Tag: Tianjin

Denmark Lays the ZCAP Groundwork

Copenhagen brings back many memories. Long, freezing queues outside the Bella Centre, a COP president oblivious to basic UN procedures, and most importantly, no FAB (fair, ambitious, binding) deal.

Who would think that Denmark, less than a year later, would be the place making
ambitious progress in the fight against climate change!

Only a fool would hesitate to invest today in a rapid and complete transition to a fossil fuel free economy. This was pretty much the message from the Danish Climate Commission to the government when asked about the possibilities of phasing out fossil fuels in Denmark by 2050.

The commission’s report concluded that the long term additional costs of becoming fossil fuel independent would be ‘in the order of 0.5% of Denmark’s GDP in 2050’.  However, they went on, the conversion must start now in order to ensure cost efficiency.

The commission adopted 40 concrete recommendations, including expansion of offshore wind capacity by 200 MW annually on average in 2015-2025.  Neither CCS nor nuclear power is included in the vision, primarily because both were deemed to be cost-prohibitive.

So far, the Prime Minister’s response is that Denmark should increase the use of wind power, biomass and electric vehicles, although a concrete follow-up plan -- a Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP) -- has yet to be presented.  But further, the Prime Minister now also supports the demand to raise the level of ambition in the EU, moving from a 20% to a 30% reduction target on 1990 levels by 2020.

The Danish opposition and NGOs are now pushing for the government to produce an ambitious and concrete ZCAP as a response to the recommendations from the commission. Whether that will be delivered is yet to be seen, but chances are that the Danish government is waking up and discovering that the race to the green future has already begun.

Topics: 
Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Turning Opportunities Into Problems

The REDD+ Partnership has spent hours and days agonising on whether and how to involve stakeholders in the decision on how they should participate in the Partnership’s deliberations. This has proved far more controversial than one would expect in a voluntary partnership.

Originally an item to be discussed and resolved last Saturday and Sunday in meetings prior to the current UNFCCC session, under the inept chairing of Papua New Guinea and Japan this issue was held over to Monday and yet again to Tuesday.

Then, despite the fact that almost every partner in the room wanted to resolve the stakeholder participation question first, the co-chairs fell back on the excuse that the Partnership must operate by consensus, side-stepped the issue and pressed forward to other matters.

ECO has been observing this unfolding drama with fascination and growing alarm, and has a simple point to make.  Consensus is not the same as unanimity.  It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree fully with everything; it means reaching a decision that everyone can live with. Under that definition there was a working consensus in the room, as indicated in statements by well more than a dozen partners, all voicing similar opinions on moving the agenda.

Many in civil society use the principle of consensus all the time and know how to do this stuff, just as with participation and consultation and representation and empowerment and capacity building and a whole host of other things that REDD needs. To which is added substantive expertise from decades of experience working on forest and land use issues. 

Civil society can be, and wants to be, an asset in the REDD+ Partnership process. Why are the co-chairs treating that as a problem not an opportunity?

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Building Blocks for a Cancún Package: Presentation by CAN International

Media Advisory
October 6, 2010
Building Blocks for a Cancún Package
Presentation by CAN International
 
[Tianjin, China] CAN International will propose and detail a package of achievable
and fair decisions for countries to adopt at the upcoming UNFCCC talks in Cancún,
Mexico, on Wednesday, October 6, 18:00 – 19:30, in room Yinchuan, Meijing
Conference Centre, Tianjin, China.
 
Parties to the talks currently underway in Tianjin, China, are increasingly calling
for adoption of a “balanced package” in Cancún.  The Building Blocks proposal
by CAN International details the components that could plug into such a feasible
yet fair package, one that would provide the foundation for final deal a year later
in South Africa.  The Cancún Building Blocks proposal also provides a yardstick
for measuring the fairness and environmental integrity of any deal reached in
Cancún.
 
The presentation will include formal response by respondents from several
country delegations.
 
CAN panel:
 
• David Turnbull, CAN-International
 
• Wendel Trio, Greenpeace International
 
• Sandra Guzman, Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA)
 
• Raju Pandit Chhetri, United Mission to Nepal (UMN)
 
• Niranjali Amerasinghe, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)  
 
What: Presentation of a fair, balanced and achievable package for Cancún  
 
Where: Room Yinchuan, Meijing Conference Centre, Tianjin
 
When: 18:00 – 19:30, Wednesday, Oct. 6
 
Who: CAN International representatives and respondents from country delegations
 
Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 500 non-governmental
organizations working to limit climate change to sustainable levels.  For more
information go to: www.climatenetwork.org.
 
Contact:  Hunter Cutting: +1 415-420-7498
 
      ###
 

Another Look at Closing the Gigatonne Gap

 

In narrowing the negotiating text here in Tianjin, delegates should focus on a shared vision of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5° C and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide of no more than 350 ppm. 

Anything above these levels would result in a host of severe impacts, including the inundation of low-lying island nations, the complete loss of coral reefs and summer Arctic sea ice, as well as the potential triggering of irreversible feedbacks adding massively to climate disruption. 

For this reason, more than 110 countries support reducing carbon dioxide to 350 ppm.  A shared vision that accomplishes anything less would surely consign future generations to ecological and economic
catastrophe. 

As indicated by several scientific assessments, emission reduction pledges made at Copenhagen fall far short of the action needed to limit temperature rise to 2° C, much less to 1.5° C/350 ppm.  Even viewed in the most optimistic light, the Copenhagen Accord would increase global temperatures by more than 3° C and push carbon dioxide levels past 650 ppm, a recipe for disaster. 

To provide a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to an average of 2º C above pre-industrial levels, emissions by 2020 should be no more than 44 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2e globally.  For the safer 1.5º C/350 ppm target, global emissions would need to be no greater than 40 Gt. 

The Copenhagen Accord pledges, on the other hand, would end up at 48 to 55 Gt in 2020, so there is your ‘gigatonne gap’.  And it’s not a pretty sight.  Parties must formally acknowledge this gap in Cancun and adopt a firm process to close it.  The laws of physics and chemistry will not bend to fit political convenience.

There are many potential measures to close the gigatonne gap, including increased emission reduction commitments by developed countries, dealing with excessive use of AAUs, capping emissions from bunkers, closing loopholes in greenhouse gas accounting, and additional financing to facilitate greater emissions reductions from
developing countries. 

Because there is a shrinking window of time to address the climate crisis, expressly acknowledging the need to close the gigatonne gap is critical, and bold action will be needed to meaningfully address the climate crisis. There is no more time to lose.

Related Newsletter : 

Walking the KP Talk

 

ECO often chastises parties for too much talk and not enough action. However, yesterday’s vexed AWG-KP contact group on legal matters showed that sometimes refusing to talk blocks forward progress. If we are ever going to secure a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding targets and timetables within reach – countries will need to talk about the legal steps to get there.

Therefore, we just don’t understand the refusal of the African Group, Bolivia, Brazil, China, India and Saudi Arabia to discuss legal matters in the KP (well, we do understand the Saudis and we simply don’t agree). Such inflexibility makes a second KP commitment period that much harder to secure.  

ECO has heard many developing countries say they don’t want to kill the KP, and we surely want it to live too.  In fact, lessons from the first commitment period ought to be reflected in amendments that make it even stronger.  Inserting numbers in an Annex is crucial, but should not be the totality of the discussion.  Let the legal talks and ambitious emission cuts begin!

Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Tianjin