Tag: ambition

CAN Intervention on Overall Ambition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs, 2 May 2013

Submitted by Sam Harris on

CAN Intervention on Overall Amition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs

Delivered by Alden Meyer of Union of Concerned Scientists

 

Thank you, co-chairs for this opportunity to share our views.  I am Alden Meyer and I’m speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

CAN believes the scope, structure, and design of the 2015 agreement should be consistent with a high likelihood of success in keeping the increase in global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius.  It should contain a set of national targets and actions on mitigation, adaptation, and finance that are aimed at achieving this goal within an overall framework of ambition, accountability, and equity.

There has been a lot of discussion here in Bonn this week on the process and timetable for developing such an agreement by COP 21 in 2015.  CAN suggests the following four-step process.  

1). Countries should agree at COP 19 that national proposals on mitigation action and finance will be evaluated in light of both the collective level of ambition needed to achieve the temperature limitation goal, and on the basis of a set of equity principles that helps assure the overall fairness of country efforts in relation to each other.

The science review starting at the next Bonn session will help guide the first part of this evaluation.  In Warsaw, Parties need to launch a parallel process to develop an equity reference framework; my colleague, Mohammed Adow, will say more about this in our next intervention.

2). Countries should submit their proposals in full accordance with the requirements of both ambition and equity, in sufficient time to allow for full review and subsequent submission of revised proposals before COP 21 in Paris. We would suggest COP 20 as the deadline for such initial submissions.

3). A robust review should be conducted on the collective adequacy of these proposals in satisfying the agreed global temperature limitation objectives, as well as their individual adequacy in terms of both ambition and equity.

4). Countries should then revise their proposals in accordance with the results of this review, and re-submit them in advance of COP 21.

One last point: the main barrier to adequately addressing the climate crisis isn’t lack of knowledge about the problem, nor the lack of cost-effective solutions.  It’s the lack of political will to confront the special interests that have worked long and hard to block the path to a sustainable low-carbon future.  In this regard, the sustained engagement of national leaders in providing strong political guidance is critical to achieving a successful outcome in Paris.  And as we all learned in Copenhagen, this engagement cannot wait until the final moments of these negotiations.

 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share our views.

 

Tags: 
ambition
Organization: 
AWG-ADP
Climate Action Network
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013

Only Fools DON’T Rush In (to a Low-Carbon Future)!

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

Sometimes in life it pays to be contemplative. One should do one’s research before buying a house (who wants to live in a flood zone made more vulnerable by climate change?) or getting married (imagine if s/he is secretly a climate sceptic or a bottom-up advocate!) or starting a family (OK, so maybe that doesn’t always happen, but you get ECO’s point). Considering options to increase the level of ambition, however, is NOT one of those issues. The options are clear. The task now is their immediate implementation.

The workshop on enhancing near-term ambition did highlight that many countries are moving forward with a wide variety of mitigation initiatives. This is very good.  However, as we know, it is not enough. ECO was also pleased to see a number of countries referring to some very good ways to increase ambition, ranging from upping their pledges, to phasing out HFCs or fossil fuel subsidies, to reducing black carbon, enhancing energy efficiency, protecting our forests or addressing the emissions from international bunkers (hello ICAO assembly in September!). What upsets ECO is that countries have been talking about these options for a long time.  ECO cannot imagine having to continue to talk about them all the way to Warsaw (and possibly beyond). It is time to get into the details of implementation – as the Marshall Islands put it, the “nuts and bolts” – so that, by the time the Warsaw COP comes around, countries are taking concrete decisions attached to tangible emissions reductions.
 
