Tag: Bangkok 2011

A Tale of Two AWGs

Submitted by Anonymous on April 5, 2011 - 6:52pm

While waiting (and waiting) for the AWG-LCA to begin, ECO thought it prudent to educate itself on the topic that seemed to be keeping everyone up late into the evening. Turns out that one word was holding everyone up: “Agenda”.

What does it really mean? Why does such a seemingly simple word cause such consternation and hungry dinner-less evenings?

Merriam-Webster defines “agenda” in two ways. First, it says an agenda is “a list or outline of things to be considered or done”. Seems pretty straightforward to us. ECO outlined this list of needed things to be considered in yesterday’s edition. Dear delegates, it was so easy – We even devoted a whole page so it could be easily presented!

However, the second definition from Merriam and Webster began to shed a light on what may have been delaying the evening’s events. The second definition interprets “agenda” as: “an underlying often ideological plan or program.”

In the AWG-KP, earlier in the day, the agenda in both senses of the word was clear. Agree to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and fix its loopholes. As was said, time and again, the politics must be dealt with so the details can be agreed.

But, what ideological plan should the AWG-LCA use to underpin its work? This too, is actually simple, despite the long discussions. Take the steps necessary to implement what’s been agreed, and move forward towards increasing ambition and achieving a comprehensive fair, ambitious, and legally binding agreement as soon as possible.

With this in mind, ECO welcomes the proposals made to include the critical elements missing from the Cancun Agreements, such as increasing the level of ambition in order to close the gigatonne gap, identifying sources of finance to fill the fund. ECO further agrees with many parties that items on elaborating further measuring, reporting, verification guidelines, and agreeing on the legal options for an agreed outcome should be included as well.

It was a long night of lists and ideology. ECO hopes today will be a day of agreement and action.

Tags:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Probably the last LULUCF Article Ever?

Submitted by Anonymous on April 3, 2011 - 2:07am

In Cancun, Parties finally acknowledged that Annex I targets must not be set in isolation from a thorough analysis of the loopholes threatening to undermine them. ECO would applaud this accomplishment, were it not such an obvious step to take. The UNEP Emissions Gap report, the Climate Analytics/Ecofys analysis and consistent NGO campaigning all shone a bright spotlight on the damage that undercounting of emissions can do to achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention.
Indeed, in the Cancun texts, Parties acknowledge there is a most urgent need not only to increase ambition, but to characterize and quantify the effect of key loopholes, especially land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) rules, the project-based mechanisms and a possible carry-over of assigned amount units. Could that acknowledgement signal the beginning of the end of technical LULUCF ECO articles (and proper accounting of emissions)?
Mind you, ECO feels your pain at the thought of yet another article on LULUCF, but alas, the need still remains. The proposed reference level approach simply does not reflect the ambition needed to address climate change, nor does it secure a positive contribution toward the emission cuts required. Forests and other land uses must be a major part of the solution, and yet the proposed rules move things in the opposite direction. ECO remains no less than astonished that while all other sectors are expected to reduce emissions, the forest sector gets a free pass, since Parties could set their reference levels allowing increased emissions with no effect on their overall targets.
Even worse is the fact that the bulk of emissions from bioenergy, a sector poised for exponential growth, will go completely unaccounted for. Moreover, while the favoured forest fiddle is relatively well defined, Parties have yet to fully elaborate the rules for other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, as well as rewetting and drainage. Yet, in aggregate, these are nearly as significant as forest emissions. Finally, Parties have fallen short of moving towards full mandatory accounting whilst resolving any data issues that stand in the way.
The reference level approach to forest management may be appealing in a narrow political sense, but in fact it undermines ambition in the forest and land sectors and significantly weakens overall mitigation. It is not just the proposed forest management reference levels of Parties that need to be scrutinized, but the overall political direction of the LULUCF negotiations, which in turn are sapping the momentum of the overall Annex I "numbers" discussions.
It's time for delegation leaders here and now to focus attention, face up to the LULUCF loophole, turn around the momentum and starting closing the gigatonne gap. Durban is not far off at all, and to capture real ambition then means starting now in Bangkok. Could this be the year of our last LULUCF article? The ECO Ed Board (and perhaps you kind readers) can only hope. You can help us achieve that goal, esteemed delegation leaders.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

An Honest Conversation

Submitted by Anonymous on April 3, 2011 - 2:06am

Dear delegates, ECO welcomes you back to work with a recap of two Cancun decisions important for today's mitigation workshop.
Firstly, you promised the world to aim to limit temperature increases to below 2°C, and to review from 2013-2015 whether this aim needed strengthening to 1.5°C. That promise represented progress of sorts for many of you. Though we should note that the EU has argued for setting the 2°C threshold for many years.
That Cancun decision clearly did not reflect the most up-to-date scientific assessments of climate sensitivity that show that a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees – even one above 1.5 degrees – has a high probability of catastrophic climate impacts.
Secondly, in the Kyoto Protocol track you endorsed the IPCC Fourth Assessment that says that in order to keep warming to below 2 degrees, Annex 1 countries should reduce their emissions by 25-40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. In order to do so, you asked yourselves to increase ambition in line with the IPCC's assessment, as the current pledges are no where near the 25-40% range.
Yet, we fear that the pledges we will hear about today do not even come close to these agreed levels of ambition.
Disturbing figures presented by AOSIS in the AWG-KP last year demonstrated that the actual reduction in aggregate Annex I emissions pledged in Copenhagen ranged from a feeble -1 to -7%. The UNEP Emissions Gap report underscored this lack of ambition and transparency by finding that weak rules, bad LULUCF accounting, and the potential carry-over of emissions credits could add 1-2 Gt CO2e to the already sizeable Gigatonne Gap. Double counting of CDM credits would increase the gap further; by up to 1.3 Gt CO2e.
Bare it all! Don't be shy. In today's workshop, ECO calls on Parties to explain the assumptions behind their pledges. To be completely honest and transparent about the loopholes they intend to use to meet their pledges. This would mark the start of an honest conversation on closing the loopholes and ultimately the gigatonne gap, thus living up to the decisions from Cancun to avoiding dangerous warming and meeting the Convention's requirement of developed country leadership.

Tags:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog