Tag: US

“We believe that the world has had a lot of time to think. What we need is not more thinking. What we need is more action”. Inspiring words indeed in Durban from the EU, LDCs and AOSIS (the artists formerly known as the Durban Alliance). In the whirlwind after COP17, Europe was at pains to stress the importance of its victory on the inclusion of language in the Durban Platform “noting with grave concern” the significant (understatement of the year) gap between aggregate mitigation pledges and pathways consistent with below 2 degrees C. This was the foundation of the alliance with the LDCs and AOSIS. Further, in Bonn, ECO witnessed an epic battle by these groups and others to include pre-2020 ambition on the agenda.

But what have we here in Bangkok? Has Europe’s jet lag gone to its head? It appears as though the EU has abandoned its most vulnerable country allies, and is instead cosying up with the notorious ship jumpers – the US, Japan, Russia and Canada – on the critical issue of raising developed country targets pre-2020. Indeed, in the KP discussion on numbers, one EU Commission official went as far as to say that raising the EU’s 2020 level of ambition to 25% “is not reality, it is wishful thinking”. Given its urgent call for much greater ambition, ECO calls on the EU to commit to at least 30% domestic emissions reductions, and 40% overall, below 1990 levels by 2020. In addition to where it comes down on its 2020 target, the EU’s decision on how to handle AAUs will very much affect the overall level of ambition, as will its provision, along with other Annex II countries', of finance in a post-FSF world.

But let’s be fair, the EU is by no means the worst culprit here in Bangkok. That dubious distinction goes to the United States, which, despite agreeing to the Durban Platform  language on the urgent need to increase pre-2020 ambition, is now asserting that there should be no expectation of it or the other KP ship-jumpers increasing their pledges. Or – heaven forbid – turning them into QELROs. (Read on – ECO has more to say about the US later in this issue.) Instead, it’s all about everyone else. ECO would like to remind the US that all Parties “noted grave concerns” about the gigatonne gap, and notes the US would be first to say the ADP is “applicable to all Parties”. So yes, USA – this means you! And as for Japan, Canada and Russia, just because you’re cowering behind the US, doesn’t mean ECO will not name and shame you (and you too Australia and New Zealand, if you fail to sign up and ratify a second Kyoto commitment period).

Just last week the planet suffered another severe blow from lack of mitigation ambition. The Arctic – our planet’s canary in the coal mine on climate change – suffered record ice loss, according to scientific reports. Last week’s figure not only smashed all other records, but also came three weeks premature! The canary’s not dead yet, but it is gasping for breath.

And that means that the hundreds of millions of people here in Thailand and South East Asia, as well as around the globe, who are already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis, will suffer far more unless urgent action is taken. The earth is in grave danger. Developed countries must act now by committing to reduce their collective emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. ECO notes (wait for it...with grave concern) that their current pledges are woefully inadequate.

ECO agrees with Colombia, which in the ADP roundtable on ambition yesterday, noted that dealing with climate change is an urgent matter of global security. As Brazil further noted (so much noting!), many analysts think climate change is on par with global thermonuclear war as a threat that we have to do our utmost to avoid.

Extra Extra! The US wins the first Fossil of the Day for 2011! 

This fossil is formally presented for their complete refusal to accept the concept of a common/standardized accounting system for measuring national emissions reductions towards their target.  

During Sunday’s workshop on national mitigation targets and strategies, the US made it exceptionally clear that they do not envision a common accounting framework.  ECO noted the continual expressions of that view by the US, while noticing that the US seemed to be pretty alone in that view.  The irony of that position became even more glaring as the US raised several questions in the developing country session regarding a common framework for developing business-as-usual scenarios for developing emissions.  The irony wasn’t lost on ECO. One can only hope that the US will “review the tape” and remember that the US has always been a strong proponent of rigorous rules.  Maybe a relaxing spa treatment in Bangkok will refresh their memory.

There isn’t much reason to praise the United States these days, so ECO is pleased to report that the US got it right in yesterday’s SBI contact group.  Echoed by supportive interventions from Mexico, the EU and Bangladesh, the United States highlighted that enhancing observer participation is not for the benefit of the observers, but rather is to benefit the Parties and the entire UNFCCC process.
Today, the SBI Chair is continuing contact group discussions on observer participation.  We appreciate the emphasis he has placed on this matter as demonstrated by his willingness to chair the contact group himself.  
Moreover, the Chair’s management of the contact group was a model for the implementation of one of the most important measures necessary to make civil society participation more meaningful.  Observers were given not just the opportunity to make one intervention, but were able to participate in the give-and-take of the discussion on an equal basis with Parties.  This kind of opportunity to provide input directly and in real time is vital to ensuring relevant, useful public participation.  
It is important to build on this progress.  The SBI should call on the Secretariat to implement new practices that ensure real-time access to negotiations and negotiators.  For example, open contact groups and other negotiating sessions should be the rule, not the exception.  Civil society should have immediate access to proposals and other documents that are necessary to make relevant input.  Observers should have substantially enhanced opportunities for oral interventions and written submissions should be included in MISC documents along with Party submissions.  And civil society must be able to use varied tools, including non-violent demonstrations and stunts, to put the spotlight on inadequate or inequitable developments in the negotiations.
These kinds of new rules and practices should be developed through a process that involves stakeholders as equals.  This means not only soliciting input at the outset, but also giving civil society the opportunity to review and comment on proposed new rules and practices before they are implemented.  
Finally, the SBI should avoid creating mechanisms that look like enhanced participation but really aren’t.  Some have proposed creating a few high-level panels through which NGO input would be directed to the COP or other UNFCCC bodies.  This would be an unwieldy process at best resulting in watered down input that would almost certainly come too late to be useful.  Similarly, while a pre-COP NGO dialogue might result in some interesting general input, it cannot be a substitute for real-time direct input into the negotiations.  That is the heart of real public participation benefits.