Submitted by MBrockley on
ECO notices that Costa Rica is missing a delegate. Missing in action? Could it be related to her opposition to a Chinese loan for a new oil refinery in a country which pledged carbon neutrality by 2021?
Submitted by MBrockley on
Developing countries are rightly demanding more action as we work towards an ambitious deal in 2015. And in the spirit of an international agreement applicable to all, many developing countries are taking more actions domestically.
ECO commends developing countries, including Costa Rica, for committing to serious mitigation efforts. Indeed, Costa Rica pledged to be Carbon Neutral by 2021. “Wow!” ECO said at the time, “that is a tremendously ambitious target.” What a great example this country is setting. But a few years down the road, we find out that Costa Rica was attracted by some juicy gifts from the Chinese government and now is ready to receive a loan for building an oil refinery!
ECO wonders how an oil refinery fits in a carbon neutral scheme. How would Costa Rica balance these emissions? Carbon capture and storage is not looking like an option.
You are 8 years away from celebrating 200 years of independence, and the deadline that you chose yourself, voluntarily, to celebrate the start of oil independence. As you see, ECO is watching, and will keep checking on your commitments.
Submitted by Secretariat on
CAN strongly welcomes the initiative to discuss reducing emissions from deforestation as proposed by Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Costa Rica and discussed at CoP-11 in Montreal. Tropical deforestation is responsible for 20 to 25 per cent of present carbon dioxide emissions and has huge negative impacts on biodiversity, local communities and indigenous peoples, sustainable long-term economic growth, air quality and other environmental and socio-economic goods and services.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Upon arriving in Copenhagen, US Special Envoy on Climate Todd Stern said: “Emissions are emissions. You’ve just got to do the math. If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass.”
ECO does care about the science and we have done the math. Stern and other developed countries may be interested in the conclusions.
IPCC AR4 highlighted the need for 25-40% cuts on 1990 levels by 2020 for developed countries and substantial deviation from business-as-usual (BAU) for developing countries by 2020. Subsequent peer reviewed science identified this substantial deviation as being in the range of a 15-30% deviation from BAU (subsequently adopted as the de facto yardstick by EU and others). As the IPCC has also pointed out, these mitigation targets give the world a 50-50 chance of averting a rise above 2˚C. More importantly, the disparity between woeful developed country ambition and the levels of actions proposed by developing countries are fairly stark.
According to recent estimates of Project Catalyst, an initiative of Climate Works, it is developing countries that are within their proposed emissions reductions range, and towards the upper end of it.
Using the high range figures for proposed mitigation actions and plans, Project Catalyst estimates that every developing country stating a target fell within the 15-30% range. And two exceed it – Brazil with 39% deviation from BAU and Indonesia with 41%.
The Maldives and Costa Rica have proposed going carbon neutral by 2020, humbling even the most ambitious Annex I ambitions.
South Africa has just announced it will undertake mitigation actions which diminish emissions below baseline by around 34% by 2020 and by around 42% by 2025. Like other developing country pledges this will depend on international finance. This means South Africa’s emissions would peak between 2020 and 2025, plateau for around a decade and then decline in absolute terms.
South Korea has a target of 30% reductions from BAU, and has committed almost US$100 million in environmental industries as part of its economic recovery package.
Of course, ECO acknowledges that there are genuine challenges with defining BAU. China and India’s intensity targets also are more difficult to quantify because they also rely on accurate projections of economic growth. It is also crucial to note that from developed country finance is a fundamental prerequisite for many of these mitigation efforts by these countries which struggle with poverty and still need resources for human development.
But, returning to Stern’s comments, let us take a look at how developed countries’ pledges measure up to what the science requires. Recall that developed countries need to make cuts of up to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Even on the lesser goalpost of 25-40% ranges the figures are seriously underwhelming. Of course, there are some climate leaders – notably Norway and Scotland with targets of 40% or above.
Calculations carried out by Ecofys and Climate Analytics show that developed country emissions reductions as an aggregate are projected to be only 8-12% below 1990 levels by 2020 after accounting for forestry credits. Other calculations taking full account of the various loopholes available to developed countries arrive only at a dismal -2% to +4% change in emissions on 1990 levels.
And Project Catalyst’s analysis of key developed countries puts only the EU’s high-end pledge into the -25-40% range. Japan, the US, Russia and Australia all fall short, with Canada potentially heading for increased emissions. At the lower end of the pledges by countries analysed not a single one made the grade.
When you do the math, it seems that developed countries are the ones getting the free pass.
