Tag: CAN intervention

CAN Intervention - LCA Opening Plenary - April 9, 2010

Distinguished Delegates, today I speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

My name is Raju Chetri. I am from Nepal, and the future of my family and my people depends on the success of these negotiations. Yet I have only one minute to tell you what civil society wants from the LCA track.

The emissions reduction pledges made by many of you before and since Copenhagen, if met, would raise global average temperatures by above three degrees.

What would be the impact of that be on a vulnerable country like Nepal?

How can we survive that impact, when attempts by vulnerable countries to create an insurance mechanism to shield us from disaster have been blocked?

But we are not the only ones that will suffer from climate change. When your grandkids come and ask you where you were, when the future of the planet was decided, could you honestly say you were pushing as hard as you could - to get this issue resolved as soon as possible?

We have had enough of your time-wasting. You know what you need to do this year. Cut pollution so that global emissions peak by 2015. Provide the support that we need to cope with the problem you are exacerbating. Make the decision in Cancun. Do this, and give us back our future.

Thank you.


CAN Intervention - KP Opening Intervention - 1 Jun 2010

Thank you Mr Chair, Distinguished delegates, Clearly, progress is needed on the KP track here in Bonn.

CAN would like to remind delegates that when the KP was first negotiated, Parties agreed targets first, and the following years were spent agreeing the loopholes to accommodate them - loopholes that have contributed to the gigatonnes gap between accounting for emissions and what the atmosphere actually sees.

It is CAN’s long-standing opinion that the underlying rules should be negotiated first, so that the needed reduction target of at-least -40% can be allocated between the Annex B Parties, based on a clear and common understanding of the underlying scope and accounting rules.

Negotiating time in Bonn and for the subsequent intersessionals should therefore be focused on reaching agreement on a number of issues, including:

  • Accounting rules that actually reduce net LULUCF emissions;
  • Modalities for the flexible mechanisms – to avoid double counting of developed country mitigation and financial support obligations, and keep out inappropriate sectors, such as nuclear and CCS
  • The AAU banking loophole
  • The scope of new sources and sectors and other accounting rules – the “other issues”
  • Commitment period length and base year

These issues need to be agreed, but not agreed at any cost. CAN has strong concerns about some of the proposals currently being discussed, especially for LULUCF.

In the LULUCF negotiations, Annex I Parties are proposing to make their forests part of the climate change problem, rather than part of the solution. They are proposing to increase their annual net emissions from forest management by approximately 400 Mt CO2e without even accounting for it. This type of proposal has absolutely no place in a global climate agreement.

At this session, Annex I Parties must stop the accounting games. Annex I Parties must commit to absolute reductions in net anthropogenic emissions from LULUCF and they must protect their forests and other natural ecosystems as reservoirs of greenhouse gases. Parties could then quickly agree to LULUCF rules that transparently meet these two principles.

Like so much in this process, time is not required to fix LULUCF, only political will and ambition.

CAN Intervention - COP 12 - 7, Nov, 2006

Time is of the essence. The scientists who first brought the issue of climate change to our attention are beginning to show signs of panic. This issue is running away from us, and as you have seen in this workshop, we simply have no time left to dither and delay. The impacts of climate change will get much worse unless urgent action is taken, and taken quickly. For many regions, the scale of unavoidable changes in the next few decades will likely exceed the limits of adaptation possibilities. If we do not act now, what is unavoidable will likely become catastrophic.

CAN - AWG intervention CMP2

7 Nov 06

On behalf of the Climate Action Network, thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to provide input to this important discussion.

Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

Time is of the essence.

The scientists who first brought the issue of climate change to our attention are beginning to show signs of panic. This issue is running away from us, and as you have seen in this workshop, we simply have no time left to dither and delay. The impacts of climate change will get much worse unless urgent action is taken, and taken quickly. For many regions, the scale of unavoidable changes in the next few decades will likely exceed the limits of adaptation possibilities. If we do not act now, what is unavoidable will likely become catastrophic.

Before us now is the challenge of agreeing to emission cuts commensurate with the threat of global climate change. If we are to avoid dangerous climate change, we need keep average global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this, global emissions will need to peak well before the end of the next decade, and decline thereafter. This means that industrialized countries will need to reduce their emissions by at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. As the Stern review shows, the damages associated with climate impacts are orders of magnitude greater than the costs of mitigation. Any delay significantly raises the costs of both.

Parties must recognize that an analysis of global emissions pathways, with reference to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the issue of cumulative emissions, are essential to the deliberations on commitments beyond 2012.