ECO thought it would be useful, albeit possibly repetitive, to outline what some of those concrete measures would be:
  • Increase those targets: EU 30%, Australia 25%, the USA – well if you agreed with so much of the discussion ECO is sure implementing those ideas can get you beyond 3%...
  • Announce new pledges – now that the pressure is off for our COP President and its friends, let’s formalise and build on the announcements made in Qatar. ECO is happy to help with press conferences and the like.
  • Start drafting that COP decision proposed by the EU to call on the Montreal Protocol to get its act together on HFCs.
  • Call your colleagues working with ICAO and get them prepared to commit in September.
  • Implement programs to address the upfront costs of renewables in order to enhance their deployment (so UK – do we have a date for the June session? ☺ )
  • Call your friends at the World Bank and get them to shift investment patterns to renewable energy and energy efficiency; the World Bank (like ECO) is adamant that we must avoid a 4°C world, and yet as Mali and Senegal highlighted, finance for low-carbon options identified in a country’s low-carbon plan is not always there, leaving emissions-intensive development as the default. This leads well into the next point.
  • SHOW US THE MONEY. That is to say, high-income countries need to support developing countries, who can do more, with more. It really is that simple.
With the numerous win-win opportunities discussed today, only fools wouldn’t rush in to a safe, clean, low-carbon future.

 

Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
ADP2
Topics: 
Mitigation
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013
Related Newsletter : 
ECO 3, ADP 2, Bonn 2013

You Can’t Feed Your Addiction and Break It, Too

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

While delegates will be discussing low emission development opportunities in today’s workshop, many of your countries are still feeding their tragic addiction to fossil fuels. You say you want to keep global warming below 2°C and to keep the door open for 1.5°C, but in fact you are consuming fossil fuels as if 4 degrees was the new 2 degrees.

The International Monetary Fund tells us thzat this addiction is costing your taxpayers USD 1.9 trillion each year in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (FYI, for comparison, 1.9 trillion seconds is about 60,000 years!). As shown recently by the International Energy Agency, the result of this is a continuous rise of global carbon emissions each year, while we know that emissions should in fact peak well before 2015. 
 
The archaic, continued support for fossil fuels means that they remain artificially profitable and that low carbon alternatives such as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency are emerging much slower than they could. Let’s be honest here: you are not aiming for a 2°C world. No, in fact you are undermining the development of these low carbon opportunities, which could create local jobs and steer innovation. Instead you line the pockets of the fossil fuel dealers and encourage them to invest further in a 4+°C future. 
 
Just last year, the energy industry invested 674 billion dollars for more fossil fuels! However, the Carbon Tracker Initiative has shown that national governments and global markets have created a carbon bubble that will make the real estate bubble look like a blip. If Parties are really serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, nearly 70 percent of known reserves of oil, gas and coal must remain in the ground. Further investments in fossil fuels are locking us in to a carbon-intensive development pathway and making climate action more costly, while diverting investments from existing low cost low carbon solutions.
 
In ECO’s opinion, any new fossil fuel infrastructure puts our planet at risk. ECO therefore suggests that you stop being bipolar and start having a serious conversation here in Bonn about how to phase out fossil fuels subsidies. ECO has pointed out that this phasing out should not increase the vulnerability of people in developing countries and therefore must happen in developed countries first.
 
The ADP could develop ambitious pathways for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries and identify options to shift those subsidies to additional mitigation activities (allowing higher pledges by developed countries). Imagine all that you can do with these savings from phasing out subsidies! You could use this money to support climate actions in developing countries! Or, at the very least, buy ECO some very nice birthday presents (green's our favourite colour).
 
For developing countries, the ADP could support work to carefully switch fossil fuel subsidies into supporting clean energy access and fostering sustainable development. The ADP could also identify and discuss ways for some developing countries to pursue fossil fuel subsidy phase-out as supported NAMAs.
 
Being conflicted over such a serious issue can’t be good for your mental health over the long term. Best resolve it now.
Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
fossil fuel subsidies
Topics: 
Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Mitigation
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013
Related Newsletter : 
ECO 2, ADP 2, Bonn 2013

Raise The Bar or Stay Home

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

Even as CO2 concentrations are about to break the 400ppm threshold, fresh climate disasters are announced all over the planet, and carbon prices are collapsing because of lax targets on par with BAU, countries have apparently come to the UNFCCC ADP meeting in Bonn with nothing to offer.

