Bangkok Developed Countries Mitigation Workshop CAN Presentation
Submitted by MBrockley on
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Tag: LULUCF
Bangkok Developed Countries Mitigation Workshop CAN Presentation
Submitted by MBrockley on
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Observations on Current Developed Country Mitigation Pledges: CAN Presentation to Developed Country Mitigation Workshop
Submitted by MBrockley on
Tove Ryding from Greenpeace International delivers the CAN presentation on Developed Country Mitigation Pledges to the Mitigation Workshop on April 3 in Bangkok.
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Bioenergy Is Not A ‘GET OUT OF JAIL FREE’ Card
Submitted by Anonymous on
Bioenergy had a starring role in this week’s workshop on developed country emission reduction targets. The theme of many parties was reducing energy sector emissions by substituting bioenergy for fossil fuels.
At last, Mexico sounded a note of caution in their presentation in the workshop on NAMAs, pointing out that reliance on biofuels is difficult to do sustainably, can be harmful in terms of conservation and REDD targets, and can impact on agriculture
Bioenergy - a clean alternative?
Bioenergy leaves a carbon footprint which is largely ignored when proposed as an alternative. This is an unacceptable situation as we face exponential growth in this energy source which is being justified in the name of addressing climate change.
The worry arising from tremendous expansion of bioenergy production from land and forests is not just the unintended consequences of constraining food supply and the potential to destroy biodiversity, as important as those are. There are also problems arising directly from the failure to address deficiencies of accounting rules in the KP.
ECO is compelled to point out that although the use of bioenergy is often claimed to be carbon neutral, this is rarely so. The emissions released from producing and burning bioenergy can be much larger than those for fossil fuels, especially when converted to liquid fuels or where grown on emissive peat soils, as shown in the chart.
Developed countries:
Actual emissions, fake accounting
Equally rare is accounting for the actual emissions. Yes, it’s that old problem – the LULUCF rules – once again!
Under existing IPCC guidance, bioenergy is accounted as carbon neutral when it is combusted in the energy sector, as it is a renewable energy source. But the crucial presumption underpinning this is that emissions associated with the provision of bioenergy have been accounted for in their sector of origin (i.e., the land use and forestry sector) in their country of origin and netted out against carbon sequestration in growing the bioenergy crop in the first place.
In developed countries this assumption founders on the failure of the LULUCF rules to mandate accounting for either forestry or cropland management. Currently, many parties choose not to do this. There isn’t even a proposal on the table that all parties must account for all LULUCF emissions including cropland management, in which case parties won’t include those activities in their reporting when they are emissive. In addition, the proposal for projected reference levels for forest management in the KP second commitment period opens a new kind of loophole, and this is a very concerning development also for accounting bioenergy emissions specifically.
Related Event:
CAN Intervention - Opening KP - 5 April 2011
Submitted by MBrockley on
Opening LWG-KP Plenary – Bangkok
CAN intervention, April 5, 2011
Thank you Mr. Chair,
My name is Sven Harmeling. I’m speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
The KP track’s work this year can play an important role in narrowing the gigatonne gap. According to UNEP, this gap could be up to 9 Gigatonnes in 2020 globally, equivalent to the combined annual emissions of China and Russia. CAN urges higher ambition than that assumed by UNEP, so sees an even bigger chasm between the pledges and needed action.
To help close the gap, first, Parties need to address the loopholes we heard about in Sunday’s workshop, used perversely by some to stall their own low-carbon transformation.
o LULUCF rules should increase accountability and such that these sectors deliver emissions reductions. This means:
• Not using questionable projected reference levels but using historical reference levels.
• Not hiding emissions but accounting for all emissions, including other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, and rewetting and drainage.
o Rules for any new market and non market mechanisms shouldn’t diminish already low levels of ambition and must not allow double counting, ensuring additional emissions reductions and funding flows.
o Rules are needed to minimise environmental damage from hot air.
Once these loopholes are closed, Parties need to increase their aggregate pledges so that they add up to more than 40% - top end of the 25-40% range that you acknowledged in Cancun. This is needed to put us on a pathway with a reasonable probability of achieving the well-below 2C goal, and keep the 1.5C goal in reach.
Additionally, CAN would like to take this opportunity to remind Parties of some of the quite-literally vitally important elements of the KP architecture that need to be conserved and developed post-2012, namely its:
o long-term viability as a framework that can be appropriately updated for each commitment period;
o aggregate goal for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideration of the science;
o legally-binding, economy-wide, absolute emissions reduction targets;
o common accounting, MRV and compliance.
We urge Parties not to throw away the good work of the last 14 years, and to commit to a second commitment period in Durban.
Organization:
Related Event:
CAN Presentation - Observations on Current Developed Country Mitigation Pledges - 3 April 2011
Submitted by MBrockley on
Developed country pledges: Where are parties after
Cancun?
1. Adopted: 2oC goal
2. Agreed: consider moving to 1.5oC
3. Recognised: 25-40% range for developed countries
4. Agreed: scaled-up effort necessary to
• achieve the global goal
• move developed countries into 25-40% range
To view the full presentation, view pdf above.
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Lessons to be taken from the Workshop on developed country QELROs - May 2011
Submitted by MBrockley on
Developed country pledges: Where are Parties after Cancun?
In Cancun Parties agreed on keeping warming below 2°C and agreed to consider moving to
1.5°C. Parties also recognised the 25-40% range for developed countries. At the same time
developed countries recognised that current pledges are too low, that deep cuts are needed
and that mitigation efforts must be ‘scaled-up’ - with developed countries showing
leadership.
The workshop revealed that there is urgent clarity needed on the following points:
1. Developed countries must clarify what their true emissions will be, i.e. their
assumptions on forests and other land use accounting, the use of carbon offsets and
hot air carry-over, in order to close all loopholes.
2. Developed countries with current pledges below the 25-40% range must explain how
their low pledges
- should be compensated for by other developed countries making higher cuts
instead,
- are consistent with their fair share of the globally needed mitigation effort.
3. Developed countries whose pledges are
- below their current Kyoto targets, and/or
- below BAU under existing domestic legislation and targets (e.g. efficiency
targets),
must explain how those pledges constitute progress.
4. Developed countries must explain how their 2020 pledges will allow them to
achieve near-zero emissions by 2050.
... to read the full document, view the pdf above.
Topics:
Organization:
Related Event:
Probably the last LULUCF Article Ever?
Submitted by Anonymous on
In Cancun, Parties finally acknowledged that Annex I targets must not be set in isolation from a thorough analysis of the loopholes threatening to undermine them. ECO would applaud this accomplishment, were it not such an obvious step to take. The UNEP Emissions Gap report, the Climate Analytics/Ecofys analysis and consistent NGO campaigning all shone a bright spotlight on the damage that undercounting of emissions can do to achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention.
Indeed, in the Cancun texts, Parties acknowledge there is a most urgent need not only to increase ambition, but to characterize and quantify the effect of key loopholes, especially land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) rules, the project-based mechanisms and a possible carry-over of assigned amount units. Could that acknowledgement signal the beginning of the end of technical LULUCF ECO articles (and proper accounting of emissions)?
Mind you, ECO feels your pain at the thought of yet another article on LULUCF, but alas, the need still remains. The proposed reference level approach simply does not reflect the ambition needed to address climate change, nor does it secure a positive contribution toward the emission cuts required. Forests and other land uses must be a major part of the solution, and yet the proposed rules move things in the opposite direction. ECO remains no less than astonished that while all other sectors are expected to reduce emissions, the forest sector gets a free pass, since Parties could set their reference levels allowing increased emissions with no effect on their overall targets.
Even worse is the fact that the bulk of emissions from bioenergy, a sector poised for exponential growth, will go completely unaccounted for. Moreover, while the favoured forest fiddle is relatively well defined, Parties have yet to fully elaborate the rules for other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, as well as rewetting and drainage. Yet, in aggregate, these are nearly as significant as forest emissions. Finally, Parties have fallen short of moving towards full mandatory accounting whilst resolving any data issues that stand in the way.
The reference level approach to forest management may be appealing in a narrow political sense, but in fact it undermines ambition in the forest and land sectors and significantly weakens overall mitigation. It is not just the proposed forest management reference levels of Parties that need to be scrutinized, but the overall political direction of the LULUCF negotiations, which in turn are sapping the momentum of the overall Annex I "numbers" discussions.
It's time for delegation leaders here and now to focus attention, face up to the LULUCF loophole, turn around the momentum and starting closing the gigatonne gap. Durban is not far off at all, and to capture real ambition then means starting now in Bangkok. Could this be the year of our last LULUCF article? The ECO Ed Board (and perhaps you kind readers) can only hope. You can help us achieve that goal, esteemed delegation leaders.
Topics:
Related Event:
ECO 1, Bangkok 2011, English version
Submitted by Anonymous on
Topics:
Region:
Related Event:
Guideposts for these Days of Decision
Submitted by Anonymous on
Ministers, it’s ECO again. May we have a few moments with you? Yes, you guessed it – right here in your hands is our clean and manageable list of key decisions for the remainder of the week.
