Monthly Archive: December 2012

[The First Place Fossil goes to the European Union.] The EU receives a bracketed Fossil because we still have hope that the EU will stop being bullied by Poland and stand up for full cancellation of all hot air at the end of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Before Durban, the EU talked about the importance of closing the gap. On Kyoto it said it can commit to a second commitment period, on the condition that there’s a roadmap where the major emitters engage in a broader framework and where Kyoto rules are improved to ensure environmental integrity, specifically referring to the AAU surplus. However, the EU is still dilly-dallying. We need a strong EU position right now. If the EU fails to come to a sensible and joint position on the surplus, it will fail to be seen as serious in the ADP discussions to come. A political declaration is no option and a solution has to include a full cancellation of all surplus at the end of the second commitment period.

The Second Place Fossil of the Day goes to Poland for a fossilized position on the hot air issue. They stubbornly insist on full carry-over and generous use in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol while vehemently opposing cancellation of any hot air at the end of the that period.
... Read more ...

Dear Ministers:

With the rising impacts of severe climate change, now is the time for developed countries to scale up climate finance rather than pulling back from it.  Droughts, storms and heat waves all demand climate action — and action requires finance. Developing countries can’t survive without action.

Yet many developed countries seem to be failing in committing this. And now they’re hiding behind slippery words.

When you apply the word ‘continuation’ to climate finance, it might sound applicable at first hearing; but when you look more closely, you realize that continuing doesn’t tell you how much will continue:  $10?  $25?  $1,000?

Some European countries have pledged finance for the upcoming period, but where are the other developed countries — like the US, Japan, Canada or Australia? It would be appropriate for them and others to join in a common finance commitment. It’s not enough to rely on just a few countries to step up and pledge at the podium — we need everyone at the altar, committing together in a decision at Doha.

If you leave Doha without that collective decision, the commitment to reaching $100 billion dollars per annum by 2020 will be on the way to becoming an unreachable fantasy, with the future of a successful ADP hanging in the balance, and the survival of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable at far greater risk.

Hello there, yes, it’s us again.  ECO was hoping not bring this up one more time but the negotiations leave us no other choice.

With only two days of COP 18 left, we will continue to fight for an agreement that will give Loss and Damage the international political recognition that it deserves.

Running and hiding from the reality of climate change is not an option and will only delay the inevitable. So let’s face it, address it and act on it.

ECO is putting these cards on the table for one more push!

1. When all the developing countries are calling for an establishment of an international mechanism to address loss and damage here in Doha, Ministers should sit up and decide now. Every single day, it becomes more urgent as climate impacts are getting more severe from our failure to mitigate emissions.
2. Endorse and promote continuation of the work programme of Loss and Damage. It has been shown to be a vital tool in assessment of, and approaches to, loss and damage, particularly slow onset events. This will also facilitate further discussion on the institutional arrangement of the international mechanism — so let’s make it a clear priority for future actions.

ECO wants to remind the Parties that embedding equity in the climate regime is fundamental to any fair and ambitious outcome. While Parties have expressed their views on how to move toward operationalising equity, this aspect is reaching the vanishing point in the texts.

ECO thinks it would be pretty easy to measure, report and verify the disappearance of political will when Parties enter the negotiating rooms in the QNCC. That’s the real problem in these negotiations, as reflected in the weak language on equity in the latest texts from both the LCA and the ADP chairs. And that sends a very negative message to areas around the world struggling every day to survive against the adversities of climate impacts.

And yet, innovative and even transformative concepts are readily available.  Recently, Belgium and Sweden convened a rich and interactive meeting of experts and stakeholders in Brussels. Indeed, the ideas discussed in the Brussels workshop are immediately relevant and can be transformed into workable forms in the negotiations. Once again, the message from workshop participants was loud and clear: what we are facing is not a dearth of ideas or resources but instead a pervasive vacuum of political will.

One aspect of reviving momentum is to try out creative approaches. 
... Read more ...

The Kyoto Protocol is a consensus-building and democratic treaty. In adopting any amendments, the KP’s procedures try to keep everyone happy by ensuring every effort is taken to achieve agreement by consensus.

But when a country, or even a few countries, are blocking progress, the KP also allows an amendment to be adopted ‘as a last resort’ by a three quarters majority vote. Once the minimum requirements have been reached, amendments of course only enter into force for those countries that have deposited their instruments of acceptance – otherwise they cannot access the new benefits that the KP, as amended, can bring.

Concerning the the ‘hot air’ problem, for example, this means that if Russia decides not to agree or ratify an amendment that would cut out 13 Gt of hot air, they would still keep their surplus credits but there would be no market for them. In that instance, those that did ratify such an amendment for CP2, giving them continued access to the Kyoto mechanisms, and with their new QELROs inscribed in Annex B, would have agreed not to buy any such hot air.

On a related subject, ECO reminds the EU member states – and the European Parliament concurs – that under the EU treaties their common positions on environmental issues can be agreed by qualified majority voting.
... Read more ...

ECO holds no brief against Poland as a travel destination. It’s a nice country with cold winter weather but warm and friendly people — but it’s definitely not the right place to host COP 19.

Hosting a COP requires actively working to get a meaningful outcome based on environmental integrity and flexibility. Host countries must be flexible enough to set aside national interests to address the concerns of all parties and find workable and constructive compromises.

Flexibility for the sake of common benefit and environmental integrity is something that the Polish government has not been succeeding in recently.

Agreeing to the full cancellation of ‘hot air’ after the second commitment period would be the best step to strengthen your hand, Poland, and show the world that you understand the true meaning and objectives of this process.

Otherwise, we will still come and visit, but we’ll do it over holidays and we will search for another Presidency that can really contribute to the ultimate goal of the COP which is limiting global warming well below 2°C.

The First Place Fossil goes to the United States. The world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and many fragile and precious ecosystems, are already being hit by the devastating impacts of climate change…

Establishing an International Mechanism on Loss and Damage here in Doha is vital to ensuring that the impacts of climate change, both extreme weather events and slow onset events, are dealt with. However, the US in particular, with support by Australia and Canada, is killing the issue by pushing for loss and damage to be dealt with under the Nairobi Work Program and Adaptation Committee.

All the parties here in Doha – including the US – must support the proposal by the G77, China, AOSIS, Africa Group and the LDC Group to establish an International Mechanism on Loss and Damage and continue the work program so other elements can progress.

The Second Place Fossil of the Day goes to Japan for no pledge, no urgency, no money. Japan has failed to reconfirm its pledge to reduce emissions by 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels in the opening speech at the Minister’s roundtable. In fact, the Minister did not mention any target at all! No Pledge.

Japan has completely ignored the core discussion here in Doha, which is how to raise the level of ambition to keep the temperature below 2 degrees.
... Read more ...