Developed countries seem to be looking off in the distance beyond 2020, with images of universal participation and bottom-up national pledges dancing in their heads. Mundane issues like what has to change in the next 6 years and 8 months to stay below 2 degrees are apparently the farthest thing from their minds.
 
Parties are in Bonn to get down to work on two tasks – raise pre-2020 ambition and craft the next legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas pollution –  potentially the most significant global treaty that will ever be negotiated. Delegates should be mindful of the fact that that your work this week and over the next few years will secure you a place in the history books.
 
Whether the legacy you leave behind is positive or abysmal depends on your creativity, commitment, negotiating skills and sheer hard craft. In short, you will have to be prepared to pull out all the stops. Our planet deserves no less. 
 
Although negotiating a fresh climate deal for a new decade and beyond, Parties also need to address the less sexy issue of the yawning gap between the pledges that are currently on the table and the effort required to limit global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Neither objective should be ignored to the detriment of the other.
 
Take heart from the fact that the more we achieve in terms of closing the gap over the next 6 or so years, the lighter that workload will be. And it would augur badly indeed if Parties entered into a new climate agreement with a huge ambition deficit. 
 
One place parties can start making progress this year is on international transport. After failing to get any text in discussions under the Bali Action Plan, this year Parties can make a fresh start, by reaching agreement under the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization on a fast track to implementation of market-based measures for international maritime transport and aviation that can put a price on emissions from these sectors.
 
The ADP must take up this issue and ensure that these sectors make their fair contribution to global efforts to control emissions and generate finance for climate action in developing countries.
 
Action is needed on many fronts. As yesterday's opening statement by AOSIS laid out, “this is about political will.” Developed countries must have the will to take real action on curbing the continual increase in global temperatures or, let's face it, a new global deal won’t meet our agreed goal of staying below 2°C. So, developed country Parties, best shape up or head home.
Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
ADP2
Topics: 
Adaptation
Bunkers
Mitigation
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013
Related Newsletter : 
ECO 2, ADP 2, Bonn 2013

Mothers of Ambition

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

Plato observed in The Republic that necessity is the mother of invention.  Parties, he was speaking about you.  Humanity formed the State to enable the conditions for sufficient food, shelter and security.  Today we face an unprecedented challenge – how will we respond? 

At this early stage in developing the global climate agreement in 2015, “ambition” dominates the agenda – and for good reason. The IPCC’s forthcoming AR5 will shine a bright and unyielding light on the planetary emergency we now face.  
 
It’s not just about the need to close the emissions gap. While those 11 gigatonnes will help the atmosphere, they won’t break the back of the politics to get us below 2°C.  What is required is for collective agreement to dramatically change the course of human development with the climate clock ticking. So it’s simple: the 2015 deal must deliver ambition compatible with a below 2°C trajectory.  
 
There is a sense in some quarters that a top-down method to achieve that kind of ambition is out of reach politically, so a bottom-up approach will have to suffice. But these underachievers are missing the point.  Either they wilfully ignore the fact that climate change will ravage the globe and its inhabitants, or they think Plan B[ottom-up] can keep us out of harm's reach of unavoidable climate change. But Plan B isn’t working.  After all, despite floods, droughts, fires and the vanishing Arctic sea ice, developed country commitments have hardly changed since Copenhagen and the Green Climate Fund still has no money.
 
For those of us, like ECO, who defend the legally binding regime, we get pinned as idealists.  But ECO begs to differ. You are the idealists. We are the realists. We know what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change and to keep us on a below 2°C trajectory.
 