We’ve heard that you feel there are too many choices and papering over the differences in the negotiations might be the best achievable for the moment. But
remember, that trick only works once.
A high level political statement by itself will not cut it. We need a real agreement in Cancun, not a repeat of Copenhagen’s climate shame. No magic moment is going to arrive when the hard choices become easy. But the path to achievement is just steps away.
ECO is wondering what is going on in the Shared Vision negotiations. We heard whispers of much needed improvements, such as the recognition of the need to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to no more than 350 ppm and limit global temperature rise to 1.5° C, as well as the acknowledgement of historical responsibility and the link between human rights and climate change related actions.
All these elements must be included for a clear and robust shared vision that reflects our collective intention to ensure a liveable planet for us and for future generations.
But Ministers, ECO is going blue in the face! How many more times do we have to say ‘Gigatonne Gap’ before it
finally sinks in? As UNEP affirmed in its authoritative report, there is a significant gap between the emissions pledges set forth in Copenhagen and the reductions the planet actually needs by 2020 to limit warming to 2° C, much less the 1.5° needed to avoid severe and even catastrophic impacts.
Yet the latest version of the Mitigation text contains no acknowledgement of the Gigatonne Gap, nor does it set forth a timely process to close it. A legitimate outcome in Cancun must explicitly provide the pathway to increased ambition.
ECO also calls on parties to anchor the pledges currently on the table so that commitments and actions can be strengthened over the next year before inscribing them in legally binding form in South Africa.
ECO is pleased that the MRV text has evolved in the past week from an empty 36-word shell to a real basis for negotiation.
But there’s a long way to go. The tables have turned here in Cancun and we’re finally hearing more about the need for enhanced MRV provisions for Annex I countries, including common accounting rules, as well as MRV of finance using a common reporting format.
This is only right – the United States and other developed countries have been calling for increased transparency for developing countries but have been shy about improving their own.
Establishing a Technology Mechanism and creating an operational Technology Executive Committee (TEC) is well within the remit here.
Unfortunately, the USA has been blocking progress on the TEC and CTCN discussions and negotiators are planning to kick many elements into the long grass, such as reporting lines and the link to the financial mechanism. This would be dangerous as it would leave too many issues to be dealt with during 2011.
The draft text is virtually content free when it comes to creating an operational framework for new, radically scaled-up, focused and integrated Capacity
Building.
The stocktaking needs to clarify whether developed countries intend to take
capacity building seriously (that is, on par with finance and technology), or whether they are happy enough just to leave it behind as crumbs in the corner.
On International Transport, the COP must guide ICAO and IMO in taking effective action to reduce emissions quickly, create a framework for these sectors to fairly contribute funds to mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and ensure no net incidence of impacts on developing countries.
On Adaptation, a Cancun decision must launch the committee to oversee technical and coordinating provisions for adaptation under the Convention. Further, response measures does not have a place under the adaptation agenda. The resources available for adaptation should not be use as compensation for the loss on oil revenue as a result of mitigation action.
By the end the week decisions on
Financing must be taken to establish a climate fund under the guidance and
authority of the COP, along with a process to clarify the scale of this fund and guarantee sufficient resources for adaptation, along with the mechanisms and instruments to generate the required revenue flows.
We have heard that some developed countries are raising doubts about their ability to contribute to a fund under the UNFCCC due to constitutional or other legal impediments. These are simply tactical maneuvers to delay a decision,
using the fund as a bargaining chip to get concessions from developing countries on other issues such as international consultations and analysis.
Negotiations on the Flexible Mechanisms are (unsurprisingly) facing difficulty, including even which text should be used.
However, at least two things should be done. First, the loopholes in existing mechanisms must be closed now. A primary example is surplus AAUs. Second, relevant principles should be set for further negotiations in LCA. If any new mechanisms are to be discussed going forward, they must go beyond offsetting. And they have to close the Gigaton gap, not widen it. Other important principles should also be set such as preventing double counting, supplementarity and contribution to sustainable development.
A very disturbing development is that the option for keeping CCS out of the Clean Development Mechanism has vanished from the draft text being forwarded to the CMP. At the very least, SBSTA must address the creation of perverse incentives for increased dependence on fossil fuels.
On land and forests, the message is simple but let’s say it again: Close the loopholes!
With respect to legal form, ECO calls on Parties to establish open and transparent processes to discuss their proposals, both now and after Cancun. Likewise, just as the Berlin Mandate provided clarity on legal form to the negotiating process that resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, Parties should agree mandates at Cancun to confirm the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as well as a legally binding outcome in the LCA and set them up for adoption at COP 17 in South Africa.
Tags:
Related Event:
Pages
