Submitted by MBrockley on
If we are to close the ambition gap, we must also close the equity gap. We’ve known this for years, and the Durban Platform gives us an opportunity to act on this knowledge. The challenge now is to very rapidly build both momentum and trust. They can only be built together. [more]
Submitted by Anonymous on
If Durban is to be at least somewhat successful then Saturday’s release of the BASIC Experts paper on fair-shares global effort sharing will be recognized as a key breakthrough. That can help decide a 2nd commitment period for the KP while putting on the agenda serious consideration of a next generation mandate that’s fair enough to support real ambition.
The BASIC Experts paper does not pretend that the global carbon budget hasn’t already been essentially exhausted. Nor does it say that development-as-usual is still a viable option and we can muddle along with bottom-up accounting and a bit of technological optimism. These are things that just can’t happen if we actually intend to stabilize the climate system. But in addition,
developmental justice is a precondition of high ambition, and this report does foresee that soon we’ll be ready to face this bottom-line reality.
The BASIC authors can be commended for illuminating the salient core of the climate-equity debate. That outcome has clearly involved compromise, and it has clearly had a cost. For example, the paper focuses on a 2000-2050 global emissions budget of 1440 Gt CO2, one that many among us view as dangerously high.
All the same, the benefits of compromise are also visible. The authors were able to mark out a first-order consensus that, while vague, indicates a way forward. If ‘equity’ is defined as the human right to sustainable development, then only two approaches to a global fair-shares reference framework – cumulative per-capita budget sharing and “responsibility and capacity index” based effort sharing – are at all promising, and the BASIC paper clearly moves these two approaches forward.
There certainly are problems as well. The report, for example, gives almost no attention to economic stratification within countries. Even South Africa, while speaking for an approach that includes economic capacity as well as historic responsibility, passes too lightly over that subject. But all told it’s the accomplishment here that are highly notable. The BASIC Experts report is a signpost to the debate that’s actually needed.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Countries agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to prevent dangerous climate change: to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. At present they are failing in this task. One element holding back countries from the necessary action is the concern that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’ off their effort. A common understanding of fair shares – even if it is only approximate – can help overcome this trust barrier and lead to higher levels of ambition from all.
CAN recommends to parties and the AWG Chairs that they take steps to proactively insert effort sharing into the negotiation framework in 2011 and 2012. COP17 should establish a mandate to agree an equitable effort sharing approach between all countries by COP18. Whilst an agreement on an equitable effort sharing approach should be the ultimate aim, any discussions that expand the shared understanding of a fair effort sharing approach have the potential to move the negotiations forward exponentially. Waiting for these discussions to take place is not, however, an excuse for countries to put off increasing their level of ambition. All countries[1] have an obligation to increase their ambition now – developed countries, with their woefully inadequate pledges, most of all.
[1]except for the Maldives and Costa Rica who are developing countries that have committed to becoming carbon neutral.
Submitted by MBrockley on
First place Fossil is awarded to Japan. The Shared Vision finds itself in a deadlock situation since Parties don’t seem to find a procedure to bridge the discussions on the long-term global goal and the debate on other items, namely equity. While CAN without effect tried to make an intervention at the Shared Vision informals on a possible way of moving the discussion out of its deadlock, Japan frankly raised the question: “Are the other items necessary for this discussion?” Japan – along with other countries not being open to even hear the concerns on equity and other items – are of no help in re-connecting the long-term global goal and equity, which are, in their nature, interlinked debates. The view of limiting the Shared Vision to the global goal and the peak year doesn’t lead us anywhere and should be overcome by this point of time in the discussion and before Durban.
Submitted by MBrockley on
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 October 2011
Panamá City, Panamá
Contact:
David Turnbull
dturnbull@climatenetwork.org
Home mobile: +12023162499
Local mobile: (+507) 64751851
First place Fossil is awarded to Japan. The Shared Vision finds itself in a deadlock situation since Parties don’t seem to find a procedure to bridge the discussions on the long-term global goal and the debate on other items, namely equity. While CAN without effect tried to make an intervention at the Shared Vision informals on a possible way of moving the discussion out of its deadlock, Japan frankly raised the question: “Are the other items necessary for this discussion?” Japan – along with other countries not being open to even hear the concerns on equity and other items – are of no help in re-connecting the long-term global goal and equity, which are, in their nature, interlinked debates. The view of limiting the Shared Vision to the global goal and the peak year doesn’t lead us anywhere and should be overcome by this point of time in the discussion and before Durban.
About CAN: The Climate Action Network (CAN) is a worldwide network of roughly 700 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and individual action to limit human0induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. www.climatenetwork.org
About the Fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999, in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress in the negotiations in the last days of talks.
###
Submitted by Anonymous on
In the UNFCCC countries agreed to prevent dangerous climate change: to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
At present they are failing in this task. One element holding them back from the necessary action is the concern that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’. A common understanding of fair shares – even if it is only approximate – can help overcome this trust barrier and lead to higher levels of ambition from all.
This paper adds to the understanding of what an equitable effort sharing agreement might look like. It outlines the fundamental effort sharing principles contained in the UNFCCC and expands on these principles, presenting an organized set of fundamental and subsidiary principles relevant to assessing fair-share effort-sharing frameworks. It briefly describes thirteen existing frameworks and assesses these frameworks against effort sharing principles.
