ECO couldn’t be more pleased that, following Wednesday’s ‘Fossil of the Day’ award for IMO and ICAO, language on shipping and aviation emissions made it to Friday’s draft. But really, why hasn’t someone killed off that Kyoto-era reference to ‘limitation or reduction’ of their emissions? The term ‘limitation’ allows for continued emissions growth, rather than the absolute cuts needed to stay within the remaining global carbon budget.
Emission reductions are needed from both these sectors, whose emissions fall outside of INDCs, if the long term goal of the agreement is to be achieved. And we know that there are many ways to reduce their emissions without harming trade.
At present, ICAO may only address post-2020 emissions, and IMO won’t even set a target! ‘Limitation’ will give ICAO and IMO a green-light for business-as-usual.
So, negotiators–just whip out that Kyoto-era ‘limitation’ language, replace it with a clear call for IMO and ICAO to make a fair contribution to reducing emissions in line with keeping the temperature increase under 1.5°C, and request them to be part of the Article 10 global stocktake.
You’ve heard about the Fossil: even with HUGE emissions, ICAO and IMO’s contribution to COP21 are all recycled promises, delivered to the SBSTA.
The agreement must send ICAO and IMO a clear signal–they have to do their fair share to help us stay below the 1.5 or 2°C limit. They must increase their ambition, and deliver targets and measures that reduce emissions.
ICAO has launched a process to agree on a global market-based mechanism by next year. ECO will be watching to see if they get the job done, and include a mechanism to increase their ambition over time. It’s time for you to deliver. You’re the elephants in the room of these climate negotiations, and it’s time for your special status to end.
Not a Party, but two international organisations received the First Place Fossil today: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
Put your tray tables up and close the port holes–IMO and ICAO have the same emissions as Japan and Germany combined! These emissions are currently exempt from inclusion in the Paris agreement and IMO and ICAO are doing their worst here to keep it that way. Yet without action, emissions from bunkers will grow 270% by 2050–sinking any chance of limiting temperature rise to safer levels.
International shipping and aircraft enjoy tax free fuel to the tune of over 60 billion bucks, yet don’t want to contribute to climate finance. No wonder the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands called the IMO Secretary General ‘a danger to the planet’.
Coming in hot with today’s Second Place Fossil of the Day award is Turkey. While other developing nations like Mexico, the Philippines and the 43 members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum are bringing lots of positive leadership to the table, Turkey is making a goose of itself.
It’s pretty clear Turkey’s role at these discussions is aimed at extracting as much climate finance as possible. However, its INDC suggests that Turkey’s contribution is a 100% increase in greenhouse gas emissions (on 2013 levels)! You could call that money for nothing.
Thank you Mr./Madam Co-Chair,
I am Harshita Bisht, speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
While a credible response to the climate crisis requires every sector to contribute, international transport emissions have more than doubled since Kyoto.
The Paris Agreement should urge IMO and ICAO to set strong interim targets to help meet the 1.5°C goal. These bodies must adopt strict criteria for alternative fuels; work on adaptation finance; and include their progress on carbon pricing and CO2 standards in COP reporting.
To achieve the 1.5-degree target, all emissions reductions must moreover adhere to key social and environmental principles.
SBSTA’s work on agriculture will remain hot air unless Parties evaluate methodologies to ensure tangible results.
These should include safeguards to protect and promote gender equality, food security, biodiversity, equitable access to resources, the right to food, animal welfare, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local populations; as well as poverty reduction and adaptation.
Similarly, if recognizing transfer of international units, the Paris Agreement must require that emission reductions are real, additional, verifiable, supplemental and permanent; avoid double counting; ensure net atmospheric benefits and contribute to sustainable development.
A credible agreement will also require Kyoto Protocol credits to be canceled, or not recognized for compliance post 2020.
ECO is heartened to see that language on emissions from ships and planes is back in the negotiating text. If these sectors are left out of the Paris agreement, they have emissions that are not only large enough but, also growing fast enough to undermine global efforts to stay below 1.5°C.
In the words of one developing country active on the issue, these emissions have the potential to create major loopholes in the global emissions limitations and environmental integrity. Under a 1.5°C scenario they could count for up to 42% of allowable emissions.
Left to their own devices, the UN bodies regulating these sectors, the IMO and ICAO, show little willingness to seriously tackle GHG emissions. The IMO refuses to even think of a cap and ICAO is happy with the idea of offsetting emission increases after 2020. Both industries show little concern for the climate needs of the developing world.
The Paris agreement needs to address this issue explicitly and send a clear message to IMO and ICAO: now is the time to start reducing your sectoral emissions.