Tag: emission reduction targets

Canada Adrift

Let’s say you’re a tar sands loving North American government with a bit of a carbon dependency problem. You need a clever way to get away with doing nothing on climate change, and you notice that your neighbor to the south won’t have an easy time getting a cap-and-trade bill through its Congress.
For Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, the solution surely seemed obvious: announce that you just can’t lift a finger to deal with climate change unless the U.S. moves first. As they say in Canada: problem solved, eh?
Not quite, as it turns out. With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moving to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new industrial facilities starting in 2011, Harper’s plan of outsourcing climate policy to the U.S. meant that Canada would have to do the same.  That’s bad news for the tar sands (oil bearing deposits in central Canada), where plans for a massive expansion just don’t line up with pesky limits on their emissions.
Enter John Baird, Canada’s brand new – er, not so new – environment minister. (Veteran observers will remember him as the last minister in Bali to oppose the science-based target range of 25-40% below 1990 in 2020.)
Confronted about lining up with the neighbors to Canada’s south, Baird had some choice words: the US proposal is ‘patchwork’ and ‘very, very preliminary stuff’, covering ‘a small, tiny percentage of new plants’. Yes, that would be in contrast to Canada’s comprehensive proposal of doing nothing whatsoever for any percentage of its new plants.
And this isn’t the first time that Canada’s policy – 100% harmonized, as long as the US doesn’t do anything – has reared its ugly head. Internal emails from the Department of Foreign Affairs released yesterday show Canadian diplomats hard at work to ‘kill’ a 2007 US clean fuels policy. They enlisted allies at Exxon and other oil companies in the battle to, as they so lyrically put it, ‘keep the oil a-flowing’.  And when one official from Environment Canada pointed out that curbing tar sands emissions is a good thing, her comment was dismissed as ‘simply nutty’. Is it a coincidence that this sorry little episode took place the last time John Baird was environment minister?
Anyway, adding it up, it’s clear that Canada’s three-bagger of Fossils from the first day of the Cancun talks is the most appropriate way to welcome John Baird and the government he represents back to the negotiating table.  Oh, Canada – how could you!

Region: 
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

The EU Chooses

Next Thursday, European environment ministers will discuss whether the EU should upgrade its 2020 target to 30% unilaterally. ECO says yes! And while you are at it, make sure to meet it domestically, so that any offsetting comes on top of 30%.
While several environment ministers have already indicated their support, others are holding back. But let’s face it, almost everybody expects the EU is going to move to 30% anyway. The more time they waste discussing the matter, the more time they lose reaping the economic advantages.
For two years now, the EU has not budged from its conditional pledge to increase to 30% if comparable efforts are made by other major economies. But this position has diminishing relevance.
Several studies, including from the European Commission, clearly show that EU has good reason to increase ambition right now. The most obvious is that they have
already nearly reached the 20% target, a full 10 years before 2020!
According to the European Environment Agency, the EU’s 2009 emissions stood at approximately 17.3% below 1990 levels. Although the economic crisis is part of the reason, there is no doubt that most of the effort has already happened.
Second, consider the low-carbon race. China became the biggest wind market in the world last year. If EU leaders want their green industry to remain at the forefront, they need to give their economies clear direction.
Third, a more ambitious emissions target would generate billions of euros of additional income for governments, as the majority of industries will have to buy emissions permits under the emissions trading scheme. Funneling this money to climate measures will accelerate EU’s low-carbon development and trigger much needed long-term financing for developing countries. And independent research shows that more ambitious climate policies won’t result in mass relocation of industries outside of the EU.
With smart policies, increasing the EU’s target will be cost neutral and reduce its foreign fuel dependence, cut energy bills in the longer run and reduce public health costs. So, all in all, the perfect moment for going to 30% is now!
 

Topics: 
Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Fossil of the Day: New Zealand

A fossil is awarded to New Zealand, as an ambassador for all Annex I Parties, for bluntly declaring that if they don’t get the rules they want on forest management, they’ll have to change their overall emission reduction target. Does this mean that the LULUCF sector is just a slush fund and Copenhagen pledges are open for renegotiation if the slush fund disappears?

Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

New Zealand

 

A fossil is awarded to New Zealand, as an ambassador for all Annex I Parties, for bluntly declaring that if they don’t get the rules they want on forest management, they’ll have to change their overall emission reduction target. Does this mean that the LULUCF sector is just a slush fund and Copenhagen pledges are open for renegotiation if the slush fund disappears?

Region: 

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.

Topics: 
Region: 
Organization: 
Related Event: 

CAN Submission - Views regarding the scope and content of the second Review of Article 9 under the Kyoto Protocol - Aug 2007

 

InCAN’sviewthefirst review of Article 9 under the Kyoto Protocol was a missed opportunity to advance discussions on a number of important issues. CAN believes what is needed by 2009 is a single, coherent post 2012 agreement with commitments adequate to address the enormity of the challenges presented by climate change. The second Article 9 review has the potential to provide input towards this aim, if it is established as a process with a clear work program for 2008. However, CAN sees that the work needed to achieve a comprehensive post 2012 agreement is best served by a comprehensive mandate, to be agreed by Parties in Bali in December. The Bali Mandate will need to be based on the following principles and elements.

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: emission reduction targets