It must also be said that the current lack of demonstrable progress of some countries tends to undermine faith in this process. There is a clear need for Annex 1 to show leadership. Those whose good faith is no longer clear - and we name Canada here, as its present government has walked away from its Kyoto obligations - must revisit their positions for the common good of humanity and the planet. Those who seek to lead must do so: the time has come for the European Union to come out into the open and talk the talk and walk the walk, and do this well before Finnish Saunas become a place to go and cool down from the mid summer heat…

To establish a sound scientific basis for these negotiations, CAN is seeking intensive one-year analysis phases under both Article 3.9 and Article 9. We know that the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group must be connected to work on the Article 9 review, which should include exploring and elaborating the obvious links between the two processes. And we have read the submissions and know that some do not want any Article 9 review at all; or if there is one, it should be a moment in time, with a further date to be set, perhaps once the irreversible has taken place.

In CAN’s opinion, the Chair’s list is a good, comprehensive assessment of the issues that need to be discussed as part of the post 2012 process. The necessary science is already in the literature and can readily inform this analysis. It is, therefore, not necessary to wait for the publication of the final version of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment.

The analysis phase must set the stage for the agreement of a negotiating mandate for a comprehensive post-2012 agreement at COP/MOP 3 in 2007. The outcomes of the Dialogue must also inform this mandate. The negotiations should result in a single coherent agreement to be agreed in 2008, with commitments adequate to address the enormity of the climate challenge. This end date is needed in order to avoid a gap in commitment periods.

Finally this meeting should adopt an ambitious work plan, in accordance with the scale and the urgency of the threat of climate change to people and the planet, which lays the groundwork for deeper, absolute binding emission reduction targets for Annex I countries. In 2007 Annex I Parties should come prepared and put numbers for such targets on the table.

Thank you Mr. Chairman


CAN Intervention - COP Plenary - COP 12 - Nov 2007

Thank you Mr. Chairman/President.

 My name is Sharon Looremeta, and I am a Maasai and I work with my farming community - we have mainly herding animals and they have been suffering and continue to suffer from drought. Many of the animals we rely on are dying.

Two weeks ago we welcomed you to our country. We had high hopes that you were serious about addressing the threat of climate change which is destroying livelihoods all across Africa. Now we wonder if you are just like all the other tourists who come here to see some wild animals, and some poor Africans; to take some pictures and then go home and forget about us..

Dear ministers, we hope that the pictures you have taken, remain fixed in your mind while you’re deciding what to do. Here is another picture for you:

Parts of Kenya have suffered a drought which started in 2003, these areas have had no proper rains for three years. During this time:

          o In Northern Kenya, pastoralists have lost 10 million livestock;
          o Two thirds of the population in Turkana have lost their livelihoods;
          o In Kajiado, the Maasai country where I come from, we have lost 5 million cattle

We have had no part to play in contributing to this problem but we are already suffering the consequences.

Kofi Annan sent a special envoy to Kajiado in March this year to try and help with the drought.

Not such a pretty picture, eh? And these pictures are repeated all across Africa, and the scientists are telling us that pretty soon, this kind of picture of hunger and suffering is the only kind of picture you’re going to be able to see here in Africa. I hope you keep these pictures in your mind when you are deciding whether this COP will achieve anything, or not.

Dear ministers, we never asked for anything that you yourself didn’t say was possible here in Nairobi. In all your speeches you said improving the Kyoto Protocol was important. But are you really willing to do the work to make it happen?

We said, “the review of the Kyoto Protocol was important for Africa, because we need more funds for adaptation - more than what we have now”, and you said, ‘later’;

We said, “we need deeper emissions cuts so that our children and grandchildren can have a better chance in life”, and you said, ‘later’;

We said, “we need new mechanisms to help sustainable development in Africa” and you said, ‘later’.

I am a mother. I have a daughter. When she asks me what came out of the meeting in Nairobi, I don’t want to have to tell her that you said, ‘ask me again next year’.

This was supposed to be the African COP - building and strengthening the Kyoto Protocol with Africa’s needs in mind. I think this should be called the ‘Safari COP’. ‘Climate change tourists’ is what I call you… you come here to look at some climate impacts and some poor people suffering, and then climb on your airplanes and head home. Africa is sometimes called the forgotten continent. And it looks like you’ve forgotten us again….

Just so you know, that this weekend while you head off on Safari or climb on your jet airplanes and fly back to your comfortable homes - and we know that most of you live in comfortable homes, no matter what country you come from, my people will be left out here with very little food, very little water, with our herds dying around us. My people are living on the edge of existence.

We believe your decisions have left a small window of opportunity to meet the demands of the people of Africa and the rest of the world.

If they cannot be made today, they must be made at your next meeting. Give me some good news that I can tell my daughter when I get home.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman/President.


Subscribe to Tag: CAN intervention