Eco Digital Blog

Is equity really the pathway to ambition? ECO is here to say that it had better be. Without equity, nothing else will work. Which is to say that nothing else will work well enough. Without equity the story of the low carbon, climate resilient transition will be a story of “too little, too late.” And as the scientists are anxiously telling us – see, recently, the World Bank’s Turn Down the Heat report – this is a story without a happy ending.

Let’s admit the public secret that we all already know – equity will either be shaped into a pathway to ambition or inequity will, assuredly, loom before us as an altogether unscalable wall. We can see how this would happen. The US – while insisting that it’s pushing bravely past the sterile politics of an obsolete North/South firewall – has managed to purge CBDR (and RC) from all official texts. But to what effect? For an overwhelming majority of Parties, absence of new equity language affirms the obvious. The Convention language applies. Has the US noticed that actions provoke reactions?

The head of the US delegation has rejected the Annexes as “anachronistic,” and has gone on to call for “the differentiation of a continuum, with each country expected to act vigorously in accordance with its evolving circumstances, capabilities and responsibilities.” It’s a good idea, though alas it suffers by its association with the US's aggressive – and often abrasive – drive to destroy 1997’s Kyoto Protocol. Coming into Doha, ECO can only wonder if this unfortunate picture is about to change. With President Obama’s re-election, there’s a chance to reset Washington’s international strategy, tactics and personnel. There won’t be many more chances before 2015.

Meanwhile, the position is obvious. The ambitious, global principle-based regime that we need can only come by way of a creative elaboration of the Convention’s principles, CBDR/RC first among them. So, yes Mr. Stern, we need a dynamic approach, one that takes the evolving realities of this mad and dangerous world into full account. Which is to say that we’re not going to get it without an approach to dynamism that is widely accepted as both procedurally and substantively fair.

Where does this leave us? With a desperate situation in which all wealthy countries must quickly do their part to close the short-term emissions gap. This, fortunately, is a goal that can be agreed politically and legally within the bounds of the existing accords and treaties, but only if Parties negotiate in good faith. In particular, existing commitments – to mitigate and to support the mitigation and adaptation of others – must be achieved. Beyond the short-term, a new accord will be needed, a more challenging accord that we’re not going to get without a vocal and political commitment to make “equitable access to sustainable development” into something real. This, in turn, will demand a robust negotiation on creative, principle-based approaches to sharing the long-term global costs and opportunities of mitigation and adaptation.

There’s still time to launch the ADP with high and cooperative ambitions. But, frankly, there’s not much time left. What’s needed now is courage and real statesmanship. The Obama Administration, for its part, has to begin negotiating for a regime that’s fair enough to actually work. And the G77’s negotiators must do better as well. When BASIC Ministers, writing in their September declaration, called for “an enhanced global effort to be implemented after 2020, under the UNFCCC, which would respect the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and differentiation between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties,” they weren’t exactly signalling an openness to fresh and expansive approaches to CBDR/RC. Given the current situation, their reticence was understandable, but it didn’t suggest the kind of leadership that we’re going to need in coming years. Perhaps, after Doha, such leadership will finally be on the agenda.

Difficult negotiations lie ahead. How can they best be organized? Equity is quite important enough to get its own work stream. But if this is not to be, we’re confident that either the Vision or Ambition workstreams – or both! – will be more than willing to open their doors to the equity discussion. One way or another, the discussion is going to have to take place, and no one should be foolish enough to believe that, by attempting to push it aside, they’re doing the hard and thankless work of true realism.

Here’s some free advice: Let’s discuss principles first, and having agreed on the keystones (hint: the indispensable points are ambition, capacity, responsibility and the sustainable development rights of the poor) we’ll be in a position to move forward to a practical, non-nonsense conversation about indicators and comparability. We’ll be in a position to move, that is, down the equity corridor – or, if you prefer, up the equity ladder – from principles, by way of indicators, to coherent and reciprocal agreements.

This situation will not be quickly resolved. But there’s not going to be any real trust, or momentum, until equity is a recognized, respected, and foundational part of this negotiation. And – does this still need to be said? – until there’s substantive progress on the finance front as well, for this and only this can translate rhetoric and good intentions into believable action. The good news is that both of these breakthroughs are ours for the taking.

Training available: Advanced deception in the 21st Century.  

Canada invites you to a workshop on how creative accounting can enable you to claim greenhouse gas reductions and decieve domestic and international audiences alike.  All inquiries to Harper Consultants Ltd.

