Tag: GTG

Guideposts for these Days of Decision

Submitted by Anonymous on December 9, 2010 - 2:45pm

Ministers, it’s ECO again. May we have a few moments with you? Yes, you guessed it – right here in your hands is our clean and manageable list of key decisions for the remainder of the week.
We’ve heard that you feel there are too many choices and papering over the differences in the negotiations might be the best achievable for the moment. But  remember, that trick only works once.
A high level political statement by itself will not cut it. We need a real agreement in Cancun, not a repeat of Copenhagen’s climate shame. No magic moment is going to arrive when the hard choices become easy. But the path to achievement is just steps away.
ECO is wondering what is going on in the Shared Vision negotiations. We heard whispers of much needed improvements, such as the recognition of the need to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ to no more than 350 ppm and limit global temperature rise to 1.5° C, as well as the acknowledgement of historical responsibility and the link between human rights and climate change related actions.
All these elements must be included for a clear and robust shared vision that reflects our collective intention to ensure a liveable planet for us and for future generations.
But Ministers, ECO is going blue in the face! How many more times do we have to say ‘Gigatonne Gap’ before it  finally sinks in? As UNEP affirmed in its authoritative report, there is a significant gap between the emissions pledges set forth in Copenhagen and the reductions the planet actually needs by 2020 to limit warming to 2° C, much less the 1.5° needed to avoid severe and even catastrophic impacts.
Yet the latest version of the Mitigation text contains no acknowledgement of the Gigatonne Gap, nor does it set forth a timely process to close it. A legitimate outcome in Cancun must explicitly provide the pathway to increased ambition.
ECO also calls on parties to anchor the pledges currently on the table so that commitments and actions can be strengthened over the next year before inscribing them in legally binding form in South Africa.
ECO is pleased that the MRV text has evolved in the past week from an empty 36-word shell to a real basis for negotiation.
But there’s a long way to go. The tables have turned here in Cancun and we’re finally hearing more about the need for enhanced MRV provisions for Annex I countries, including common accounting rules, as well as MRV of finance using a common reporting format.
This is only right – the United States and other developed countries have been calling for increased transparency for developing countries but have been shy about improving their own.
Establishing a Technology Mechanism and creating an operational Technology Executive Committee (TEC) is well within the remit here.
Unfortunately, the USA has been blocking progress on the TEC and CTCN discussions and negotiators are planning to kick many elements into the long grass, such as reporting lines and the link to the financial mechanism. This would be dangerous as it would leave too many issues to be dealt with during 2011.
The draft text is virtually content free when it comes to creating an operational framework for new, radically scaled-up, focused and integrated Capacity  Building.
The stocktaking needs to clarify whether developed countries intend to take  capacity building seriously (that is, on par with finance and technology), or whether they are happy enough just to leave it behind as crumbs in the corner.
On International Transport, the COP must guide ICAO and IMO in taking effective action to reduce emissions quickly, create a framework for these sectors to fairly contribute funds to mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and ensure no net incidence of impacts on developing countries.
On Adaptation, a Cancun decision must launch the committee to oversee technical and coordinating provisions for adaptation under the Convention. Further, response measures does not have a place under the adaptation agenda. The resources available for adaptation should not be use as compensation for the loss on oil revenue as a result of mitigation action.
By the end the week decisions on  Financing must be taken to establish a climate fund under the guidance and  authority of the COP, along with a process to clarify the scale of this fund and guarantee sufficient resources for adaptation, along with the mechanisms and instruments to generate the required revenue flows.
We have heard that some developed countries are raising doubts about their ability to contribute to a fund under the UNFCCC due to constitutional or other legal impediments. These are simply tactical maneuvers to delay a decision,  using the fund as a bargaining chip to get concessions from developing countries on other issues such as international consultations and analysis.
Negotiations on the Flexible Mechanisms are (unsurprisingly) facing difficulty, including even which text should be used.
However, at least two things should be done. First, the loopholes in existing mechanisms must be closed now. A primary example is surplus AAUs. Second, relevant principles should be set for further negotiations in LCA. If any new mechanisms are to be discussed going forward, they must go beyond offsetting. And they have to close the Gigaton gap, not widen it. Other important principles should also be set such as preventing double counting, supplementarity and contribution to sustainable development.
A very disturbing development is that the option for keeping CCS out of the Clean Development Mechanism has vanished from the draft text being forwarded to the CMP. At the very least, SBSTA must address the creation of perverse incentives for increased dependence on fossil fuels.
On land and forests, the message is simple but let’s say it again: Close the loopholes!
With respect to legal form, ECO calls on Parties to establish open and transparent processes to discuss their proposals, both now and after Cancun. Likewise, just as the Berlin Mandate provided clarity on legal form to the negotiating process that resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, Parties should agree mandates at Cancun to confirm the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as well as a legally binding outcome in the LCA and set them up for adoption at COP 17 in South Africa.

