CCBF Blog

The Copenhagen Failure, Accord and Way Forward

Reflecting on COP15:

 - The Bali Road Map process with its two years of negotiating leading up to two weeks of high stress in Copenhagen has failed to deliver a deal.  Including the run up to Bali three + years has been taken out of the limited time we have left to stabilise the climate.

 - Instead of a COP15 agreement, Brazil, China, India, South Africa and USA agreed a 'Copenhagen Accord' which was then 'noted' rather than 'adopted' by the COP15 meeting.  The reaction of other countries to this 'Accord' varies.  Most support it as it is a way to move forward.  This must be the right as the failure to reach a deal in Copenhagen means delay in taking action and increases the risk that dangerous climate change will happen.

 - So what is in the accord?  In summary it is an agreement:

• That climate change is a problem and something must be done to reduce GHG emissions and adapt.
• To submit to the secretariate by 31^st January 2010:

a) Quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020 by Annex 1 (developed) countries.

b) Mitigation actions by Non-Annex I (developing) Parties

• To report progress every two years.  Annex 1 country progress will be measured, reported and verified by the UNFCC progress.  Non Annex 1 country progress will only be measured, reported and verified ‘domestically'.  (This difference was mainly due to

  China’s concerns re its sovereignty.)

• Developed countries commit:

a) USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012 for developing country action on adaptation and mitigation including work on forests.

b) USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 for developing countries with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries.  A significant portion of this to flow through the ‘Copenhagen Green Climate Fund’ – to be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support developing countries mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.  The agreement doesn't specify how the money will be raised. Instead a High Level Panel will be established under UNFCCC to study how to meet this goal.

• A Technology Mechanism will be established to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation
• Implementation of the Accord will be assessed by 2015 including consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters including limiting temperature increases to 1.5C.  (This timing fits in with the IPCC's next assessment report being finalised in 2014)

 

What next?  Suggested answers:

• Firstly let us support the 'Accord'.   Each country has until 31st January 2010 to make its commitments under it.
• Secondly a re-think is needed on the UNFCCC process.  Getting 192 countries to agree anything is too slow and difficult.  While one may sympathise with Tuvalu, the disruption this doomed country of 11,000 people caused to COP15 helped noone.  We need a process which gets a manageable number of parties at the negotiating table.  As COP15 showed if this is not done through formal process it will end up being done in a much less satisfactory informal manner.
• Third: All countries must consider their positions:
  1. Large countries must become fully responsible member contributors to global governance.  The USA's long standing failure to join the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity are examples of how far short it falls.   China's 'sovereignty' concerns over MRV seem archaic.   We need countries to recognise that we are on a single planet and must work together.   We need China's leadership setting an example to developing countries by embracing internationally verified MRV.
  2. Small countries must work out a way of becoming constructive participants in the process.  They cannot expect to each have a seat at the top table.  Instead, small countries with similar interests must band together and appoint a representative.  

What of us 'NGO' members who attended?   I kept well clear of the Bella Centre (where the negotiations were), learned a great deal and benefited from discussing the issues with many business leaders, academics and NGOs from around the world.  I attended:

• Forests Day - 1,500 people celebrating work being done on forests and looking forward to how much more they will be able to do when REDD++ money starts to flow.
• Oceans Day - About 250 people presenting worrying science on acidification and other changes in the planet's oceans and coastal regions.  Watch this space for a further downward ratcheting of the scientific assessment of the safe boundaries for the use of Planet Earth.
• The International Energy Agency's presentations on its roadmaps for achieving 450ppm by 2050.   A great but sobering assessment of how much needs to be done if we are to achieve this.
• The Climate Group's celebration of action taken to mitigate emissions by subnational Governments.
• Business gatherings arranged by Cambridge University, WBCSD, The Copenhagen Climate Council and The Climate Group.   These included  great examples of action being taken by individual companies but were diffuse underlying the message that business needs government to regulate before it can make the big changes which are required.

And a final word of sincere thanks to the Danes.  Noone could have done more than they did to support the Bali Road Map and try and make Copenhagen a success.  That COP15 failed inspite of their efforts was beyond their control.  Let us hope the failure will lead to a building a new, stronger, global decision making structure.   We desperately need this as the challenge of living within the boundaries of Planet Earth will become more severe and the decisions tougher in the years ahead.

Robert Gibson

Kronberg Castle, Elsinor 12 Dec 09

'Hamlet's castle with Tim Flannery holding up a skull and asking the 'To be or not to be question'.  Many of the good assembled and many fine words but rather detached from the action in the Bella Centre.

Robert Gibson

The CDM … evolution of mind-numbing rules

COP15 Blog 2 - By Christine Loh

Meetings on the future of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are on-going at COP15. The CDM is supervised by the CDM Executive Board under the COP as part of the Kyoto Protocol process.

 

The Executive CDM Board presented recommendations this week on how to improve the CDM, the key aspects included improving the clarity and accessibility of the rules, providing more detailed reasons for decisions, improving appeals, establishing a separate technical body to assess projects, and providing training. These proposals were generally welcomed. However, while the setting up of the new independent technical body should enable the board to review many more projects, it isn’t yet clear where resources will come from.

 

At an open Q/A session about the CDM, heated arguments between the Executive Board and market participants exploded over the Board’s recent rejection of 10 wind farm projects in China. The Board explained with China having changed the tariff, the Board didn’t have enough proof for them to pass the test of ‘additionality’.

