Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

Seasoned negotiators among you will recall that there was a time when Canada was not a shoe-in for the Fossil of the Year awards. While never perfect, Canada once had a reputation for punching above its weight when it came to the climate talks—a reputation that began to fracture in Nairobi, was crumbling by Bali, and a distant memory by the time Copenhagen rolled around.

Even bad things must come to an end.  In a dramatic election yesterday, Canada threw out the near-decade long rule of climate laggard Stephen Harper. Incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has his work cut out for him. To be sure, his party’s election platform pushed some of the right buttons: promising to contribute Canada’s fair share to keep the world below 2°C; working with the premiers of Canada’s provinces to come up with a new INDC target and a strategy to meet it (within 90 days after Paris); phasing out fossil fuel subsidies; and investing $2bn in green infrastructure.

Sounds great, eh? Not so fast. ECO’s Ottawa correspondents report that Trudeau also talks about building new tar sands pipelines to get Canada’s dirty oil to market. It seems Trudeau is not yet the boldest when it comes to making the tough calls on Canada’s carbon bomb, the tar sands.
... Read more ...

ECO is eager for the discussions on Workstream 2 to start. Without a strong outcome on pre-2020 ambition, we are likely to lose any chance of keeping global warming to below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. ECO would like to suggest a few surgical insertions for our patient to grow into a strong and healthy workstream:

• Recognise the ambition gap and the need to close it: The efforts under Workstream 2 have to be informed by a clear purpose: the urgency of closing the pre-2020 gap.

• Acknowledge the need for finance and the role of the Financial Mechanism: Like the Technology Mechanism, the Financial Mechanism should be given a role. Those environmentally, economically and socially sound opportunities identified under Workstream 2, particularly in renewable energy and energy efficiency, should receive priority support.

• Task high-level champions with matching potential and support: Appointing champions can move Workstream 2 from discussion to implementation. They need a clearer mandate to enable coalitions and to match mitigation opportunities with the necessary support.

• Criteria for initiatives: The champions and high-level dialogues will catalyse efforts, initiatives and coalitions. Criteria are needed so we can recognise those efforts that respect human rights, social safeguards, and environmental integrity.

• Review of implementation of initiatives: Once initiatives are launched, we need to ensure they deliver.

ECO joins you in being glad that Monday is behind us, dear Delegates. And that the text ended up slightly less (or should that be more?) lost and damaged than it started. The reinsertion of institutional arrangements for loss and damage can be the basis for making the mechanism fit for purpose. In addition, a provision for finance for loss and damage is essential if the Paris Agreement is to enable the most vulnerable people to deal with the worst impacts of climate change.

As Typhoon Koppu (Lando) deluges the Philippines, causing flooding and mudslides, knocking out power to nine million people, displacing 16,000 and killing 11 people, it is surely more obvious than ever that a durable climate change agreement must deal with the real and pressing issue of loss and damage, alongside scaling-up action to adapt to climate change.

ECO was saddened to hear Switzerland put brackets around the whole loss and damage article–and saddened-yet-not-suprised to hear the Umbrellas pushing for no reference to loss and damage. The EU seems to have exited themselves from the debate. EU: your celebrated “partnership” with vulnerable countries means nothing if you don’t stand with them on this critical issue! [PS: This ECO article is not entirely bracketed. Gruezi!]

Flexible mechanisms should not be so pliable that they undermine the already impoverished collective ambition of Parties. The Paris agreement needs to ensure that all Parties are decarbonising their economies and commit to the phase-in of 100% renewable energy by 2050. For this to be possible, any use of carbon markets must be supplemental to strong domestic action. This may seem obvious to most, but let ECO remind delegates that the relevant text on supplementarity is currently bracketed.

It is good to see that certain quality criteria—real emissions reductions, permanence, additionally and supplementarity—have made it into the co-chairs’ new text, in para 34 of the decision. Parties should endorse these, and to make them durable for the lifetime of the agreement, include them as principles for the use of markets  in the core legal agreement.

To make sure that market mechanism are used appropriately, ECO believes that the need to achieve a net decrease in emissions needs to be mandatory though, and not left to the whims and fancies of participating Parties. It is also imperative that any use of markets contributes to sustainable development and avoids double counting. The lack of environmental integrity of market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol have so far created a 11Gt “hot air” loophole.
... Read more ...

Many countries have been saying that differentiation needs to be inserted back into the text. And ECO agrees. How would we otherwise be able to reach a dynamic differentiation approach for the Paris agreement and unlock the needed ambition?

During yesterday’s exercise, many countries—mostly developing countries—suggested that differentiation needs to be well represented in the co-chairs’ text in order to make it a valid starting point for negotiations.

Multiple Parties, rightfully, made it clear that the Paris agreement must be under the Convention. This includes the application of its principles, and that differentiation must be incorporated in the preamble. Additionally, ECO thinks the general mention in Article 2 of common but differentiated responsibilities in the light of national circumstances could be strengthened by referencing different levels of development.

