Tag: IPCC

Government Action: All that's missing as new report confirms climate crisis

Submitted by rvoorhaar on October 4, 2013 - 5:20am

Governments have been handed a firm mandate to act decisively on the climate crisis by a new report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to 850 NGOs organized in the Climate Action Network.

The first installment of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report - which has been signed off by almost 200 nations after its summary was negotiated line by line in Stockholm this week - said it was more certain than ever before that human activities were responsible for climate change.

And for the first time, the IPCC gives a global budget for the total amount of carbon pollution that cannot be exceeded if we are to meet the international goal of preventing devastating levels of global warming that will occur beyond 2C.

That figure is 1 trillion tonnes. But Wael Hmaidan, director of Climate Action Network International, warned that we’ve already burnt through half of this, and at the current rate, we will have exhausted the entire budget within 30 years.

With climate impacts continuing to mount in the real world, Hmaidan said reducing carbon pollution levels quickly and dramatically was vital to stay within that threshold.

“The report confirms that the planet is heating up, sea level rise is accelerating, the rate of Arctic sea ice retreat has doubled, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets is happening faster, and the oceans are acidifying,” Hmaidan said.

One of the most significant steps forward in the IPCC’s first assessment report in five years is the amount of new information about how climate change will impact regions around the world.

“This report shows that the science on climate change is clear. The debate about who is responsible is over. People rightly demand that governments tackle the climate risk posed to our communities and economies,” Hmaidan said.

Governments should use the report as the backbone of a climate plan to dramatically reduce emissions, and flick the switch to renewable energy, thereby securing a safer, fairer and happier future for the world.

Representatives of the world’s governments will be in Warsaw in November for the major climate negotiations of the year. They should ensure this report is in their luggage and informs their negotiating positions.

The report will be integral to countries who have been asked by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to bring “strong pledges” to a summit on climate action next September - ahead of the 2015 conference in France which is tasked with agreeing a global climate action plan.

Contacts:

Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 850 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.

In Stockholm, please contact CAN International Communications Coordinator Ria Voorhaar, email: rvoorhaar@climatenetwork.org, +49 157 317 355 68.

Tags:

Stop Your Finger Pointing

Submitted by MBrockley on June 14, 2013 - 1:35am

Delegates: whilst you sat around the Maritim fountain enjoying the balmy weather, Germany suffered historic flooding. It’s a pity the flooding was the physical variety, and not a flood of ambition washing over these negotiations.

The SBI drowning in Russian bile was the disappointing low point of the last fortnight. Really? In two weeks you can’t agree on an agenda?! And you wonder why the public thinks you might be wasting their precious tax dollars. Perhaps Russia might like to pick up the bill for these last weeks, not to mention the bill for the extra climate impacts caused by this stalling.

While we’re on the subject of bills, let’s reflect on how much lower the climate damage bill will be if you raise your ambition (you might recall this is the objective of Workstream 2 – where we’ve yet to see an over abundance of concrete outcomes). The science is clear: the less you mitigate, the more you will pay to adapt – and to deal with ever more frequent climate related disasters.

But, happily, Warsaw offers you the opportunity to address this dearth of ambition, thus plugging a hole in the leaky climate boat.

ECO recommends two Ministerials at Warsaw. First - the Ambition Ministerial. Let your Ministers know that we are actually expecting them to work hard to close the yawning ambition gap whilst at Warsaw, not just tour the many mermaid statues. Workstream 2 needs to see concrete decisions on ways to accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, as well as a clearly marked out timeframe for increasing developed country targets, and enhancing developing country action in 2014.

ECO was VERY pleased to hear of the Polish Government’s plans to engage Finance Ministers at Warsaw and the enthusiastic welcoming of this by many countries. Engaging Finance Ministers early and often will be important. We would encourage Finance Ministers to come to Warsaw ready to put $$$ on the table. A roadmap to scale finance ambition up to the US$100bn by 2020 will be an essential outcome at Warsaw.

The other essential roadmap to agree at Warsaw is a decision laying out the structure and timeline for further negotiations on the 2015 agreement. Yes, you made some progress here in the roundtable format. But as you agree yourselves, we need a more concrete and less watery path – starting in Warsaw. You might want to focus on this, amongst other things, in your September submissions.

To achieve the comprehensive, global plan we all need in 2015, let's seriously start down the path to agreeing to negotiating text by the end of 2014.

