Submitted by dturnbull on
Chris Henschel of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society explains LULUCF (Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry) and the good news and bad news of LULUCF for developing countries.
(from OneWorld TV)
Submitted by Anonymous on
Next Thursday, European environment ministers will discuss whether the EU should upgrade its 2020 target to 30% unilaterally. ECO says yes! And while you are at it, make sure to meet it domestically, so that any offsetting comes on top of 30%.
While several environment ministers have already indicated their support, others are holding back. But let’s face it, almost everybody expects the EU is going to move to 30% anyway. The more time they waste discussing the matter, the more time they lose reaping the economic advantages.
For two years now, the EU has not budged from its conditional pledge to increase to 30% if comparable efforts are made by other major economies. But this position has diminishing relevance.
Several studies, including from the European Commission, clearly show that EU has good reason to increase ambition right now. The most obvious is that they have
already nearly reached the 20% target, a full 10 years before 2020!
According to the European Environment Agency, the EU’s 2009 emissions stood at approximately 17.3% below 1990 levels. Although the economic crisis is part of the reason, there is no doubt that most of the effort has already happened.
Second, consider the low-carbon race. China became the biggest wind market in the world last year. If EU leaders want their green industry to remain at the forefront, they need to give their economies clear direction.
Third, a more ambitious emissions target would generate billions of euros of additional income for governments, as the majority of industries will have to buy emissions permits under the emissions trading scheme. Funneling this money to climate measures will accelerate EU’s low-carbon development and trigger much needed long-term financing for developing countries. And independent research shows that more ambitious climate policies won’t result in mass relocation of industries outside of the EU.
With smart policies, increasing the EU’s target will be cost neutral and reduce its foreign fuel dependence, cut energy bills in the longer run and reduce public health costs. So, all in all, the perfect moment for going to 30% is now!
Submitted by Anonymous on
In this issue
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO is in shock! Are we really witnessing a race to the top for the transparency of fast start finance?
After months of pestering developed countries about fast-start disclosure, the United States – a country not known for its climate leadership – says it will disclose so much information that the Dutch fast start finance website will put up ‘under construction’ signs.
Todd Stern stated at the finance meeting in Geneva that the US would undertake a ‘very detailed document’, much to the shock (and possibly horror) of its Umbrella Group colleagues.
ECO understands the US will proudly announce that much of its fast-start finance is ‘new and additional’. That’s easy to do when your previous climate finance contributions are close to zero. On the other hand, this doesn’t help the comparison of additionality of different rich country contributions. Only a fair common baseline across all contributing countries will allow that. What’s actually additional gets even more complicated because the US seems ready to double-count funds for its G8 Food Security commitment towards its fast start package.
If the EU wants to call itself a climate finance leader, a common baseline to measure ‘new and additional’ is a real test of its conviction, and would pressure other rich countries to follow suit. That’s the race to the top these talks actually need. ECO would like to remind parties that disclosure and transparency is the first step towards creating accountability and confidence.
Whilst the EU worries about being put in the shade by the US report, they have an opportunity to reclaim their leadership on climate finance by agreeing internally a fair and common baseline for additionality and proposing it for adoption by all parties in Cancun. ECO understands the EU has considered a common baseline proposal to be included in the EU Fast Start Finance report which could nudge the US to the same starting position. We’ll know when that report is finalised by mid-November.
Finally, developed countries have no leg to stand on regarding MRV of actions if they cannot be transparent in their support. We will know more in Cancun about US and EU commitment to transparency of both sources and uses of their fast start
finance, and that will be the time to check in on whether the Brollies have taken heed as well. So stay tuned to your fast start finance channel right here in ECO!
Submitted by Anonymous on
Remember the days when the EU had a clear impact on international climate negotiations? It had focused, ambitious positions, communicated well in advance before coming to the UNFCCC talks, and it was convinced of the benefits a low-carbon economy would bring to its citizens. Those were the times when the EU could act as a strong and reliable partner for any progressive coalition of Parties.
Today the EU environment ministers gather in Luxembourg to discuss ways in which the EU can take the UNFCCC talks forward. As always ECO has plenty of good ideas, and is not shy in sharing them. So, European Union, here’s what you need to do now. For starters, the EU should upgrade its reduction target well before Cancún to at least a unilateral 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 well in time before Cancún. Really, no one was impressed last year by the EU’s leverage game with the conditional pledge, which only resulted in a series of ridiculous conditional pledges from other Annex I countries.
The recent EC Communication previously highlighted in ECO shows very clearly that a 30% target is easy to achieve and is in Europe’s own economic interests, regardless of what others do. Secondly, finding friends is vital. Looking critically at the current political environment and the domestic situation in the US, the best way forward to get a comprehensive legally binding outcome – sooner rather than later – will be for the EU to seek a joint understanding with climate leaders among the developing countries. Importantly, the EU needs to clarify its continued commitment to the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. Thirdly, the vital ingredient needed for effective progress in Cancún is clarity on financing.
To begin with, the EU would be well advised to deliver on previously made promises, such as offering full transparency of new and additional fast start finance, including member state reporting. Securing adequate and predictable funding for developing countries will enable further negotiations on three important building blocks of technology, adaptation and REDD that can – with the money available – be finalised in Cancún. The EU’s impact has been clearly evident in progressing discussions on this matter in the past. An immediate priority must be exploring the options for sources of public finance, with a view to making choices by Cancún.
