Catégorie : Previous Issues Articles

ECO is dismayed to have to write another article on the fact that the SBI has yet to begin its work. Boo! ECO would much rather fill its pages with all the ideas it has for the 2015 agreement or on closing the gigatonne gap (or at least some funny cartoons, fake recipes, or mock classified ads). Instead it feels compelled to ruminate on the lack of progress…

Ironically, it seems that this lack of progress has its origins in something that actually did make progress: Doha eliminated more than 3.6 billion tons of the hot air in the Kyoto system. Without this decision Ukraine and Belarus would have accumulated over 2 billion and 400 million tons of hot air in the course of the second commitment period due to their weak targets. There is no point giving the number for Russia as it has comfortably decided not to participate in KP CP2.

The issue, of course, is how that decision was taken. While ECO fully supports resolving the long-standing matter of the rules of procedure, it is suspicious of the motives behind Russia, Ukraine and Belarus for insisting on it right now. For Russia, this just seems like sour grapes as they are not even a party to the second commitment period, and last time a proposal on the rules of procedure was discussed, seemed much more intent on pushing its own proposal to regularly review the Annexes of the Convention (which – oh, ECO doesn’t know – may explain some of the G77 and China’s positioning now on including new items in the agenda).
... Read more ...

In the midst of agenda controversies and lack of ambition, ECO would like to acknowledge that some countries are taking proactive actions, by bringing new ideas and commitments to the UNFCCC processes.

ECO welcomes some of the contributions and actions by the Independent Alliance of Latin American Countries (AILAC) to develop a process to achieve a good climate deal in 2015. They’re not among the wealthiest nations, nor the poorest; they are middle income countries and, in contrast to many developed countries, they have committed their nations to reduce emissions within their capacities.

In yesterday’s ADP plenary, they proposed to lead by example. They also welcomed the AOSIS proposal as a good starting point for action in the energy sector, which they see as being key to begin closing the gigatonne gap. The idea of scaling up and doing the same for other sectors such as transport, industry, waste and forestry is also appealing. ECO looks forward to seeing more progress on positive actions. But remember, you committed to it, and ECO will be watching…

“Today’s Fossil is awarded to Russia for blocking the start of the SBI through trying to alter the agenda.

In Doha, Parties made progress on improving the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol by getting rid of some of the hot air in the system.

Yet, now Russia – who is not even a Party to the second commitment period of the Protocol – is all bent out of shape about how the decision was taken.

Of course, having matters being formally adopted and adhering to the rules of procedure are very important elements in this process, however blocking the work of the SBI for two days is not the way to have this matter is resolved.

There has been an item on the COP agenda dealing with proposals regarding the rules of procedure for the past two years.

The SBI agenda is full of pressing issues that could also yield real emission reductions – like reforming JI and the CDM to ensure additionality or reviewing the adequacy of the long-term goal. So Russia why don’t you use that super power of yours to get the SBI back on track?! »

A question to delegates: How will you ensure that the two fastest growing sectors in terms of emissions – international aviation and maritime transport – contribute their fair share to global efforts to reduce emissions?

In Monday’s reports to SBSTA by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the news was not good. The IMO has suspended discussions of market based measures (MBMs) to some undefined date in the future, and with it the chance to set emissions targets for the shipping sector, which accounts for around 3% of global emissions.

On the aviation front the news isn’t quite as bad, at least not yet. The ICAO Council will discuss MBMs for aviation later this month, and MBMs are still on the table. There is some encouraging news from the aviation industry itself this week – the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents most airlines globally, has called on ICAO to adopt a global MBM this year. Although the specifics of their proposal leave a lot to be desired – only offsetting growth in the sector after the year 2020 – IATA’s decision puts the spotlight on ICAO.

Measures for these sectors, which would internalise the environmental externalities by putting a price on emissions and generating finance that could be used to respond to the climate crisis, are facing fierce resistance in both the IMO and ICAO.
... Read more ...

CAN hopes Australia’s independent Climate Change Authority (CCA) had a useful time in Bonn gathering perspectives from Parties, in particular on how Australia’s actions may help or hinder the road to a 2015 global deal.

With carbon pollution blasting through 400ppm and many nations preparing to ramp up their efforts, we guess you heard some stern views on the (lack of) adequacy and fairness of Australia’s unconditional 5% target for 2020. The good news? WWF earlier this week revealed Australia could bump up its target from 5% by 2020 to 25% at virtually no extra cost to its economy. A lucky country indeed! You’d be mad not to, wouldn’t you? And while the cost to your GDP would be negligible, the kudos would be priceless.

In honour of your visit, ECO revisited Australia’s conditions for moving to 15% and maintains these were comfortably satisfied by the Cancun Agreements and Durban Platform, along with new reporting requirements for developing countries and land sector rules under the Kyoto Protocol. But it’s no secret that 15% falls well short of what a country with economic capability and clean energy resources like yours should be putting in. Wouldn’t you agree? And as your own Professor Garnaut has made clear, with a coastal population, rising costs from extreme weather and shifting rainfall threatening to wreak havoc for your farmers, no developed country has a stronger national interest in keeping the global temperature rise as far below 2°C as possible.
... Read more ...

Mexico’s 2050 Climate Change Vision report is a welcome step in its path to a low-carbon future. Mexico has included an emission reduction goal of 50% by 2050 compared to 2000 and 30% with respect to business as usual by 2020 in its Climate Change National Strategy.

While Mexico has communicated it will do everything possible to meet these targets, according to both these documents and the General Climate Change Law, these targets are subject to the availability of international funding and support.

The measures detailed in the report include a massive deployment of public transport systems, stringent energy efficiency standards in the construction and industrial sectors and a rapid escalation of renewable energy as key elements for achieving a low-emissions economy. Despite this, the best strategies will be waylaid if funding to implement them is not available.

A substantial part of the measures included in Mexico’s 2050 Vision Strategy are shown to have the potential for significant positive impacts on the Mexican economy, and are intended to be supported through their own funding. However, there are significant actions that would incur short- and medium-term financial burdens for the country and need support from a start in the operation of the Green Climate Fund.
... Read more ...

ECO hopes that the ADP discussions will focus on solving the equity puzzle. The world needs an effective, science-based, fair and ambitious climate agreement. Here is an attempt by ECO to demystify the climate puzzle we are facing. The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations recently reached the 400 ppm mark was an ominous reminder about the urgency of substantial actions to keep temperature rise well below 2 degree C, and the ultimate goal to return it to 1.5 degree C above pre-industrial levels.

To resolve this challenge, developed countries must increase their pre-2020 pollution reductions and ramp up support for developing country actions through finance, technology and capacity building. Adaptation and loss and damage should also be given the necessary levels of support. These are the preconditions to rebuild the trust among Parties and for a successful outcome from Paris in 2015.

ECO believes that negotiations will never succeed unless Parties confront the equity challenge. More precisely, Parties need to deal with their differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, while protecting developing countries’ need to provide their citizens with sustainable living standards, as is available to citizens of any other country.

At the minimum, this means Parties need to develop a shared “Equity Reference Framework” that embodies the Convention’s core equity principles.ECO
... Read more ...

Based on pledges/statements made in UNFCCC…  Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK were first off the blocks in making financial pledges in Doha. This was welcome. But the adequacy and the clarity of these pledges vary significantly and need to be pinned down. And then there’s the rest… ?

Australia = ?

Austria = ?

Belgium = ?

Canada = ?

EU = ?

Greece = ?

Iceland = ?

Ireland = ?

Italy = ?

Japan = ?

Luxembourg = ?

Netherlands = ?

New Zealand = ?

Portugal = ?

Spain = ?

Switzerland = ?

United States = ? 

No developed country Party should be coming back to this process empty handed! ALL developed countries need to urgently commit to what climate finance they will provide in 2013 and beyond, in a way that is transparent, comparable and makes clear how finance is new and additional.

“A little less conversation, a little more action” needs to be the soundtrack of this year’s Long Term Finance (LTF) Work Programme. The Fast Start period is behind us, and we are already starting the period that we used to call “Long Term Finance”, which makes little sense when it refers to yesterday, today and tomorrow.

We’ve had processes under the UN Secretary General, the G20, and the UNFCCC. But to date these processes have failed to result in any decisions for, or commitments to, a given level of funding from now to 2020. So this year’s work programme must be different from last year’s in one fundamental respect: concrete outcomes on scaling up.

With the LCA finance negotiations behind us, and ADP negotiations on pre-2020 ambition focused on mitigation, this year’s LTF Work Programme is the main space for making progress on finance. If not here, where? If not now, when?

So unlike last year’s work programme, this year’s needs to be firmly geared towards options for decisions in Warsaw. These options then need to be discussed and agreed at the “in-session high-level ministerial dialogue” that the Doha outcome mandated for COP19. Failure to provide concrete options for ministers to consider would likely result in a missed opportunity that developing countries cannot afford.
... Read more ...

FCCC/CP/1996/2…*sigh*…is a document close to ECO’s heart! While there is no denying that clear rules of procedure – finally formally adopted and adhered to – would be an important development, ECO should be forgiven for doubting the sincerity of the sudden, but independent, interest of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine in the matter.

ECO has been around since 1972 (if you forgot to send us a birthday present this year, see yesterday’s issue for some suggestions). However, one’s institutional memory need not stretch that far back. In fact, one only needed to be in Doha, to understand where our scepticism comes from. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine opposed the overwhelming consensus on a COP decision in Doha. But their reasons were completely different from those of Bolivia’s similar objections in Cancun. Bolivia objected a COP decision on the grounds that the deal on the table was not ambitious enough.

ECO notes a clear difference here. In Doha, Parties made progress on improving the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol by getting rid of some of the hot air in the system. ECO was delighted with this development as – after all – important things in this process (emissions, hot air, the gap in financing commitments) are supposed to go down and not up.
... Read more ...