Tags:

International Transport

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Key Findings of the  Emissions Gap Report

Submitted by Anonymous on December 7, 2010 - 10:24am

Key Findings of the  Emissions Gap Report
United Nations  Environment Programme
November 2010

Studies show that emission levels of approximately 44 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) (range: 39-44 GtCO2e*) in 2020 would be consistent with a “likely” chance of limiting global warming to 2° C.
Under business-as-usual projections, global emissions could reach 56 GtCO2e (range: 54-60 GtCO2e) in 2020, leaving a gap of 12 GtCO2e.
If the lowest-ambition pledges were implemented in a “lenient” fashion**, emissions could be lowered slightly to 53 GtCO2e (range: 52-57 GtCO2e), leaving a significant gap of 9 GtCO2e.
The gap could be reduced substantially by policy options being discussed in the negotiations:
- By countries moving to higher ambition, conditional pledges
- By the negotiations adopting rules that avoid a net increase in emissions from (a) “lenient” accounting of land use, land-use change and forestry activities and (b) the use of surplus emission units
If the above policy options were to be implemented, emissions in 2020 could be lowered to 49 GtCO2e (range: 47-51 GtCO2e), reducing the size of the gap to 5 GtCO2e. This is approximately equal to the annual global emissions from all the world’s cars, buses and transport in 2005 – But this is also almost 60 per cent of the way towards reaching the 2° C target.
It will also be important to avoid increasing the gap by “double counting” of offsets.
Studies show that it is feasible to bridge the remaining gap through more ambitious domestic actions, some of which could be supported by international climate finance.
'With or without a gap, current studies indicate that steep emission reductions are needed post 2020 in order to keep our chances of limiting warming to2° C or 1.5°C.

Range here refers to the “majority of results”, i.e. their 20th and 80th percentile.
“Lenient” in this report is used to refer to the situation in which LULUCF accounting rules and the use of surplus emission units result in a net increase in emissions.
http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Health and Climate

Submitted by Anonymous on December 7, 2010 - 10:08am

Economies are stressed and lending rates are high. Here at COP 16 it is the negotiators who are stressed and their blood pressures run high as they struggle to close the gaping wound that is the Gigatonne Gap. But fortunately, there are doctors in the house, and their climate checkup tells us about the benefits of addressing our emissions addictions.
We would all agree that exercise is beneficial to health. The changes in transport policy and the decrease in sedentism required to meet our GHG emissions targets can save lives, says leading medical journal The  Lancet.
For example, heart artery disease can fall by 20%, breast cancer by 12% and even dementia by 8%. And rates of respiratory disease (such as asthma) fall as pollution levels decline -- a benefit also seen where clean cooking technologies replace primitive stoves in developing regions. Rates of heart illness fall, as do those of osteoporosis (bone thinning), diabetes, obesity and depression. Appropriate trimming of animal meat and fat consumption also reduces heart disease rates by 15%, and would reduce rates of bowel cancer. The Lancet showed that such gains applied worldwide, including the UK, India, and China.
With a healthier, more productive workforce, output will improve and healthcare costs will fall. These data should encourage the EU, for one, to stretch for more ambition, and aim for at least a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Upping the target from 20% will save an additional 30 billion Euros each year in healthcare costs -- nearly two-thirds of the annual 46 billion Euro cost of such a change estimated by the European Commission. Put another way, as much as two-thirds of mitigation costs might be offset by healthcare savings.
And here’s an example closer to our temporary home here in Cancun. Even a 10% fall in small particle pollution in Mexico City would save US $760 million a year.
On Thursday, a meeting in the US Pavilion emphasised the dire human health impact of climate change. Human suffering is the loose change paying the price of climate change. Ambitious mitigation targets can prevent that, and save lives and money as well. Let’s take the prescription, show ambition, and heal that Gigatonne Gap. And make nations healthier, happier and richer while we are at it.
Monday 6 December will be “Health Day” in Cancun. Watch for a statement for delegates supported by leading global medical and health groups.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Taking Bold Steps  on Mitigation

