CAN Intervention - SBSTA Opening Plenary - COP16 - 30 Nov, 2010
Submitted by Anonymous on
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Tag: COP 16 / MOP 6
CAN Submission - CCS in the CDM - Feb 2011
Submitted by Anonymous on
In CAN’s view, discussions about the future of the flexible mechanisms including the consideration of new project activities should be firmly grounded in an analysis of their performance so far. So far, the CDM has failed to meet its dual objectives of supporting cost-effective climate change mitigation and sustainable development in developing countries. Yet, even when accepting some of the well-known shortcomings of project-based CDM mechanisms, CCS is highly likely to fail most of the requirements in this specific offset framework. Therefore despite the abovementioned CMP decision, CAN does not believe including CCS in CDM is an appropriate way forward. Therefore this submission sets out reasons for CAN´s opposition to the inclusion of CCS in CDM and subsequently addresses the different issues referred in paragraph 3 of the CMP Decision It should be noted, however, that this submission does not refer to use of various CCS technologies outside the CDM and for general mitigation purposes both in developed and developing nations.
Tags:
Topics:
Organization:
How to Avoid a 'COP-Flop' in Cancún
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO salutes Tuvalu for exposing the weak ambition of the Umbrella Group in the LCA on Tuesday, warning that there was a risk of Cancún turning into another 'COP flop'. This was a timely reminder that developed countries need to step up and show leadership by taking on strong commitments. The Umbrella Group need to do much better than merely offering a list of areas for progress at Cancún that somehow leaves aside developed country targets. Even if they get their ‘comprehensive deal’ and remove all conditions, the targets offered at the present time, other than Norway and Japan, are woefully lacking in ambition. As is often the case, ECO wonders whether the Umbrella Group is at a different negotiation from the rest of us. At the KP they announced they were pleased with progress. Does this mean they’re on the verge of signing up to those very overdue KP second commitment period obligations? Finally, before the EU gets too self-assured, ECO would like to remind their negotiators that with the recession, the cost of achieving a 30% target is about the same as previously expected for a 20% target. In fact, the EU has already achieved emissions in 2009 that were 14% less than 1990 levels. It would be a great signal of EU leadership to adopt a unilateral 30% target as a bridge-building initiative.
Related Event:
