Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

Norway likes its image of the good student who always completes its homework, and is on time at that. And so too with its INDC. Last Friday, we saw the Norwegian government publish its new emission reduction targets for 2030.

The idea is, surprisingly, to start negotiations with the EU, with the goal of being included in the entire EU climate framework—both ETS and non-ETS sectors. This would mean adopting all EU targets, including a 43% reduction in the ETS sector by 2030, and with a clear intention of buying as many ETS allowances as possible. The hope seems to be that this will reduce the need to bother the petroleum industry with more restrictions, and stop new regulations in the transport sector — an approach that may please some. The petroleum industry, increasingly active in the vulnerable Arctic, will soon have to face the reality that it has no place in the future renewable society.

One good thing that might come out of this alignment with the EU is that Norway soon might feel a need to leave the Umbrella Group, which definitely is not good company for a model student.

As Lima enters the end game, ECO stresses that the INDCs and the associated upfront
information requirements are at the core of the COP20 decision. The minimum expectation of a Lima outcome (based on the core of the Warsaw mandate) is a requirement of solid information provided when the INDCs are communicated. This needs to go hand in hand with the decision on INDC scope and assessment. Let’s look in turn at these three parts of the INDCs.

The scope of the INDCs is at serious risk of being unbalanced. Mitigation and finance are the absolute must-have elements, but also Parties that want to put forward information about their adaptation activities should be encouraged to do so.  And Parties’ fair share should be considered as the sums of domestic action and provision of support.

Assessments of INDCs need to be structured so that Parties do not feel they are being asked for more than their fair share, or that others are not doing so.

Therefore, it is essential that the assessment is of the individual equity of the INDCs, along with assessment of the aggregate effort. Furthermore, assessment will be fair only if it is based on the principles of adequacy,
CBDR+RC and equitable access to sustainable development.
... Read more ...

Perhaps it’s not widely known, but ECO holds an honorary Ministerial post. And so it was pleasing to receive a letter from 85 civil society organizations from around the world calling for loss and damage to be recognized in the texts coming from Lima and in the 2015 Paris agreement.

The real Ministers, of course, also received the letter (but if not, we suggest checking your junk folder and your spam settings, or your staff may have put it in the reading file right behind the Daily Programme).

As the IPCC’s recent AR5 states, there are “limits to adaptation” at all levels of global average temperature increases including 1.5 and 2 °C. With the world still on a path to a 3° C increase and more, the impacts going
beyond those limits will become catastrophically worse.

The issue of loss and damage is a priority concern for vulnerable countries and for discerning Ministers (such as yours truly,
Minister ECO).

Vulnerable countries have not only done the least to contribute to the climate change crisis, they are also the ones suffering the greatest loss and the severest damage from its impacts.

An effective mechanism to provide financial and technical support to vulnerable developing countries and communities to address loss and damage is urgently needed.
... Read more ...

As you go about the conference on this final day, here are two key points to remember:

1. Adaptation must have a central place in the COP20 decision text for the 2015 agreement. It should also be included in the INDCs, albeit in a legally distinct manner from mitigation obligations and with a voluntary character. It is important to recognize the adaptation efforts of developing countries and assess the progress in terms of capacity as well as any funding gap. After Lima, detailing of global adaptation goals, principles and cycles needs to be done for the 2015 agreement, linking it with public finance and expected global average temperature increase levels.

2. Loss and Damage should be distinct from adaptation and be adopted as one of the key element of the 2015 agreement. Loss and damage must be seen as being in a continuum with mitigation and adaptation, acknowledging that inadequate mitigation and insufficient adaptation lead to more loss and damage. The IPCC AR5 clearly stated that “limits to adaptation” are being reached. Therefore, loss and damage must be recognized as a separate element from adaptation in the new agreement.

ECO likes to think of itself as an environmentalist with a spreadsheet. The practical kind that identifies what the biggest obstacle is standing between us and a 2 or better a 1.5 degree world, and tackles it head on. We did the sums and ran the mode, and here’s what should be top of your lists for pre-2020 action and a central part of your INDC.

And it was President Calderon himself who reminded Ministers today that we urgently need to stop burning coal. That’s the recommendation that jumps out of his New Climate Economy Report, the hefty volume found on the tables of Finance Ministers around the world. And its conclusion: rich countries need to stop building new coal-fired power stations immediately and accelerate the retirement of their old ones; whilst middle-income countries need to call a halt to new coal in 2025. And of course, coal phase-out needs to go hand in hand with a fair, managed transition for workers to a 100% renewable future.

To get the conversation going, ECO’s scorecard ranks G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US) on how they are doing in the move away from coal. We looked at eight different indicators, including how much coal each country burns overall; their coal dependency; whether coal power plant capacity is being added or closed down; how much taxpayer money is being spent on coal at home and abroad; and how stringently a country’s coal-specific regulation is.
... Read more ...

Representatives of the world’s working people expressed outrage yesterday that the draft text in these negotiations currently excludes any reference to the need for a just transition and decent work. The Cancun and Durban COPs included that language in the decisions.

Trade unions, supported by civil society in general, explain that – in addition to requiring ambitious emissions reductions and sustainable finance – it is critical that the Paris agreement also ensures that the transition to a clean energy economy will meet the needs of working families for decent and good quality jobs and protect the livelihoods of workers in carbon-intensive sectors. ECO joins the call to restore the reference to just transition and decent work in the text.

As 400,000 marching in the streets of New York said, to change everything we need
everyone.

In 2010, transport was responsible for 23% of energy-related CO2 emissions, with about two-thirds coming from road transport. Without concerted action, this number is poised to double in the next few decades. In order to stay beneath the IPCC recommended 2 °C scenario, it is essential that climate policy and action actively include transport.

Avoid-Shift-Improve (A-S-I) strategies provide strong potential in the transport sector, through mobility solutions based on sustainable transport systems. A-S-I works by avoiding or reducing the need to travel, shifting towards more environmentally friendly forms of travel, and improving the energy efficiency of vehicle technology and transport in general.

All components of this approach have been implemented at different levels both in developed and developing countries. Actions under this approach also have the great benefit of better air quality, and less road fatalities and congestion.

For example, the bus rapid transport (BRT) system in Lima, El Metropolitano, is a classic A-S-I project, and has expanded capacity and reduced travel times and emissions in ourhost city’s overcrowded streets.

Yet, the manner in which transport is being discussed in COP20 signals that parties are either not aware of the contribution of transport to GHG emissions, or they do not recognize the potential contribution transport can make towards respecting the 2° C  limit.
... Read more ...

Australia’s worsening status as a climate wrecker was given even more attention with its fourth Fossil of the Day awarded today at the Lima COP20. Aussies like to win things, but most sensible Australians would be shaking their heads at this.

So what did they do this time?

Well the Australian Trade Minister who is here to ‘chaperone’ the Foreign Minister told big business leaders yesterday that his Government may not sign up to a new global deal if major trade competitors are not doing it too; he said Australia will not “get it in the neck”.

Dear minister,

You can’t say you’re in favor of the 2 degrees target and at the same time refuse to take adequate action on short, mid and long term mitigation. That just doesn’t work.

Isn’t it time you admit that we simply need to phase out fossil fuels from our
energy system, completely? Could Paris be that moment? “Dear fossil fuel industry, it’s over.” Try that! Feels good.

Doing the math with the IPCC carbon budgets for both 2 and 1.5 degrees warming clearly show that we must get carbon emissions to zero by 2050. In reality, that means phasing out fossil fuels completely – which is what the Catholic Bishops called for yesterday, along with a transition to 100% renewable energy.

Getting there in time means taking action now. Here in Lima you need to agree to:

• Take more pre-2020 action, because doing it later would be harder and more costly.

• 5-year commitment periods to increase ambition in 2025 so as to avoid locking in low targets for 15 years.

• Zero carbon by 2050 as the clearest expression of the existing temperature goal.

• Provide sufficient  means of implementation so that developing countries can leapfrog to provide access to clean, renewable energy for all.

The current elements text provides options for countries to consider as the long-term goal. Curiously, only one of the options refers to the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC science is, in fact, consistent with several possible long-term goals, and in particular with several different end dates. It’s just the background assumptions and choice of gases that differ.

However, there is one ironclad requirement for any goal that wishes to limit warming: CO₂ emissions must most certainly, at some point, come down to zero. The particular day of reckoning depends upon how much warming and risks we are willing to accept.

To push back the day when CO₂ emissions must drop to zero, one could, at least in theory, take on the rather daunting project of engaging so-called negative emissions on a massive scale – a scenario that relies on largely untested and fantastically expensive technology. IPCC science indicates that doing so, while attempting to limit warming to 2 °C, would only push the day of reckoning back to somewhere around 2070 for CO2.

However, to limit warming without relying on experimental technology that has unknown risks and potentially extreme costs, the the IPCC tells us that to keep below 2 °C, global CO2 emissions must drop to zero by 2050.
... Read more ...