Of course, these bottom-up actions are helping, but it’s not enough. Moreover, those proactively promoting Plan B[ottom-up] are neglecting the investors and businesses that require a strong signal from governments to shift their assets. And ECO knows that a strong signal doesn’t mean a “yeah, I can do that, for sure”.  Nope, it needs a legally binding, long-term commitment for governments to decarbonise their economies. 
 
So ECO wants to see everyone behave in our new (albeit temporary) accommodation here in Bonn. And in particular on equity.   ECO would like to see here in Bonn the development of a strong equity framework that provides both context and metrics to measure progress.  We are seeing notable progress in refining that framework, anchored firmly in the Convention and the foundational, but dynamic, concepts of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and equitable access to sustainable development. But progress is not yet completed, and Parties must stay focused on achieving a shared understanding on equity.
While necessity is the mother of invention, invention, in this case, requires a top-down regime.
 
Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
Legally binding
Topics: 
Legal Issues
Mitigation
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013
Related Newsletter : 
ECO 1, ADP 2, Bonn 2013

Putting the “2 (degrees)” back in Workstream 2

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

It is well-trodden ground that there is a huge gap between what Parties say they want (staying below 2°C and keeping the door open to 1.5°C) and what Parties have pledged to contribute between now and 2020 to achieve that planetary necessity.  

In theory, Workstream 2 has already identified how to bridge the gap through: 1) improving developed countries’ woefully inadequate 2020 emission reduction targets; 2) identifying ways to enable and support developing countries in upping their own pre-2020 ambition; and 3) joint complementary action in addition to the first two areas on everything from phasing out HFCs to fossil fuel subsidies.  The task now is to JUST DO IT.  
 
ECO thought “doing it” would require no explanation, but some recent happenings in many developed countries are getting their positions all wrong.  
 
First and foremost – and we really thought this was obvious – the thing that needs to go up is the target, not the temperature.  For the EU this means moving to 30% - a move which really shouldn’t be that difficult considering that it has already achieved its 20% target almost 8 years ahead of schedule and will actually achieve more than that (around 25-27%) by 2020.  How can the EU host 2 COPs over the next 3 years and ask the rest of the world to do more while it decides to take a break? In addition, the EU’s incompetence at repairing its own emissions trading scheme is pretty mournful. A modest measure to temporarily limit the surplus of allowances in the EU carbon market was recently rejected by some within the European Parliament. 
 
The rest of the developed world is no better, and many are far, far worse.  There are rumours that Japan is planning to lower its ambition from its current 2020 pledge. Australia is not likely to do anything about its tiny 5% pledge and, depending of the outcome of the upcoming national elections, things could hit rock bottom, even though the Australian public is strongly in favour of climate action. The US pledge could be labelled ambitious, if the ambition was to overshoot 4°C, while the country is barely on the path to achieve its very weak 2020 target. And Canada – well, their only ambition is to withdraw from as many international treaties as possible (if you hadn’t heard, they’ve also withdrawn from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification). 
 
This drooping ambition level needs to stop. By 2014 ALL Parties (Kyoto Parties and free-riders alike) will have to increase the ambition of their 2020 pledges. Without this, you won’t get a global agreement in 2015, and – worse – you will not prevent dangerous climate change from destroying entire civilisations and threatening the future of your children.
 
There is also a role for developing countries in increasing near-term ambition. It is worth assessing what additional ambition more advanced developing countries can muster as well as what precise support will enable all to do even more. Jointly, developing and developed countries should use Workstream 2 to create an upward spiral of increasing support (finance, technology and capacity building) and ambition triggered and enabled by such support. This could also help avoid that, due to, for example low levels of climate finance, developing countries may find themselves in situations where they lock-in low ambition because of inadequately supported actions.
 
