CAN Intervention - LCA plenary - 17 June 2011
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by dturnbull on
Submitted by Anonymous on
Following the request by the Conference of the Parties (COP)1 the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), will discuss options to address the implications of the establishment of new HCFC-22 facilities seeking to obtain Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) for the destruction of HFC-23. CAN strongly urges delegates to adopt option 1) Making new HCFC-22 facilities ineligible under the CDM.
Submitted by Anonymous on

Nuclear power has long been promoted as one of the tools to mitigate climate change. Japan has always been one of the biggest promoters of this theory and has not only tried to get nuclear power accepted in the CDM, but has also developed its own “bilateral crediting mechanism,” to include nuclear. ECO assumed that Japan would change this position after the Fukushima disaster, so we were taken aback by Japan's intervention in the flexible mechanisms discussion, stating that the CDM should be open to all technologies, including nuclear.
New nuclear power plants require massive public subsidies to go forward – monies that would be much better invested in the development and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The nuclear energy industry has been pushing COP after COP to promote their technology as a tool for carbon reduction, but even a massive four-fold expansion of nuclear power by 2050 would provide at best a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Against the background of the Fukushima tragedy and all the risks inherent in nuclear energy, ECO finds it amazing that countries still keep promoting nuclear energy as a mitigation option. There’s no point in trying to jump out of the climate frying pan by jumping into the nuclear fire. That would be like trying to cure one’s addiction to smoking by taking up crack cocaine. After the massive demonstrations in Japan, and the German and Swiss decisions to phase out nuclear energy, ECO calls upon Japan to become a leader in ensuring the exclusion of nuclear power from the CDM.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by MBrockley on
Thank you chair.
Distinguished delegates.
My name is Lina Li. I’ll speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
Global CO2-Emissions in 2010 reached all-time record levels, worsening climate change and
its devastating impacts on the world’s poor. Yields are shrinking, food prices are rising. By
2030, half of the expected increase in prices for staple crops may be due to climate change
impacts.
Since I was given only one minute to speak to you, here I offer you just three areas where
Parties must make progress in Bonn:
Firstly, acknowledge that you cannot negotiate science. Recognise that global emissions must
peak by 2015 latest and decrease by at least 80% by 2050. Each country must do its fair share
of globally needed mitigation efforts, through addressing domestic emissions, as well as, in
the case of developed countries, provide financial support to developing countries to tackle
their emissions.
Secondly, close the gigatonne gap. Global emissions are far away from any trajectory that can
be called safe. Current pledges are set to lead to a 3, 4 – or more – degree world. Developed
countries in particular are dragging their feet. Their proposed pledges are adding up to only
12-18% reductions. Developed countries must move to the high end of their pledged ranges,
close existing loopholes rather than merrily proposing new ones, and they will have to
increase their pledges even further, as even in the best of all cases their proposed cuts will still
be nowhere near the 25-40% IPCC range required to stay below 2-2.4 degrees, let alone
what’s needed for 1.5 degrees.
In turn, developing countries that haven’t done so yet, should present their NAMAs and
clarify needs for support to implement them. Also, developing countries should use Bonn to
increase clarity on their assumptions on baselines and other key factors such as energy use.
Thirdly, developed countries should be invited to present a credible plan how they intend to
meet their 100-billion-pledge made in Copenhagen and confirmed in Cancun. Such a 100-
billion-plan should include a set of innovative sources to raise finance, such as a levy or
emissions trading system for international transport ensuring no net incidence on developing
countries to be consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities.
Thank you for your attention.
Submitted by admin on