Submitted by Anonymous on December 7, 2010 - 10:05am

The phrases ‘legal form’ and ‘anchoring of pledges’ are on everyone’s lips in the corridors and sidewalks of the Moon Palace. While these are indeed crucial issues, like many of the Parties who spoke at Saturday’s stocktaking plenaries, ECO wants to see serious work this week on mitigation content for both the KP and LCA.
Looking first at the KP, if Parties are not able to fully agree a second commitment period here in Cancun, there must be at least a clear deadline and process to ensure that this will happen in Durban. Further agreement on some of the thorny details of the KP like the rules on LULUCF and surplus AAUs are also keenly awaited.
As regards the individual and aggregate Annex I targets for the second commitment period, there has been a lot of talk about how and where they will be recorded. But what about the minor matter of what the numbers actually are, and whether they bear any relation to science?
The new text has put the need for developed country targets to add up to at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in brackets. The KP negotiating mandate towards Durban must include an explicit requirement that both aggregate and individual country pledges be clarified and assessed against this 25-40% figure, and their level of ambition increased accordingly in the final KP second commitment period agreement.
And don’t forget, there are two tracks in these negotiations. For the sake of balance the non-KP Annex 1 Parties (primarily, of course, the US) must take on comparable commitments to the KP Annex I Parties.
The Chair’s text provides some workable openings for this, though it needs significant enhancement. Several options are given for the listing of pledges, but ECO’s most serious concern is that wherever they end up, there must be a clear acknowledgement in the relevant COP decision that they fall far short of what science requires – creating the Gigatonne Gap that was highlighted in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report.
Unlike the KP, the LCA text does not so far include an explicit reference to the quantity of emissions reductions entailed by the goal of keeping global temperature increase well below 2^o C, let alone 1.5^o. That should be an immediate priority.
Acknowledgment of the inadequacy of the current pledges should be accompanied by a clear process to elaborate and facilitate the measures that will help to close the gap. The Chair’s text neatly includes a cross-reference to the KP, and if the KP Parties’ pledges are strengthened as set out above, they will contribute appropriately to the overall goal.
This leaves the pledges of developing countries and of the US. There should be agreement in Cancun on a mandate for next year’s negotiations under which the US will take on its fair and comparable share, and developing country pledges for nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be clarified and adequately supported.
ECO was very pleased to see that low emission development strategies are mentioned in the Chair’s text. Such long-term strategic plans are needed to ensure the global goal is actually met, although there is room for elaborating the scope and nature of the strategies for developed countries. Agreement to all this would be a very positive signal of the seriousness of intent by developed countries.
Climate change demands that we keep a constant eye on what science is telling us and on the adequacy of our agreed actions. The review set out in in Chapter V of the Chair’s text provides a channel for this. The re-inclusion of the 1.5^o C global goal in welcome, although the proposed completion of this work only in 2015 is alarming. We know that emissions must already peak by then. In addition, it is not clear is how the results of the review would be operationalised into the updating of both the aggregate and individual country targets, another point to be addressed before we leave Mexico.
There is a lot of work to do this week, but Parties noted on Saturday their desire to see this centrepiece of the negotiations addressed. Now is the time to stand and deliver.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Keys to the 2nd KP Commitment Period

Submitted by Anonymous on December 4, 2010 - 11:52am

It shouldn’t be too hard for Annex I countries to show needed leadership by actually agreeing emission reduction commitments in line with the top end of the IPCC 25-40% range. After all, many reputable studies show how to reach that achievable goal. But on the evidence thus far, those countries aren’t ready to embrace ambition yet.
Nevertheless, Annex I Parties can and should reach agreement in Cancun on a number of technical issues that lead toward commitments in 2011 to achieve the needed scale of emissions reductions, along with a shared understanding of the underlying rules and modalities that will influence the fair sharing out of their targets in 2013-2017.
This week’s launch of the UNEP Emissions Gap Report clearly demonstrates the massive and growing gap between the pledges now tabled and even a 2 ^oC pathway, much less one limiting global temperature rise to less than 1.5 ^oC. It is imperative to rapidly close the Gigatonne Gap and produce real emissions reductions, not fake accounting.
For these reasons, ECO reiterates the following points that need to be agreed here in Cancun:
* At least a 40% aggregate target for 2020 for developed countries from 1990 levels.
* LULUCF accounting that accurately tracks what the atmosphere sees rather than letting as much as 450 million tonnes of emissions vanish from the books.
* Address AAU banking (hot air) in a way that preserves environmental integrity. The UNEP report says that dealing with carry- overs from the first commitment period as well as new surpluses created in the second could reduce the gap by up to 2.3 Gt..
* Continuation of the 1990 base year will facilitate comparability of targets across the commitment periods. Other reference years are being advocated simply to hide the lack of effort by some Parties.
* A 5-year commitment period to synchronize science reviews with the IPCC reports, help align with political cycles in many countries, and to avoid complacency. (Take note, EU!)
* Strong domestic action to facilitate the transition to a zero carbon economy for developed countries by 2050. Strategic planning is required, not excessive offsetting.
* Fewer new dubious sources of credits (the never-ending cries for CCS and nuclear in the CDM), and more demand for projects that deliver sustainable development benefits.
* Use the most recent available science: that means IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report for global warming potential on the 100 year time horizon, not a political fudge. Is there a particular reason why Brazil does not support using the most recent science?
* Urge IMO and ICAO to take swift action to achieve a global approach, fully embracing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which means, for instance, that there is no net incidence on developing countries.
The KP modalities have the potential to lead to real emission reductions – or they can be a pretense that emissions are falling because of accounting tricks and self-serving rules to hide inaction. The clock is running down and the choice is clear.
And delegates, as always in a party-driven process, the choice is yours.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

The Elephant Gap

Submitted by Anonymous on December 3, 2010 - 9:10pm

Delegates, in case you haven’t noticed, there is an elephant roaming the halls of the Moon Palace, and it weighs something like 9 gigatonnes.
As reaffirmed by UNEP in its new Emissions Gap Report, the climate pledges made in Copenhagen fall far short of what is needed to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 ^oC, and even further below a 1.5 ^oC limit which is needed to minimize the inundation of low-lying nations and coastal areas, the loss of coral reefs and the permanent disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice. But instead of starting to bring the elephant down to size, Parties seem determined to fatten it up even further.
According to the UNEP, the gap between where the Copenhagen Accord pledges are now and where they should be in 2020 could be bigger than the combined emissions of China and Russia. At best, the gap ‘only’ equals all cars, trucks and buses in the world, or the combined emissions of the 27 EU member states.
The UNEP report identifies specific actions Parties can take here in Cancun to help close the Gigatonne Gap. But their actions so far suggest they won’t admit to seeing the elephant and that the future of the planet is at stake. For example, while strict LULUCF accounting rules would close the gap considerably, Parties are on the verge of cementing rules that will make the problem much worse.
The list goes on. The EU is promoting an 8-year commitment period, freezing the current low level of ambition in place for the remainder of this decade. Russia and Ukraine insist on flooding the next commitment period with hot air from the first. The Umbrella countries have trouble acknowledging that there is any gap at all. It should be obvious that just implementing their Copenhagen pledges won’t do the trick.
In the coming days ECO expects countries to act on the UNEP report. First, they need to drop the proposed accounting rules and loopholes that will  expand rather than close the Gigatonne Gap.
In addition, while grappling with proposals to anchor the Copenhagen pledges in the UNFCCC, they should also fully acknowledge the existence of the gap and commit to a timely process to close it as rapidly as possible – before the elephant stampedes across the planet.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

UNEP Assesses  the Gigatonne Gap

Submitted by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 10:01am

Remember the Gigatonne Gap? It’s the gap of 9 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent between country pledges in the Copenhagen Accord and the emission reductions needed to avoid a temperature increase above 2o C.
A new UNEP report shows that many potential measures already exist to help close the gap, some of which are at stake at this COP. The report demonstrates the feasibility of emission reductions and the importance of cooperation among governments and countries to raise their level of ambition. For a technical presentation and discussion of the political implications of the report’s findings, attend UNEP’s side event today in the Mexican Pavilion (Messe) from 18:30-20:30. The report can be downloaded at www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Looking Ahead:  LCA Mitigation

Submitted by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 9:58am

As we eagerly anticipate the release of an actual LCA mitigation text, ECO is confident that it is realistic to expect substantial progress here in Cancun.
The new text will need to tackle some very controversial issues. One of the biggest debates currently underway is the inscription of emission pledges by parties. Not only does the magnitude of the pledges determine of the size of the Gigatonne Gap, the question of where they are placed reaches right into the heart of these negotiations. Should pledges be placed in the KP, the LCA or both, or should there be an independent decision on these pledges and how to go about monitoring them?
It is isn’t surprising that a lot of time is being spent on discussing this structural issue, but the concerns need to be guided by the willingness to move forward.
No balanced climate package can be achieved without resolution on ambitious mitigation targets by developed countries within the text. The bottom line is that developed countries still need to agree an aggregate reduction target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, with emissions peaking in 2015. The Gigatonne Gap should still be acknowledged and measures to bridge this gap addressed within the text.
Meanwhile, developing countries must define their nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) that contribute to sustainable development, with technical support provided to help design and implement them.
Each country must agree to develop a low carbon climate-resilient development strategy – in the case of developed countries, a zero carbon approach, and in the case of developing countries, contingent on support with NAMAs providing the building blocks. These should be long term strategic plans to decarbonize a country’s economy by 2050.
Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and international consultation and Analysis (ICA) must be developed in a way that adheres to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, whilst ensuring environmental integrity. Agreeing MRV rules for developed countries under the Convention that are comparable to the Kyoto Protocol must be as important as ICA for developing countries.
Meaningful progress on all of these issues is eminently within reach in Cancun. A strong mitigation text is necessary as a first step to ensure progress on all other fronts. Let’s ensure this balanced package leads to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding deal in Durban next year.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Tag: GTG

Pages