For sale: Cooking Your Books: 100 delicious recipes.
Umbrella Publishing Group. Be in quick as supplies are limited, unlike our carbon credits.

Training available: Deficit reductions the easy way.  Is your carbon deficit looking worse than your financial one?  New Zealand and Canada provide you with basic and advanced training in balancing the books while keeping polluters happy.

Cheating 101: Basic introduction to LULUCF rules and effective use of the flexible mechanisms.

LULUCF Accounting 201: Advanced use of LULUCF rules, how to protect your agriculture sector.

Advanced rules 301: Hiding emissions in QELRO rules, target overshoot, advanced deception techniques, strategic use of the flexible mechanisms.

Japan will soon make a decision on new energy and climate policy in light of the Fukushima nuclear accident. ECO supports the voices of the majority of Japanese people, who say, “No, thank you” to nuclear. Nuclear is not a solution.

However, we realized with surprise, Japan considered that mitigation is not possible without nuclear. Believe it or not, the projection of GHG pollution in 2020 for Japan is from 0% to -7% from 1990 levels when Japan chooses a nuclear-free future. This is nearly at the level of the first commitment period Kyoto target (-6%)! Is nuclear really a mitigation solution? ECO believes NOT. Japan could surely reduce CO₂ while reducing its dependence on nuclear. Rather, it’s better and faster to realise a low-carbon society through shifting the tremendous nuclear investments to renewables and energy efficiency.

ECO is anxious to know whether Japan intends to discuss raising ambition as a matter of urgency. We have no time to delay. No room to lower efforts. In the last session in Bonn, ECO urged Japan to reaffirm its 25% reduction target by 2020 in Bangkok. Your silence is deafening. So, take the ambition discussion back home, identify any possible reduction potentials other than nuclear (here's a preview – you will find a lot) and come back with an ambitious target. Through that, Japan could make a sizeable contribution to Doha and to the world by transitioning toward a safe, low carbon economy. The international community is watching you.

------------------------------------

And a note to Japan: contrary to what you stated in Sunday's 1(b)(i) workshop, double counting of credits IS a VERY big problem. A 1-2 GtCO₂e bit problem, according to the UNEP Bridging the Emissions Gap Report, “if double counting of emissions reductions by developed and developing countries due to the use of the carbon market is not ruled out, and if the additionality of CDM projects is not improved." ECO reminds Japan that they noted (here it comes again) – with grave concern – the existence and size of the gap. Japan needs to do its part to close it – and avoiding double counting is a an important part of that.

We stand at the precipice of what could be the final stroke of the LCA at COP18 in Doha, and the conversation is turning ever more to the question of how political decisions for various elements of the LCA that have not been fully resolved will be handled post-COP18. ECO sees that the discussion on technology transfer, which cuts across mitigation and adaptation, provides a stark view of what's at stake if the LCA's closing is not properly done, in the light of the sometimes yawning gap between the understandings of developed and the developing countries. 

If you mark the IPCC Assessment Report 1 (1990) as the starting point, the discussion on technology transfer has been ongoing for more than two decades. That’s a lot of work to sit idle if the Technology Mechanism suddenly faced a lack of support, and a staggering missed opportunity to close the mitigation gap and address the growing need for climate adaptation.

As it now stands, the Technology Mechanism lacks full funding even on a short-term basis, its governance and reporting structure are incomplete, its linkages with other bodies inside the Convention are hampered by the chicken/egg dilemma, its cross-cutting support for NAMAs and NAPAs/NAPs is uncertain and ill-defined, and the conversation on what is likely the most political decision of all – how priorities are to be set within the TEC and CTCN – has barely been broached, if at all. Undoubtedly, some of these issues will be addressed and hopefully resolved in Doha, but some of them have little or no hope of finding true resolution in that timeframe, and some are likely to require ongoing political guidance.

As for funding, which must stand above all other issues in terms of a critical path forward, the organisation requested by COP17 to financially support the early operations of the CTCN failed to be chosen, and CTCN support disappeared with the nomination.

So how do we avoid leaving the CTCN – the technology mechanism's "boots on the ground" – up in the air?

As the shaman of Pride Rock, Rafiki, says: "It is time." Let's get those boots grounded with at least five years of interim public funding and let's go kick some adaptation and mitigation bootie!  Oh, and by the way, maybe we might also find a concrete way to ensure appropriate follow-up care for all the outstanding technology transfer and other LCA issues that risk being stranded?