Between now and Warsaw we’ll have our first cool refreshing drink of impending doom from IPCC working group 1. Could the AR5 report on the physical science (spoiler: we're all in deep trouble as things currently stand) finally give you the momentum to agree at Warsaw a process to develop an Equity Reference Framework and to develop and put forward your country specific commitments during 2014 (allowing sufficient time to assess them against science and agreed equity indicators)?

We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of Copenhagen, which we approached without any shared understanding of what was a fair share of effort and how we would capture it.

We also need progress in Warsaw on development of common accounting standards for both mitigation and finance.

So for now, sit back, relax, enjoy that final Weizenbier before you head home, content in the knowledge that you will be busy, very busy – filing submissions and getting ready to “move to a more focused mode of work at Warsaw” – which needs to not be a "transition COP" but a real step forward on both short term and long term solutions for the climate problem.

Tags:

Topics:

MBrockley's blog

Fresh Breeze of Science – Bring It On!

Submitted by MBrockley on June 6, 2013 - 1:46am

The shiny walls of the Maritim have a history of isolating negotiators from the troubles of the real world. While record floods have been devastating parts of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic, forcing thousands to leave their homes, business as usual has continued undisturbed in this calm and cosy UNFCCC bubble.

But yesterday ECO caught the scent of a fresh breeze of science and reality! It was when the 2013-2015 science and adequacy review kick-started with a reality check workshop. While scientists were at the podium, civil society was on the microphone and on the wall through Twitter. Thumbs up for the Secretariat and the Chair!

Here’s the good news: According to the Hadley Centre, meeting a 1.5 degree C limit is still possible. Sure, there is a low probability, OR it could be a rebound after a temperature overshoot of at least several decades. But despite these caveats, it’s still possible.

The bad “news” is that reality is closer to worst-case scenario put forward by the IPCC in 1990, which is why this adequacy review is crucial.

ECO recognizes there is a risk Parties will end up reviewing everything from the first UNFCCC document they ever read to the adequacy of the Maritim sandwiches (not adequate). This will only result in a bloated reiteration of what we already know, without clear conclusions, recommendations and decisions.

ECO expects the review to, firstly, assess the scale and nature of irreversible damage, human misery, ecosystem losses and risks related to tipping points that could be avoided if warming were limited to 1.5 degrees instead of 2. The structure of the review – including its process and the inputs it receives - must serve this key question, with special focus on the most vulnerable.

Secondly, yesterday Parties were warned about the fundamental importance of early peaking of global emissions if we want to achieve any tolerable temperature limit. This core consideration should guide the adequacy review.

Thirdly, the review should help put us on track in preventing climate chaos. It is not just another technical exercise. This is our opportunity to learn from past mistakes in order to set meaningful targets and deliver on commitments. The review must focus, from the beginning, on drawing actionable conclusions from the plethora of assessments that already exist.

The long-term goal, targets and commitments in the 2015 agreement must be based on the review findings. But the review must also guide enhanced short-term action (think ADP Workstream 2), with decisions to be taken in 2013 and 2014. The iterative nature of the review and the workplans of both the Joint Contact Group and Expert Dialogue should allow for this.

Finally, ECO was glad to observe that both presenters and Parties recognised that assessing the adequacy of a temperature goal or countries’ action is not only a scientific exercise. Eventually, guided by science, value judgements will have to be made. So close involvement of civil society should be obvious. In reviewing how governments are doing in meeting their goals, non-governmental organisations are essential to transparency and accountability. In making a value judgement of adequacy, involving civil society, and in particular the voices of those most impacted, is fundamental. ECO is looking forward to the first meeting of the Joint Contact Group, scheduled for Friday morning.

Tags:

Topics:

MBrockley's blog

CAN Intervention in the SB38/ADP2-2 Bonn Intersessional: Review Workshop, 5 June

Submitted by Sam Harris on June 5, 2013 - 6:47am

can-i_intervention_-_jun5-review.pdf

Thank you Co-Chairs,

My name is Kaisa Kosonen, and I’m speaking here on behalf of CAN.

I want to thank the co-chairs and the secretariat for recognizing the importance of bringing civil society voices into this review – including through twitter! We expect the spirit and format of transparency and participation to continue throughout the review.

There are three other key points we want to make at this stage.