 

The concept of additionality was created under the CDM to prevent giving credit to projects that would have happened anyway.  The rules on additionality are complex and mind-challenging. There are plenty of arguments over interpretation. Is it based on whether a project can show the emissions from the project are lower than the baseline i.e. there are additional emissions reductions that would not have happened without the project, or do you have to show the project would not have happened without the credits because it would not otherwise be financially possible. These two approaches have been called ‘environmental additionality’ vs. ‘financial additionality’. It seems the Chinese wind projects were rejected on the basis of the latter.

 

At a COP plenary session, China made interventions on the government’s disappointment about the reject of those wind farm projects. As for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects and whether they should be included in the CDM, countries had different views. For example, Brazil was against it but Saudi Arabia was for it. So, we need to see how this will be agreed going forward.

Carbon Counter in New York

via J Robert Gibson

Counting long-lived GHG stocks in the atmosphere in real time
DB Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA)  launched on 18th June 2009 the “Carbon Counter” (CC) in New York City. The CC shows that as of today the estimated gross stock of long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere stands at 3.64 trillion tonnes of CO₂e, or 467 parts per million (ppm). It uses data collected by both the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (which is sponsored by NASA). Gases covered are: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine or iodine).

The Carbon Counter does not measure ozone, water vapour, or aerosols
Water vapour is the most abundant and important GHG in the atmosphere, but human activity has only a small direct effect on it. With regard to the other GHGs that have an impact on the climate, ozone and aerosols, AR4 states that the overall net direct and indirect impact of anthropogenic emissions on and of these gases has been one of negative radiative forcing and hence of cooling. As a result, whilst according to DBCCA the gross concentration of long-lived GHGs in the atmosphere in 2005 was about 455ppm of CO₂e, AR4 states that the net concentration after adjusting for the effect of all anthropogenic forcing agents was 375ppm of CO₂e (the net concentration is the one frequently quoted). The Carbon Counter will monitor only the long-lived GHGs because in the case of aerosols and tropospheric ozone there is no regular monitoring system’ that would allow them to capture the data.

For more information see http://www.Know-the-Number.com

Business Leaders "Copenhagen Call"

via: Ms. Shirlee Algire

"187 days, 16 hours, 6 minutes, and 47 seconds – that’s the time remaining until the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen this December, according to the “countdown” clock on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website. When that clock reaches zero, world leaders will negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol – hopefully before the climate’s “clock” reaches zero and the world spirals into climate catastrophe.

The global business community isn’t waiting -- this past week, 700 global business executives attended the World Business Summit on Climate Change. They issued the “Copenhagen Call,” a six-point statement listing the steps required to pass an effective global climate treaty. Two of the steps focus on supporting low emissions technologies, for example by creating “incentives for a dramatic increase in financing” them."

Read more at the source: CSRwire
Contributing Writers Bill Baue and Francesca Rheannon of Sea Change Media

CCBF Launches Hong Kong Guide to Emissions Reduction

Read, use, and share the new Hong Kong Guide to Emissions Reduction.

Sequestering Carbon: Algae and Engineers

By Mr. TC Yee

Algae: putting carbon dioxide in a bind

German utility RWE Power has initiated a cutting edge project that is investigating the use of marine microalgae to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) produced during lignite combustion.

Source: Algae: putting carbon dioxide in a bind

Engineers set to convert carbon dioxide into solid rock

Icelandic experts hope to dispose of 30,000 tonnes of the greenhouse gas each year. Engineers in Iceland are set to convert carbon dioxide to solid rock as a way to tackle global warming.

Source: Engineers set to convert carbon dioxide into solid rock

Personal views: Facing with the increasing emission of carbon dioxide all over the world, various innovative ideas have been raised to tackle the challenges. Unfortunately, most of the concepts or technologies put forward are still in the infant stage or incurring unjustified energy consumption in the proposed processes. 

Electric Vehicles Start Up in Hong Kong

by Mr. Robert Gibson

Following the Government’s Budget announcements on Electric Vehicles (‘EVs’) many questions are being asked about them.

• When will we be able to buy viable EVs in Hong Kong?
• Given that marginal electricity generation in Hong Kong is likely to be from coal, do EVs lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions?

The October 2008 report by Arup for the Department of Transport in the UK. Its key findings include:

• For the UK’s mix of electricity supply EVs have the potential to offer significant carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared to conventional petrol/diesel fuelled internal combustion engines. This applies over a full life cycle, taking account of emissions from power generation and emissions relating to production and disposal.
• Due to vehicle development lead times, mass production and volume availability of EVs is unlikely to occur before 2014 at the earliest.
• The wide spread roll-out and uptake of EVs after 2014 would require increased consumer confidence and education; improvements in battery performance and cost; charging infrastructure which keeps pace with demand; and stimulation of the market through appropriate incentives which encourage the uptake of low carbon vehicles. Without these a ‘Business as Usual’ scenario would prevail.
• Largely due to the high cost of batteries, the consensus is that EVs will cost more to produce than comparable existing vehicles for the foreseeable future. Over the medium term the whole-life running costs of EVs are expected to be lower than conventionally-fuelled alternatives, primarily due to differences in fuel prices. Currently private consumers buy on capital cost rather than running costs and so education will be required to raise awareness of this benefit.
• Pilot and demonstration projects will be critical to address the questions and concerns of all stakeholders involved in EVs in order to provide an evidence base for a possible future wider rollout of vehicles.

The report goes on to make a number of recommendations on action the UK Government should take to promote EVs.

It would be helpful to have a study for Hong Kong which builds on the attached study and similar ones from other countries to clarify the viability and the net environmental impact of EVs here.