In the EU, revenues from EU ETS would easily provide an important source of additional and predictable funding. Last but not least, internal divisions on hot air and LULUCF accounting rules need to be addressed in support of environmentally sound international rules under the UNFCCC.
Submitted by Anonymous on
At their side event yesterday, the EU presented a preliminary report on meeting its Copenhagen fast start finance pledge. The European Commission and seven Member States announced, in response to a question, the following definitions of how their pledge is 'new and additional': * European Commission: Money that was part of the EU budget margin, so not originally programmed 2010-2012. * Finland: A net increase in funding for climate change projects, part of increasing ODA appropriations. * UK: Part of a rising ODA budget. * Germany: Money that comes from new and innovative sources (such as EU ETS auction revenues) and money that is additional to a 2009 baseline. * France: Ongoing climate change activities are not counted as fast start, only new activities are counted. * Sweden: From the budget over and above 0.7% GNI provided as ODA. * Netherlands: 0.1% above 0.7% GNI provided as ODA. * Spain: 'Fresh' money. ECO wasn't satisfied with the answers, since climate finance should be new and additional to the targets developed countries have set to increase ODA to at least 0.7% GNI, so that the development gains of recent years are not reversed. Al the same, this is a welcome first step towards the transparency civil society and delegates need to hold them to account for their promises. ECO calls on the other 20 EU Member States as well as all other developed country Parties to come clean about the baselines for additionality that they are using. Only then can the debate about defining a fair common baseline for additionality really begin. Nobody would trust pledged cuts in emissions without a standard baseline. It's time for these Parties to recognise that the same is true of finance commitments.
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO is eagerly awaiting today’s side event at which the EU will present its preliminary report on its fast start finance pledge. Not because the report itself will bring any new information to light -- it was leaked to the press weeks ago -- but to see EU negotiators try to answer the question on the lips of NGOs and developing country negotiators everywhere . . . how exactly is EU fast start finance 'new and additional'? Other developed countries might like to attend and pick up some tips. The EU had the right idea in suggesting a report on whether they were keeping their promises. This might help make up for the fact that most EU Member States have done a pretty good job over the years at breaking long-standing promises to provide finance to poor countries, whether as aid or climate finance under the UNFCCC. The Spanish Presidency started well, collecting information on Member State pledges, but then a problem arose. The EU's commitment first made in Brussels at the December leaders’ summit did not address whether the promises they were making were “new and additional” as required by the Copenhagen Accord. It is clear that this means over and above the target to provide at least 0.7% gross national income (GNI) in official development assistance (ODA). Climate change imposes new costs on developing countries, so new money is needed to tackle it. Instead of owning up to relabeling old some ODA pledges and then adding them to the new fast-start climate finance total, EU governments thought it best to keep quiet and hope no one noticed . . . but some did. Failing to ensure that climate finance is new and additional to existing ODA targets takes money that would otherwise have been available for spending on schools and hospitals in developing countries, to name one example. And that at a time when budgets for essential services are already being cut in the face of economic downturn. And we won't mention more than just this once that most countries aren't even achieving their longstanding ODA pledges. All that said, ECO welcomes the EU’s readiness to face the music in today’s side event. We hope they come clean about recycling past promises and are ready to answer questions on the scale of money going to different countries, and will detail how it will flow through bilateral and multilateral channels, as grants and loans, and for adaptation and mitigation. This is just a preliminary report, and the EU will have another chance to get it right in the annual report due at COP 16. But to provide genuine transparency, and to ensure that the US and other rich countries are held accountable too, they should seek a common reporting framework. The Secretariat could be asked to take that on and add meat to the EU’s bare bones.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by dturnbull on
Submitted by Anonymous on
In a number of countries around the world, there are "12 step" programmes to help people deal with addiction. This started with Alcoholics Anonymous in the 1930s and spread to many other self-help organizations.
Today, 12 step programmes are mostly in English speaking countries, and it so happens that many of them like Canada, Australia, the US and New Zealand are particularly tied to their emissions and might appreciate some help. The basic concept of 12-step programs starts from the reality that simply renouncing addiction is not enough; admitting the problem and asking for help from others is needed to make positive steps in the right direction.
So if you're struggling with the carbon habit, ECO has drafted a programme of our own. If you like, call it Carbon Anonymous. In line with the traditional formula, it comes as 12 declarative statements:
“1. We admit that our economies are controlled by our carbon addiction and have become unmanageable.
“2. We have come to believe that clean development could restore us to sanity.
“3. We will make a decision to turn our will and our lives toward caring for the planet and humanity.
“4. We will make a searching and fearless inventory of our nation’s emissions and their impact on humanity and the planet’s ecosystems.
“5. We will admit to ourselves and to other nations the exact nature of our divergence.
“6. We will be entirely ready to ask for assistance to remove all these defects of policy.
“7. We will humbly ask the world to facilitate the removal of our shortcomings.
“8. We will make a list of all persons, nations and species we have harmed by our emissions, and be willing to make amends to them all.
“9. We will make direct amends to such people, nations and species wherever possible.
“10. We will continue to make accurate national inventories and report them.
“11. We will seek through negotiation to improve the scale of our emission reductions, praying only for the political will to carry them out.
“12. Having then gained an economic awakening as a result of these steps, we will carry the message of clean development to all other nations on the planet, and practice these principles in all our affairs.”
Will the Carbon Anonyous 12-step programme really work? ECO doesn't know for sure, but we have to try everything we can to get our most carbon addicted economies onto a better track, for their own sake and for the planet.
