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

Plan B 4.0 Mobilising to Save Civilisation

 
This book on this title has just been released. It, and supporting material including a good powerpoint presentation are free for download from www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4.  In the book Lester Brown lays out the threats facing our civilization, including food insecurity and climate change, and presents the Plan B proposals for solving them.

As the website says, you are welcome to modify it to suit your needs. It is designed to be shared, so feel free to pass along the link to others who might be interested. They ask only that you appropriately credit the Earth Policy Institute and the photographers, notably Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

Added by J Robert Gibson

Military & Security Aspects of Climate Change

Recently a goup of retired 3- and 4-star American generals and admirals published a study warning of the security threats of climate change.

The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explored ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. It can be downloaded at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/. The US has also published classified National Intelligence Estimates on climate change.

The concern is now spreading. A project called "Climate Change & the Military: Copenhagen and Beyond" is being coordinated by former European Union Parliamentarian Tom Spencer.  One thrust is trying to raise the spectre of security threats - and thus the sense of urgency - at Copenhagen. More information can be found at http://www.envirosecurity.org/cctm/.

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

Key Messages from Copenhagen Climate Science Congress 10 – 12 March 2009

by Mr. Robert Gibson

The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change took place in Copenhagen from 10th to 12th March.

Concluding statement:

The congress was attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries. It preliminary messages handed to the Danish Prime Minister at the end of the Congress are listed below. Its full synthesis report will be issued in June 2009.

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on ‘dangerous climate change’. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’ regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

About the congress
The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change is taking place in Copenhagen 10 - 12 March. More than 2,000 participants are registered. The congress has received almost 1,600 scientific contributions from researchers from more than 70 countries. The preliminary conclusions from the congress will be presented Thursday 12 March at the closing session of the congress and will be developed in a synthesis report to be published in June this year. The synthesis report will be handed over to all participants at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in December in Copenhagen by the Danish Government. It is organized by International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU):

Australian National University
ETH Zürich
National University of Singapore
Peking University
University of California, Berkeley
University of Cambridge
University of Copenhagen
University of Oxford
University of Tokyo
Yale University
DISCLAIMER: THIS PRESS RELEASE IS WRITTEN BY THE CLIMATE SECRETARIAT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. THE PEOPLE QUOTED DO NOT NECESSARILY SHARE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OTHERS IN THIS TEXT.

See the attached press release covering the first day of the conference. See http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ for more information.

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.

UNFCCC Poznan Review

by Ciara Shannon

December 2008 Poznan Update: A Very Tough Road Ahead.
The UN negotiations in Poznan in December 2008 marked a half-way mark point from the 2007 Bali Roadmap, which launched a two-year process for an expected global climate agreement in Copenhagen 2009. The next 12 months will bring a series of UN meetings, and a draft negotiating text for Copenhagen should emerge by June 2009. According to Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Poznan achieved what is set out to. Major outcomes included: resolution on the legal capacity of the Adaptation Fund, agreement on the Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer, and advances in discussions on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and the Least Developed Countries Fund. "We now have a much clearer sense of where we need to go in designing an outcome which will spell out the commitments of developed countries, the financial support required and the institutions that will deliver that support as part of the Copenhagen outcome," de Boer said.

What are the key concerns, aspirations, and responsibilities of Asian countries in the post-2012 climate change agreement?

by Andrew Stevenson

Despite growing awareness in the scientific, policy and business communities of the seriousness of climate change science, and growing pressure from many stakeholders for greater action, an effective international response is still far from guaranteed. The latest science indicates that in order to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change, reductions will likely need to be much faster and more widespread than previously thought.

With many of the world’s largest and fastest growing emitters, and most vulnerable countries, it is clear that Asia will play a key role in negotiating and implementing the post-2012 agreement. However, action on climate change by Asian countries has been limited to date, and in large part has been characterized by finger pointing with the west over responsibilities, commitments, and the need for economic development.

The overall question I want to pose to readers is; what do you see as the key concerns, aspirations, and responsibilities of Asian countries in the post-2012 agreement?