Differentiation must also be addressed in each element of the Agreement in the context of the relevant issues—specifically, who does what in the mitigation, finance and adaptation sections.

ECO was pleased to see the insertions to the text by Brazil and others that bring CBDR back into the mitigation section. Developed countries should take the lead on mitigation actions, with ambitious contributions from all countries, especially those who are capable.

On INDCs, differentiation would allow different countries to take on different types of commitments according to their responsibility, capability and needs.
... Read more ...

The voices of many religions are amplifying the call to bring back real ambition to these climate negotiations.

Today, a statement signed by 154 religious and spiritual leaders from 50 countries will be handed over to Christiana Figueres. The Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Brahma Kumari and Sikh leaders are asking governments to reach zero emissions by mid-century, phase-out fossil fuels, commit to building climate resilience, and provide finance and support to poor and vulnerable countries.

Leading by example, these faith leaders have also committed to climate action by pledging to continue raising awareness on climate change and significantly reduce the carbon footprints of their organisations.

Standing united across differences, while combining a scientifically sound mitigation target, finance, support to the most vulnerable, and taking action at home…is all ECO ever asks for.

ECO suggests that Parties take note from these spiritual leaders and continue the negotiations in good faith

While France is renowned for its mouth watering cuisine, the negotiating text for COP 21 will need major changes to avoid leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

The co-chairs have brought from the kitchen an incomplete meal with bland elements of uncertain origin. Crucially, the entire non-paper lacks that key ingredient necessary to stay in the running for a Michelin star: ambition.

To start with, the ambition and durability of the international climate regime must be secured through a review and revision mechanism based on the principles of equity and CBDR, which should work to increase Parties’ ambition over time in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Clearly, the proposed “Global Stocktake” does not make that cut. CAN proposes the adoption of a Paris Ambition Mechanism (PAM) that would link and synchronize Parties’ mitigation, finance and adaptation commitments in 5-year cycles. The PAM should combine a scientific review of the adequacy and equity of Parties’ commitments with implementation support for countries that wish to act beyond their domestic capabilities. It should hold the first round of reviews well before 2020.

A good chef thinks through a meal, from the amuse-bouche to the digestif. Likewise, this deal must be thought through all the way to the long-term goal.
... Read more ...

Well, not quite. But the co-chairs’ text removes any obligation for international aviation and shipping to set an emissions target. These sectors have CO2 emissions equal to the UK and Germany respectively. Moreover these sectors are set to grow by up to 300% by 2050, which would greatly undermine efforts to limit a temperature increase to 1.5°C. International aviation and shipping shouldn’t escape simply because their emissions aren’t assigned to a country. 

Even worse is how this text also drops any reference to using these sectors as a source of climate finance. Both sectors get their fuel tax-free, and will continue to be major drivers of climate change. The final agreement should require the two UN agencies that regulate these sectors—ICAO for aviation and IMO for shipping—to set targets and introduce measures compatible with a 1.5°C objective and identify these sectors as potential sources of climate finance.

Countries big and small are coming forward with their targets, so let’s not ignore these two huge and growing drivers of climate change.

With the majority, approximately 150, of climate plans now on the table, the time is ripe for a first assessment of these joint efforts. Morocco and the European Commission started a debate on the aggregate effort of the submitted proposals at their INDC Forum in Rabat.

ECO feels that Paris is on track for meeting its first objective: to unite countries in climate action with submitted INDCs covering marathon 85% of global emissions. This is an unprecedented moment and one Parties should be congratulated for! 

However, there is still a massive gap between the level of effort proposed in the INDCs and the level of action required to keep warming below 1.5°C. Though the INDCs start bending the curve, they still leave the world on track for dangerous levels of warming.

Scientists at the INDC Forum translated this gap in ambition into the need to include clear short- and long-term signals in the Paris agreement itself. There was a clear warning that transitioning towards the 2°C goal without an increase in ambition between now and 2030 would require rapid and abrupt energy system changes.

The meeting also discussed the lessons learned from this round of INDC submissions, looking both towards Paris and beyond.
... Read more ...

There is a big gap between what countries have put forward, so far ,and what it will take to avoid runaway climate change. A new report—Fair Shares: A Civil Society Equity Review of INDCs—compares submissions with their fair share based on science and equity. It warns that we have just 10-15 years to achieve significant emissions reductions. The report concludes that to avoid a 3°C warmer world, the Paris agreement must ensure steep emissions reductions towards near-zero levels by mid-century.

It must include a mechanism to ratchet up current targets before they come into effect in 2020 and enhance every 5 years thereafter. This is alongside a step-change in international climate finance, and the creation of a clear and equitable plan to address the emissions gap fuelled by scaled-up support from the developed countries that are most responsible for climate change.