal with the problems
that carbon based transport creates – health, environmental, etc. – not to compensate
oil producing countries. Any potential future COP host would know that (hint hint).”
“The First place Fossil is awarded to Saudi Arabia. In discussions on the loss and
damage work programme, Saudi Arabia argued that the Parties did not need to agree
on activities until COP18 – 18 months from now! The Cancun Agreements
established a work programme to enable Parties to take a decision on loss and damage
itself – not the work programme. Debating the activities of a work programme for 18
months is akin to debating an agenda for 18 months…and we’ve seen enough debates
on agendas.”
_____________________________________________________________________
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.
###
Submitted by MBrockley on
Saudi Arabia Take First Place, Qatar Earns Second
Bonn, Germany – It was a neighborly Fossil awards ceremony the second Monday of
the Bonn climate negotiations, as “next door” countries Saudi Arabia and Qatar swept
the nominations. Saudi Arabia took first for trying to delay discussions on addressing
losses and damages from climate change impacts in developing countries. Close
behind them in the voting, Qatar earned second place for trying to direct oil taxes
away from low-carbon transport development and toward their own coffers.
The Fossils as presented read:
“The Second place Fossil goes to Qatar for suggesting that they should be
compensated for the tax that developed countries add onto Qatari oil.
At the Joint SBSTA/SBI Meeting on impact of the implementation of response
measure, Qatar presented a graph and emphasised that taxes in developed countries
add more to the selling price of oil than their wholesale price. For example, in the UK
oil's initial price is $200 and the tax is $850; that sums to $1,050. Then Qatar had the
gall to suggest that if developed countries were to give the tax amount to Qatar, then
Qatar is happy to provide the oil for free. This tax money should clearly be spent on
developing green alternatives to carbon based transport and to deal with the problems
that carbon based transport creates – health, environmental, etc. – not to compensate
oil producing countries. Any potential future COP host would know that (hint hint).”
“The First place Fossil is awarded to Saudi Arabia. In discussions on the loss and
damage work programme, Saudi Arabia argued that the Parties did not need to agree
on activities until COP18 – 18 months from now! The Cancun Agreements
established a work programme to enable Parties to take a decision on loss and damage
itself – not the work programme. Debating the activities of a work programme for 18
months is akin to debating an agenda for 18 months…and we’ve seen enough debates
on agendas.”
_____________________________________________________________________
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.
###
Submitted by MBrockley on
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 13 June 2011
Contact:
Kyle Gracey
kylegracey@gmail.com
+1 814 659 2405
Saudi Arabia Take First Place, Qatar Earns Second
Bonn, Germany – It was a neighborly Fossil awards ceremony the second Monday of
the Bonn climate negotiations, as “next door” countries Saudi Arabia and Qatar swept
the nominations. Saudi Arabia took first for trying to delay discussions on addressing
losses and damages from climate change impacts in developing countries. Close
behind them in the voting, Qatar earned second place for trying to direct oil taxes
away from low-carbon transport development and toward their own coffers.
The Fossils as presented read:
“The Second place Fossil goes to Qatar for suggesting that they should be
compensated for the tax that developed countries add onto Qatari oil.
At the Joint SBSTA/SBI Meeting on impact of the implementation of response
measure, Qatar presented a graph and emphasised that taxes in developed countries
add more to the selling price of oil than their wholesale price. For example, in the UK
oil's initial price is $200 and the tax is $850; that sums to $1,050. Then Qatar had the
gall to suggest that if developed countries were to give the tax amount to Qatar, then
Qatar is happy to provide the oil for free. This tax money should clearly be spent on
developing green alternatives to carbon based transport and to deal with the problems
that carbon based transport creates – health, environmental, etc. – not to compensate
oil producing countries. Any potential future COP host would know that (hint hint).”
“The First place Fossil is awarded to Saudi Arabia. In discussions on the loss and
damage work programme, Saudi Arabia argued that the Parties did not need to agree
on activities until COP18 – 18 months from now! The Cancun Agreements
established a work programme to enable Parties to take a decision on loss and damage
itself – not the work programme. Debating the activities of a work programme for 18
months is akin to debating an agenda for 18 months…and we’ve seen enough debates
on agendas.”
_____________________________________________________________________
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.