Finally, there are the complementary actions. The COP in Warsaw would ideally invite other bodies (Montreal Protocol, ICAO and IMO, G20 and so forth) to foster actions in their spheres of expertise and influence to result in additional emission reductions. Those actions would need to come in addition to what Parties have committed to do based on their 2020 targets, pledges and NAMAs, rather than as means to achieve them. This is why ECO and some Parties have used the expression “complementary”, a word whose proximity to the somewhat less ambitious “complimentary” should not create the false impression that avoiding catastrophic climate change is an issue of voluntary action – it is not. It is an obligation Parties have towards the millions of people suffering climate change already today, and towards the hundreds of millions if not billions who will be suffering tomorrow, whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by inaction, complacency and pretension currently at display at these negotiations.
Tags: 
bonn
ambition
ADP2
Topics: 
Adaptation
Capacity Building
Equity/effort-sharing
Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Mitigation
Region: 
Europe
Related Event: 
ADP Second Session 2013
Related Newsletter : 
ECO 1, ADP 2, Bonn 2013

The Doha Decisions

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

Today is the day to press the reset button. The planet is shouting warning signs at us but the Conference is sleepwalking off the cliff of climate disaster. A political deal was struck in Durban and all need to stand by it.
Ministers, while you bemoan theimpending doom in high sounding high-level speeches and promise to do everything within your power to stop it, your negotiators dig in ever deeper in the back rooms of the QNCC.
The Doha deal ECO believes is still within reach would take immediate steps to improve the short-term ambition we urgently need. Your political ambitions need to be matched by targets and pledges more ambitious than the ones currently on offer.

Speaking of pledges: whatever hap-pened to the ambition of the Gulf countries to become climate leaders? What or who is holding them back? Was this the cause of the commotion at the Qatar Airways desk yesterday?
Clearly, much hard work lies ahead to close the growing gigatonne gap. This must start right away with an ambition ‘ratchet’ mechanism (KP) and plan of work with specific milestones (ADP). 

Which brings us to the most uncooperative track of all, the LCA. With 53 (!) outstanding issues, this feels like the playroom after a toddler’s birthday party. Is that what you mean by Party-driven process? Where is the leadership, who can take the reins? Surely, with good will, the spirit of compromise and some elbow grease the real crunch issues can be dealt with by ministers. And the outstanding ones can be moved forward to a suitable home before the sun sets here at Doha.

Now – no more delays, no more excuses – you must adopt strong amendments to the Kyoto Protocol that strengthen its environmental integrity by limiting hot air. To those that abandon Kyoto in search of a warmer climate: shame on you.

There are some encouraging signals that progress was made on the workplan needed to keep us on track for a fair, ambitious and binding Paris Agreement in 2015. We must of course learn from past mistakes (pssst, Copenhagen)! This workplan needs clear deadlines and milestones. We strongly recommend delivering a consolidation text by the end of next year and negotiating text at COP 20 at the latest.
Also essential to a Doha deal are concrete inclusive steps to be agreed on implementing the 'fairness' principles of the Convention in our new 2015 deal.  We need clarity on what 'equity' means for you and what it means for me?  If even the U.S. can learn to talk about it, so can we all. But talk is cheap and these ‘discussions’ need to informnegotiations starting in 2013. 

Announcements on finance are awaited from those countries that have yet to make theirs. But in order fordeveloping countries to have confidence that the $100 billion per year commitment will be kept by 2020, the LCA must close with a clear collective commitment that public finance will increase above Fast Start levels in 2013, and amount to at least $60 billion in new and additional public finance by 2015. To do otherwise is to leave the poorest communities without any assurance that they will be supported to cope with climate impacts.

Looking back in 2015 we might find the real story of the Doha climate talks was not that yet another compromise deal was struck -- a tiny step forward when step change was needed. The Doha deal must start to pave the way for the most vulnerable, the victims of climate change whose faces we saw on Al Jazeera, who are facing loss and damage this very day in their communities and cultures. You must agree today to set up and pilot an international loss and damage mechanism.

Doha may still be remembered as the place where you rediscovered your will to cooperate. Just maybe. Much like you did to save the banking sector in 2009. The planetary crisis looming over us dwarfs that finance crisis.
Ministers, delegates, today we are in your hands. You are playing for the whole planet.

Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
adapti
Topics: 
Adaptation
Finance
Flexible Mechanisms
Mitigation
Shared Vision
Related Event: 
COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference
Related Newsletter : 
ECO11, Doha, English version

Ministerial Manners

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

Most developed countries came to Doha eager to move on to a new track of negotiations, even while several critical issues from recent years of the talks are left unresolved. It is vital these issues are addressed before the talks move on. 

Like all good mothers, ECO wants to tell developed country ministers they can’t have their dessert before they have finished their mains, including all their vegetables. They need to eat up fast, because we won’t solve the climate crisis until everyone in these talks has finished their meal.
 
Developed countries have responsibilities under both the Kyoto Protocol and the LCA track that must be fulfilled in Doha. Chief among these are a second commitment period of the KP – and one that is worth the paper it is written on – raising their mitigation ambition, and showing how they are going to deliver their $100 billion per year climate finance commitment. Unless these things are delivered, the new Durban Platform (ADP) track will lack the solid foundation it needs to ensure a step change in climate action in the years ahead.
 
But with the resolution of these issues and this foundation laid, the ADP can and must kick start a new era of climate negotiations in a spirit of trust, solidarity and collective action. This must include actions taken with the upmost urgency under the ADP work track on raising pre-2020 mitigation ambition. No Party in these talks can afford to allow any delay in this endeavor. 
 
ECO expects that developed countries have come to Doha with every intention of showing their best table manners. There will be nowhere to hide for countries that attempt to avoid their past commitments by shifting focus only to future plans. Success in Doha requires both of these things: that’s what makes for a balanced meal of ambitious and co-operative global climate action. 
Tags: 
Mitigation
ambition
High level segment
Doha
Topics: 
Adaptation
Finance
Mitigation
Related Event: 
COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference
Related Newsletter : 
ECO9, Doha, English version

Which Way, Japan?

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

ECO is concerned to hear that Japan may not keep up its 25% reduction target by 2020 compared to 1990, and instead is considering reducing it to around 5 to 9% (domestic reduction target). 

Of course, Japan has already undermined the momentum of the negotiations by rejecting the Kyoto CP2. If Japan now lowers its voluntary pledge under the Cancun agreement, that reduces ambition and credibility.
 
ECO worries that perhaps Japan’s voice might be not taken seriously anymore. 
 
To some extent, the country has already lost its credibility in the last two years. Now is the time for the Japanese Minister to step up and announce that Japan aims to do everything possible to keep the 25% target intact. It should also pledge appropriate funding for the period 2013 to 2015. This is the only way to regain its positive and constructive role for the global effort to tackle climate change.
Tags: 
Mitigation
japan
ambition
Kyoto Protocol 2nd Commitment Period Negotiations
Topics: 
Finance
Mitigation
Region: 
South Asia
Related Event: 
COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference
Related Newsletter : 
ECO9, Doha, English version

Next Steps to Enhance the Review

Submitted by rvoorhaar on

The start of the first periodic review (2013 – 2015) is approaching.  This is intended to be a strong science-based instrument to increase ambition. 

But still there is no decision on which body will conduct the review. Informal groups have ongoing meetings but there has not been much convergence. The most convincing solution would involve a review expert group which would preferably be established here in Doha and assisted by the Secretariat going forward.
 
This group would gather new scientific intelligence from the coming Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC and many other sources including the UNEP gigatonne gap overviews, biannual reports and reports from ICA and IAR.
 
Of course inputs and submissions from Parties are necessary. But ECO is perplexed: why is there no mention of observer participation in the draft decision, through submissions or otherwise? Surely those experiences, data and insights can add measurable value to this crucially important new initiative.
Tags: 
ambition
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
review
Topics: 
Mitigation
Related Event: 
COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference
Related Newsletter : 
ECO9, Doha, English version

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: ambition