Tag: Forests-Sinks

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.

ECO has noticed that there’s a lot of talk in the UNFCCC meetings about what countries will promise, pledge, commit to, and otherwise say that they’re really, really going to do.
Much less frequently do we hear that countries are actually achieving emissions reductions. That adds to the pleasure of seeing the announcement yesterday that Brazil’s deforestation rate has fallen to another record low level. The reduction in Amazon deforestation, from over 27,000 km2 in 2004 to below 6,500 km2 this year, is in fact the largest reduction in emissions made by any country anywhere on the planet. And so Brazil, a tropical developing country, has already done what the biggest industrial powers in the world have simply promised to as long as a decade from now.
According to calculations by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Brazil’s reduction deforestation emissions in the past five years, from the 1996-2005 average that serves as its baseline, amounts to 870 million tonnes of CO2 annually. How big is that? Well, the EU’s pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 corresponds to just below 850 million tonnes, and the US pledge of a 17% reduction (below 2005, not 1990) is about 1,200 million tonnes.
Brazil originally set a goal of reducing deforestation 80% by 2020.  But since it has already achieved 67%, outgoing President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva recently moved that date up to 2016.
Brazilian NGOs have shown that their country can and should  do better than that. A broad coalition of civil society groups is pushing for a reduction to zero and by 2015. The new data prove that this goal is clearly feasible. The incoming administration of President-elect Dilma Rousseff should adopt it so as to continue Brazil’s global leadership on climate.
The struggle to eliminate deforestation has not been easy, and by no means is it over. In fact, there’s now a backlash led by agricultural interests in the Brazilian Congress against the Forest Code, whose enforcement has been an important tool to reduce deforestation.
A recent study by the Observatorio do Clima coalition has shown how the proposed amendments to the Forest Code would create loopholes that could increase emissions very substantially. If they are not rejected, the Brazilian government’s climate leadership will be called into question.
Brazil’s progress, not only because of government policies but also strong and continuing pressure from Brazilian civil society, emphasizes the need to adopt a strong REDD+ decision as part of a balanced package here in Cancun. But more than that, it demonstrates the importance of countries taking action now, rather than using the inaction of neighbors as an excuse. It’s time for the Annex 1 countries to go beyond promises and start acting to reduce emissions dramatically and rapidly, they sure can too.
Bem feita, Brasil!