###
Submitted by Anonymous on
Overview
A. Clarify assumptions behind pledges:Developed countries must clarify their assumptions on domestic efforts and the use of carbon offsets, LULUCF accounting and AAU carry-over. Developing countries should provide information on key factors underlying BAU projections, e.g. energy use or economic development. They should also clarify what emissions savings they plan to achieve independently and what additional savings could be achieved with support.
B. Close loopholes and agree common rules:Parties should seek to minimise or close off loopholes, such as bogus LULUCF accounting rules, AAU carry-over or new hot air from weak 2020 pledges in certain developed countries. This must lead to agreement on improved common accountingand reporting rules showing the true emissions of each country.
C. Clarify conditions and move to the high end of pledges:By Durban at the latest, developed countries must move to the high end of their pledged ranges. Developed countries with conditional (upper end of) pledges must clarify these conditions, identify which conditions been met and indicate what is needed to meet the remaining conditions.
[1]Even in the best of all cases (countries implementing the high end of their pledges using strict accounting rules) global emissions are likely to be between 5 (UNEP) and 10 (Climate Action Tracker) GtCO2eq above what they should be for a 1.5°C/2°C emissions pathway.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Bonn is a key moment to make progress on MRV issues. While there are a great many political issues at play, work on some technical issues needs to begin now.
Parties should agree on the structure, timing, and content of the workshops that are needed to discuss new or enhanced elements of MRV in the coming months. These workshops should be informed by existing submissions of Parties and observers, and should involve calling for further submissions.
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO is pleased that parties finally managed to agree on agendas last week. (Imagine how much quicker it could have been if agenda discussions were held transparently in plenary, as opposed to shenanigans occurring behind closed doors). This week Parties must make up for lost time – and convince everyone that another intersessional would be productive. After all, there is much work to be done between now and December so that Durban can successfully lay the basis for a fair, ambitious, and binding global climate change regime.
Essential to Durban’s success is securing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Intrinsically linked is the binding outcome under the LCA, where Parties now need to discuss the substantive issues. Our ultimate objective must be a legally binding architecture, which is fair and ambitious.
Last week, the list of issues under shared vision began to resemble a bag of assorted cookies. ECO suggests focusing on the agreed global goal with peak year, and only including issues essential for these discussions – such as effort sharing. Agreement of a mid-term goal of -80% by 2050 and a 2015 peak year for emissions must be the aim.
On mitigation, some issues may look technical but are in reality political. This week ECO suggests focusing on the following three areas required to address the gigatonne gap: (i) clarifying assumptions; (ii) closing loopholes; and (iii) preparing to move beyond the high end of the current pledges by Durban. ECO assumes parties remain serious in their commitment to 1.5/2°C – you are aren’t you?
This week also offers opportunities for LULUCF. The re-analysis of this issue as a significant loophole in the mitigation workshops could allow Annex I land and forests to contribute to genuine emissions reductions. And technical discussions on force majeure provisions for forests could genuinely reflect extraordinary circumstances. Or, if Annex I parties are up to their usual tricks, could this be yet another way to avoid accounting for emissions?
Parties should also take the opportunity to draft a CDM appeals procedure to grant affected communities and peoples access to justice. And this week parties should move closer to a decision
to address climate forcing HFC in cooperation with the Montreal Protocol and exclude all new HCHC-22 facilities from the CDM.
The two groups on REDD+ (in the LCA and in SBSTA) got off to a good start last week. In this second week, ECO anticipates significant progress on both reference levels and information on safeguards, hopefully followed by expert meetings prior to Durban.
Adaptation negotiators should press ahead on substance to make the Cancún Adaptation Framework operational in Durban. Parties should strengthen the role of the Adaptation Committee to promote coherence in adaptation, and to ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in its operations. Furthermore, this week must see parties launch the activities of the work programme on loss and damage.
With the end of the fast start finance period only one year after Durban and no indication of how rapidly public finance will be scaled up from the $10 billion per year currently committed, parties need to start discussions here in Bonn on effort sharing, scaling up finance, and on new innovative public sources such as raising finance from international transport. For this to happen, the US and its Umbrella Group allies need to stop blocking the discussion of sources and scale of long-term finance.
ECO has two requests for technology negotiators over the next week. First, fill up the nominations of the Technology Executive Committee. Secondly, decide on the terms of reference and likely locations of the Climate Technology Centre and Networks to maintain balance of adaptation and mitigation technology.
