Eco Digital Blog

Never waste a good crisis, runs the adage. On Wednesday, the (IIASA) presented a new report outlining Annex I mitigation costs and potentials based on the effects of the economic crisis. The report uses post-crisis GDP projections based on the IEA’s 2009 world energy outlook.

Here are the headlines
•    In 2020 Annex I emissions are 6% below 1990 levels in the reference scenario.
•    The cost of implementing the most ambitious Annex 1 pledges would be  -0.03% to 0.01% of GDP.
•    The carbon price settles at EURO 3 per tonne.
•    An extra 10% reduction could be achieved at the same equilibrium carbon price (-27% instead of -17% from 1990).
•    Some country targets are well above their emissions in the reference scenario, which could create a new surplus of emissions rights.

In other words, it is now much easier to achieve the emission targets we need. The world is demand investments in the infrastructure of the 21st century – renewable energy, smart grids and mass transport. The economic transformation we need could become a job-generator for economies blacking out with systemic unemployment. And we can save our climate, which is set on a course to disaster.  So the economic crisis also turns out to be an opportunity, but this means making a choice.

For the benefit of parties, as an example here is a table of new economic models on the costs of the EU’s 30% reduction pledge, in the light of the crisis.

And what is true for the EU is true for Annex I as a whole: emissions caps developed for a pre-crisis world can easily been tightened again in a post-crisis world, to benefit both the climate and the economy.

When the African Group raised the stakes in the KP plenary earlier this week, its representatives explained that the action was prompted by the serious human suffering already occurring in Africa due to climate change.  This was an important reminder that negotiators must preserve and strengthen human rights language in the negotiating text.

Human rights are the expression of the most basic conditions necessary for a life of dignity.  In that light, the link to climate impacts is obvious.  As the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights concluded in a study released earlier this year, “Climate change-related impacts … have a range of implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.”

The current negotiating text refers to the human rights implications of climate change as well as the need to protect vulnerable peoples.  This is a critical step in the right direction.  However, these references need to be fleshed out and strengthened.  Human rights must be central to the definition of both the problems created by climate change and their solutions.

The shared vision text explicitly recognizes that climate impacts “have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full and effective enjoyment of human rights.”  This welcome language should be strengthened by reaffirming that “human beings have the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being,” as recognized in the Stockholm Declaration, which is itself referenced in the UNFCCC.  The shared vision should also emphasize that a successful international climate framework will require effective mechanisms for participation at the local, national and international levels, reinforcing Article 6 of the UNFCCC and the Rio Declaration.

The “four pillars” text must also include rights language.  The mitigation text should reiterate Parties’ existing obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights.  Similarly, negotiators must reinsert the reference to human rights obligations removed from the adaptation text in Bangkok, and strengthen text on spillover effects that would ensure that human rights, such as the right to food, guide efforts to identify and prevent such harms.  In addition, strengthening the paragraph on climate-induced migration and linking it to human rights would provide crucial protections for the millions likely to be displaced as a result of climate change.

The European and InterAmerican courts of human rights have both recognized that access to information and participation in decision-making are fundamental to protecting human rights in the context of environmental threats.  The text must therefore guarantee all relevant stakeholders the rights to information and participation for all relevant stakeholders, including free prior informed consent for indigenous and other communities in accordance with international obligations.

Last month, the government of the Maldives held an underwater cabinet meeting to highlight climate impacts that would threaten the right to statehood itself.  From Africa to the Alps to the Islands, the rights of vulnerable individuals and communities require explicit protection in the final Copenhagen agreement.

As Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said in September, “It is essential from a human rights perspective that the Copenhagen accord not only ensures the reduction of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, but also guarantees the participation of citizens.”

Two experienced UNFCCC activists explain how to become “climate smarties” and create a fair, effective and ambitious global climate deal.

Generally, when we discuss the effects that greenhouse gases have on the world’s atmosphere, we prefer the term climate change. Global warming simply isn’t an accurate description. But we do like one thing about this description: it reminds us that the problem we face isn’t just local or national, it’s global. Humanity is experiencing a global problem -- and that problem requires a global solution.

The United Nations has a very important part to play in fighting climate change. It provides a forum for governments to work together, and hammer out solutions to international problems. Global problem- solving is a long, slow process -- and a thankless one a lot of the time. You may have read news articles about the countless international conferences on global warming and wondered what goes on at those meetings. Different nations bring competing agendas to the table; representatives from all nations must overcome language and cultural barriers; and national governments face pressures at home from business, organized labor, and opposition parties. The world’s glaciers may be receding faster than international agreements can move forward.

And yet, despite all the impediments, the world’s nations make progress. Even better, sometimes they enjoy huge successes, such as the international agreement to stop the destruction of the ozone layer. Our world today is a safer place because of global agreements.

Global agreements hold countries accountable for certain actions and give nations a set of rules enforced through United Nations international law.

The world’s governments have been struggling with climate change for more than 20 years. The process has been painfully slow, and those governments still have a lot to do. But, right from the start, every country (well, almost every country) agreed that no one nation can solve the problem of climate change alone.

Why Global Agreements Are Important

Countries can do a lot to tackle global warming individually, as we discuss in Chapter 10. But the problem is far too great, and the solutions are far too complex, for countries to attempt to address climate change on their own. Each country is responsible for a portion of greenhouse gas emissions and has the ability to reduce global emissions anywhere from a fraction of a percentage up to 25 percent. But it is only with a collective effort that global emission can be reduced 50 to 80 percent. The world needs a global agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions and fight climate change.

Excerpted from Global Warming for Dummies, Elizabeth May and Zoe Caron (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Although voices from many quarters in Barcelona are complaining that the US delegation has put no numbers on the table, there is one number that just keeps popping up. That number is 2005, the base year for the US legislation currently on the table.

Even though it was four years ago, 2005 just happens to be the year of the highest US emissions in history. Coincidence?  You be the judge.  But to the point, this proposed base year distorts an important discussion on 'comparability' and has become a red herring in assessment of the adequacy of the scale of mitigation targets.

The US delegation often seems to insinuate that 1990 was just an arbitrary base year. Of course, 1990 was not selected at random: it was the year of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report; the year when the world began negotiating what became the Convention.

But arbitrary or not, shifting to a different base year like 2005 allows the US to imply that the EU proposed mitigation target of 20% by 2020 relative to 1990 is about as ambitious as that in the US legislation. In effect, this amounts to suggesting that emissions reductions elsewhere between 1990 and 2005 are irrelevant to negotiations today.  The comparison we really should be making is the distance between the proposals on the table and what the science is saying we have to do.

Many countries including the US failed to begin reducing emissions between 1990 and 2005.  But greenhouse gases cannot simply be written off by changing the base year. They collect and persist in the atmosphere, and all the while carbon sinks have been degraded and lost.

Countries may find it domestically convenient to use a different baseline year, but this presents several problems. Converting reporting data from one country to another appears to be simple enough in theory.  But in practice, measurement, reporting and verification requires comparing apples to apples.  Converting multiple data points across multiple countries using a variety of different baselines is a convenient recipe for confusion and avoiding the big picture (remember? “compare the targets to what the science demands”).  So even if the experts can provide conversion formulas for differing baselines, there is still a question of public transparency and accountability.

And finally, if the baseline changes, so must the targets. Were we to use a 2005 baseline, the IPCC says global emissions should come down 35-50% by 2020 (as opposed to 25-40% with a 1990 baseline). In the context of history and science, using 1990 is not at all arbitrary.