Firstly, CAN expects the review to assess the scale and nature of irreversible damage, human misery, ecosystem losses and risks related to tipping points, that could be avoided if warming was limited to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees. The process and inputs must serve this key question, with special focus on the most vulnerable.

Secondly, the main task of the review is to help bring us on track in preventing climate chaos. This is not just another technical exercise. This is our opportunity to finally get it right, and to learn from past mistakes in target setting and delivering on commitments.

The long-term goal, targets and commitments in the 2015 agreement must be based on the review findings. But the review must also guide enhanced short-term action, with decisions taken already in 2013 and 2014. An iterative nature of the review and the workplans of both the Joint Contact Group and Expert Dialogue should allow for this.

Finally, in terms of the input this review should include, CAN likes to remind Parties, that in reviewing how governments are doing in meeting their goals, NGOs are the experts. In doing value judgment of adequacy, civil society engagement is fundamental. Therefore, we look forward to bringing our expertise from around the world to this process.

Thank you!

Photo Credit: Naoyuki Yamagishi

Tags:

Topics:

CAN Intervention - on the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories - 18 May 2006

Submitted by Secretariat on January 25, 2012 - 10:34pm

Comment_on_the_2006_GHG_Guidelines.pdf

Tags:

carbon dioxide capture and storage

Organization:

Climate Action Network

CAN INTERVENTION, SHARED VISION INFORMAL, 7 OCTOBER 2011

Submitted by Anonymous on October 19, 2011 - 4:30pm

Shared_Vision-_Friday.pdf

Tags:

emission reduction targets

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

UNFCCC

Related Event:

Panama 2011

Scientific Reality Check Desperately Needed

Submitted by Anonymous on October 6, 2011 - 9:37am

Lack of ambition? Actions don’t meet the urgency? There is help for that: the Review agreed in Cancun is a key tool to re-inject ambition and a sense of urgency as well as collective responsibility into the climate regime – all of which seems to have been lost in recent years. It is the scientific reality check on our political debate.

That is why ECO insists that the terms of reference for the Review be finalized at Durban! This means that Parties will have to decide on a suitable body to conduct the Review and its further modalities as soon as possible. Getting the timing right is also critical: the Review must be completed in good time to provide action-oriented recommendations to COP 21 in 2015. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report will be one crucial input to the review; its Synthesis Report needs to be finalized before COP 20 in 2014 so that it, together with the reports from the individual IPCC working groups, can fully inform deliberations on the Review.

ECO reminds Parties that the Review is not a technical paper, but a report on the adequacy of the 2°C limit and the evidence base for possibly strengthening it to a 1.5°C limit. Moreover, there is already little doubt that the Review will illuminate the unconscionable inadequacy of the current pledges.

Of course, the Review will not be the only input available to Parties as they consider options for building a more comprehensive and ambitious climate regime. National communications and biennial reports, along with updated mitigation pledges from both developed and developing countries, will illuminate both the progress being made, as well as the remaining gap that must be closed if we are to keep global temperature increases below the 2°C agreed by leaders in Copenhagen, much less the 1.5°C limit called for by over 100 countries.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Midweek MRV