Among other issues that should be addressed, Parties need to deal with technical issues. ECO is waiting eagerly for some technical workshops and expert meetings. In the coming months, technical experts should make progress on technical issues such as biennial reports, reporting on support, IAR/ICA, REDD safeguards, etc. These discussions must feed into the negotiating process.
Given the uncertainty over whether another intersessional will take place, the next five days will determine whether Parties will be able to secure an effective and balanced outcome of COP 17 in Durban. Parties should make the best use of this time and ensure both political and technical issues get addressed.
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO was particularly pleased to hear that NGOs were invited to actively participate in the informal consultations on expectations for Durban by the upcoming South African Presidency – especially since they have been mostly excluded from negotiating sessions here in Bonn. However, this pleasure soon turned into dismay when it became clear that NGOs would not be getting a chance to share their views despite the fact the South African Ambassador started the session by expressing South Africa’s commitment to civil society participation. Apparently, the UNFCCC rules and procedures do not allow for observer interventions until all parties have spoken. Well, here is the dilemma – at the last count ECO found that there are 195 Parties under this Convention!
ECO has been informed by the Secretariat that NGOs can participate in the follow-up session to this consultation, to be held today. And here is the rub – they have allocated 9 minutes in total for observer constituencies which gives ENGO’s one minute to speak. Eco is wondering how they will fit in all the expectations they have for Durban in that time.
ECO was also interested to hear that the Ambassador and a number of Parties made reference to South Africa’s unique history – its struggle against Apartheid. ECO would like to remind everyone that this struggle was fought and won by peoples’ movements, both in South Africa and by those in solidarity across the globe. ECO hopes that South Africa, as incoming Presidency of COP 17, will introduce a new culture around NGO participation in the UNFCCC processes. The lessons from the struggle against Apartheid are rich and would only help strengthen this process. Critical to this would be to ensure the real and meaningful participation of civil society, both in the processes leading up to Durban and at COP 17 itself, especially after the Cancún Agreement has mandated South Africa to “undertake inclusive and transparent consultations in order to facilitate the work towards the success of that session.” Amandla Ngawethu! (Power to the People)
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by Anonymous on
While ECO found it extremely pleasant to hear Chile, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Kenya, Bolivia and Cote d'Ivoire’s plans to contribute to global climate action during yesterday's workshop on Non Annex 1 mitigation action, ECO wonders why some of the big emitters from the developing world tried to hide under their desks. You can’t hide an elephant... or its emissions. ECO knows that some of these countries have big plans, and would like to see more information about their targets and their plans. Take some countries with high emissions from deforestation. Brazil and Indonesia made short interventions in Bangkok, but we were expecting some more information in Bonn. Especially given the news that reached ECO about the proposals to “reform” the Brazilian Forest Code and the message from a large amount of Brazilian scientists that the proposed amendments would make it difficult if not impossible for Brazil to achieve the pledges it has inscribed into the famous INF documents. And ECO still misses news about the target of DRC, and wonders why the government's ambition to reduce emissions from deforestation to zero below 2030 has not been submitted to the UNFCCC. Similarly, it would be quite interesting to get more information from countries like Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Thailand, who are all part of the biggest emitters.
Obviously, if all these countries, led by Argentina, would send their pledges to the UNFCCC, that would make an important contribution to closing the gigatonne gap, as ECO learned from a presentation by AOSIS, showing that also developing countries have a contribution to make in the fight against the gap.
Clarification on all these plans will allow Parties to look at the real contribution of current developing country plans, and would allow a discussion on what more can be done, by looking into what other supported action could be taken. Which makes a discussion on innovative sources for long-term climate financing all the more important. ECO knows that most Parties are aware of that but has heard it couldn't pass some umbrellas. Perhaps some of the suggestions made at the end of the workshop, including the development of formats and guidelines, and an initiative to ensure Parties learn from each others’ experiences and good practices could help.
Inventories look daunting but they can help with national policy making, NAMA design, tracking energy use which helps with national budgets etc. Also the suggestion for the secretariat to develop a technical paper on developing countries action could help the negotiations to move forward. The elephant caravan left from Bangkok, but all the elephants have yet to show up. They cannot hide forever. We hope they show up by Durban.