Submitted by Anonymous on October 5, 2011 - 9:34am

Halfway through the meeting in Panama, ECO would like to present an assessment of progress made thus far. Overall, ECO is happy to note that Parties are very busy preparing and discussing text. There are still potential storm clouds on the horizon for Durban, however ECO hopes that by the end of this week Parties can get agreement on producing a set of decision text that can narrow the remaining political differences and lay the groundwork for important steps forward in Durban. While not comprehensive, here is ECO’s take on some of the issues under discussion here this in Panama.
Substantive discussions on issues related to legal architecture have percolated up in Panama - including in the LCA informal group on Legal Options (despite Saudi Arabia's best efforts to squelch those discussions). But there is clearly no meaningful convergence on these issues, and the process lacks a forum for having the cross cutting dialogue necessary to ensure coherent outcomes of the two tracks in Durban. While outside the main talks here, the Mexico-PNG proposal to address voting procedures is a welcome attempt to focus attention on improving the efficiency of the UNFCCC process.
On the pathetically low levels of developed country ambition – Parties have shown signs that they are at least at step one: recognising they have a problem. ECO hopes that Parties can come up with a clear process on how to address the gigatonne gap in Durban and happy to see there are some proposals on the table.
On the LULUCF issue being addressed in the Kyoto Protocol track, ECO applauds the principle put forward by the G77 this week in its proposal to treat natural disturbances using a statistical approach. ECO is waiting to see if this new proposal will also be transparent, robust and conservative. On the other hand, the implications of New Zealand’s proposal for “flexible land use” raises significant concerns that this could wreck other parts of the LULUCF accounting rules and has the potential to cause further damage if used in REDD.
The opening informal on finance kicked off with clashes over whether to negotiate the Standing Committee or long-term finance (scaling up 2013-2020 finance as well as sources). After Bonn, ECO anticipated that Parties would finally agree to focus on long-term finance. But it didn’t take long for disappointment to take hold as the US, other umbrella group members and even some EU countries refused to discuss text – with the US insisting that responsibility lies with individual parties to determine how they will reach the $100bn Cancun commitment. If that’s the case, ECO thinks the US should be made to say what their plan is! Chief among the innovative finance sources that should be addressed is bunkers, where a decision under sectoral approaches to guide the International Maritime Organization to design a carbon pricing instrument taking into account the principle of CBDR would be a significant outcome in Durban.
Discussions on the scope and modalities of the 2013-15 Review happily included an IPCC briefing on the scope and timing of its Fifth Assessment Report and how its findings could contribute to the review process. ECO urges Parties to creatively design and adopt at Durban a three-year work program that creates an ‘upward spiral of ambition’.
ECO welcomes that views on the Adaptation Committee became clearer during the last few days and that more and more Parties are considering ways that civil society can be an active part of the committee. But in the next three days, nothing less than draft decision text will do -- especially as seven other critical issues on adaptation remain to be addressed in Durban.
The technology facilitator has shown commendable initiative in developing draft decision text. However, the first reading of the text throws into relief the developed countries’ attempts to thwart progress by bracketing various critical elements and options essential for operationalizing the Technology Mechanism by 2012. ECO urges parties to ratchet up the speed of drafting decision text through pointed discussion around critical issues and ensuring that the Cancun Agreement timelines for operationalizing the technology mechanism are met.
Finally, ECO is pleased that negotiators are intensively addressing the myriad issues involved on MRV, including ICA, IAR, and biennial reports, that text is being developed, and that NGO participation in the IAR process is under serious consideration. Similar consideration, though should be given to such participation in the ICA process.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Scientific Integrity in the UNFCCC?!

Submitted by Anonymous on October 3, 2011 - 9:20am

ECO appreciates the critical role of the IPCC, which provides scientific input to the UNFCCC process and led to the Convention itself and its Kyoto Protocol. But how will this link continue in future?

Yesterday’s technical briefing by the IPCC was meant to explore how this link will continue in the future and how the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) will serve as a key input into the 2013-2015 Review.

ECO applauds the use of communication technology (Skype) at this technical briefing to cut down on emissions from air travel and foster lower-carbon meetings. The IPCC Chair Pachauri promised improved policy relevance of AR5 compared to any previous report, strengthening links between the IPCC Working Groups –especially on adaptation and mitigation- to address cross-cutting issues. So far, so good. But how about the actual input for the Review process? AOSIS (Granada) asked this key question at the very end of the briefing: How will we merge the IPCC timeline with the Review’s requirements? Will the IPCC Synthesis Report be published at least a month before the concluding COP20, allowing for preparation of a decision at COP21? Apparently, IPCC will ask this question at its next meeting in Uganda this November. For ECO there’s only one possible answer: it must.

But ECO wonders if the Parties are clear on how the IPCC will input into the 2013-2015 Review. To ECO it seems that more opportunities for Parties to discuss the review with the IPCC are critical to help answer the many questions that remain unasked and unanswered on this key element of hope for our collective future. ECO appreciates the critical role of the IPCC, which provides scientific input to the UNFCCC process and led to the Convention itself and its Kyoto Protocol. But how will this link continue in future?

Tags:

IPCC

report

2015

IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report

Region:

Eastern Europe and Eurasia

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

LULUCF Briefing - Bioenergy

Submitted by Anonymous on June 14, 2011 - 6:23am

Bioenergy and LULUCF: the need to account for bioenergy emissions

Under international accounting rules significant emissions from bioenergy are not being accounted for, meaning that bioenergy is not fulfilling its potential as a climate mitigation tool and in some cases emits more carbon than fossil fuels. This briefing explores the reasons for this accounting failure and what must be done to resolve this issue.

Tags:

Topics: