Category: Previous Issues Articles

There’s a lot of G7 analysis out there, but you read it here first: the end of fossil fuels is on the global agenda. To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, we need to get off fossil fuels, rapidly and completely.

Increasingly, this reality is being understood by governments and investors—and now, the leaders of the world’s largest industrialised countries. The just-concluded G7 has put the end of fossil fuels on the global agenda, calling for decarbonisation over the course of this century.

But when, exactly? There are those who think we can wait until the end of the century, but that would drive the world into an unprecedented humanitarian and ecological disaster. Rather, the answer is to speed up the just transition to globally phasing out fossil fuel emissions and phasing-in 100% renewable energy by 2050. A strong long-term goal in the Paris Agreement must reflect this.

Beyond the suggested global decarbonisation goal, the G7 has also agreed to do their share, transforming their own energy sectors by 2050. (And this means only 100% renewable energy, right?) They also plan to support initiatives promoting renewable energy in developing countries, particularly in Africa.

So ECO congratulates the G7 on their newfound long term ambition.
... Read more ...

At the conclusion of the G7, leaders of the world’s richest countries said they “will continue our efforts to provide and mobilise increased finance, from public and private sources, and to demonstrate that we and others are well on our way to meet the US$100 billion goal”.

“Continuing efforts to provide and mobilise increased finance” is about maintaining current levels of finance, which the G7 leaders claim are “already flowing at higher levels”. So far so good, no backsliding. But where is the much-needed commitment to further increase finance beyond current levels?

We are nowhere near Chancellor Merkel’s commitment to double Germany’s climate finance contribution by 2020. Other rich countries should be following suit well ahead of Paris with clear quantified commitments to scale up public finance, especially for adaptation, while avoiding confusing language or accounting tricks. This is key to success in Paris.

Next the G7 claim that we are “well on our way to meet the $100bn goal” warrants a closer look.

OECD-DAC estimates that public climate finance flows were $37bn in 2013. There are two reasons why this number is too high.

First, it includes bilateral aid contributions where climate change is not just a “principal” but a “significant” objective.
... Read more ...

Yesterday’s Joint Contact Group (JCG) on the 2013-2015 review was like reliving a bad dream. Saudi Arabia used procedural arguments to prevent progress towards the drafting of a COP decision building on the robust climate science contained in the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED). That’s backsliding to the dark ages of the 1990, Saudi Arabia!

It was also disappointing to witness China and India siding with the Kingdom rather than standing with countries where acting on the messages of the SED is a matter of survival. All this prevented the JCG from recommending appropriate action on the basis of the key messages highlighted throughout the SED.

As a reminder, those messages are: we are not on track to a “below 2°C path”, 2°C warming would be dangerous, and keeping warming to 1.5°C would avoid many disastrous impacts.

Rather than wasting more negotiating hours with delaying tactics, Parties should consider what their mitigation policies must be if they respond adequately.

This might be hard to believe, but yes, it’s true — the Kyoto Protocol (KP) rules are still on the agenda.

After 2 years of negotiations battles around the so-called “special terms”, Ukraine forced Parties in Lima to make an exception allowing them to keep their reduction target by 2020. A target that means double growth, and being able to use the assigned amount units (AAUs) from the first commitment period in the second.

ECO thought that this would become a thing of the past, but unfortunately we were wrong. This Bonn session has instead seen Belarus and Kazakhstan prevent the adoption of the KP rules.

With the exception for Ukraine in hand, Belarus and Kazakhstan lined up for theirs too. Both understand that there may be some “privileges” that come with Ukraine’s circumstances. But, it’s impossible for the same “privileges” to extend to Belarus and Kazakhstan in the second commitment period, given that they didn’t even participate in the first.

It shouldn’t be this hard. If all Parties followed the example of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan and demanded benefits for participation in the climate agreement, who would be left to save the climate?

Hey Planeteers—our world is in peril! We are facing a terrible emissions gap that ECO has pointed out for years. Without significant emission cuts and increased finance in the next 5 years, keeping warming below 2ºC will be a dream, let alone below 1.5ºC. Our beloved planet will be exposed to devastating climate impacts. But there is room for hope: 5 country blocs have come up with proposals that can close this gap.

The EU and the Umbrella Group brought the powerful elements of fire and air to the negotiations, by expressing “grave concern” about the pre-2020 gap and the need to enhance pre-2020 mitigation ambition.

The EIG brought the element of earth to build a solid foundation through “triggering the preparation of project proposals to replicate successful projects presented in TEMs for interested parties”and “establish a more direct communication channel with the entities of the financial mechanism”.

AOSIS reinforced the earth element and proposed to establish an Action Platform as a COP agenda item. This offers a potentially rock-solid future home for this process, particularly if it is rooted in the Paris agreement.

The G77 (and when ECO went to press, this was only by plenary statement, not submission) offered water to break the dam that will unleash the flood of finance needed for more action.
... Read more ...

ECO has been listening—in the hallways, the plenaries, even the cafeterias—for ideas on how to move forward with differentiation.

In Lima, Parties agreed that the way forward would respect the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR+RC), as refracted through the lens of “national circumstances”.

It’s a start, but far too vague to serve as the basis of the principle-based, dynamic differentiation regime needed to ensure ambition within the new agreement, and for it to be equitable to all. This regime will be bottom up. But take note, INDC minimalists—it can’t be entirely bottom up. Not if we want it to incentivise both support and action on the necessary scale.

ECO anticipated this moment, and here’s our advice. The differentiation regime in the new agreement should be based on the Convention’s principles. It will need to operationalise those principles via a set of reference equity indicators that allow us to understand and measure national levels of development.

The facilitated dialogues on various sections here in Bonn need to capture and express the concepts that are floating in the air. The dialogues on mitigation, adaptation, transparency, finance, and legal form need to engage the concrete realities of a world divided between developed and developing, more or less vulnerable, rich and poor.
... Read more ...

We are entering the last week of negotiations for this session, and everyone has a lot on their plates. But on the mitigation front, assistance is at hand for you, dear delegates, to help you capture all the right elements. So grab a piece of paper, a napkin or open up the notes function on your phone and jot down your own simple checklist.

First, think Long Term. A Long Term Goal (LTG) must be in the text of the Paris agreement. While many options remain in the text, the main thing for Parties to remember is that a LTG must be consistent with 1.5°C to put us on the pathway towards a safer world. And it must have a clear objective, let’s say: “phase out fossil fuel emissions and phase in 100% renewable energy by 2050.” This would put us on track to minimise risks and allow climate resilience while ensuring a sustainable future for all.

Second, remember the number 5. A LTG is essential, but there’s a value to having renewed commitments every 5 years. That way, Parties can compare their planned actions on a common temporal scale, while preventing the dreaded lockin of low ambition and cooperation.
... Read more ...

ECO is thrilled that many countries are calling for more attention to adaptation and its political parity with mitigation. With climate impacts already causing human suffering, and with even more severe threats in the horizon, this is essential.

As countries invest more in adaptation planning (using tools like National Adaptation Plans), some are choosing to communicate their plans and needs by including an adaptation component in their INDCs. Yet, even with these encouraging prospects, there is something missing (even more than predictable, adequate finance from rich countries).

So what’s missing? It’s this: How will we know how much adaptation is taking place and whether it is enough to protect the vulnerable? And where more support is needed? How will support be matched to adaptation needs? Simple: cycles of national adaptation contributions –synchronised with cycles of other contributions, like mitigation and finance.

Regular cycles of communicating planned adaptation action will enable countries to share their priorities and support needs, in addition to facilitating learning. And that’s critical because very country will need to adapt. It will also ground the finance discussion, based on support needs identified from the ground up. And regular cycles will keep that information up to date –creating a merry-go-round of knowledge.
... Read more ...

In Cancun, when Parties agreed to periodically review mitigation ambition on the basis of climate science, ECO welcomed this opportunity to ground the climate negotiations in science.

During the past two years, experts provided valuable information and addressed Parties’ lingering questions on recent scientific findings. These discussions resulted in several key messages of particular relevance for the negotiations. The Structured Expert Dialogue concluded that climate change is a matter of survival and that impacts increase significantly between 1.5ºC and 2ºC. That’s already enough to keep us on our toes in the fight against climate change. To add further support to our cause, a report prepared by UN Human Rights experts emphasised that the long term global goal is a matter of human rights, especially for many of the most vulnerable communities. It’s hard to imagine a more relevant argument for a 1.5ºC target or a better message on which to build the Paris agreement.

However, rumour has it that a couple of Parties are now actively rejecting the notion that the COP should consider this valuable information. And this is despite the COP having a clear mandate to do so. We’re as shocked as you. Quick reminder to the Parties: you cannot legitimately question the conclusions of the 2013-2015 Review.
... Read more ...

The aviation industry is still trying to pass itself off as a climate leader with its target of “carbon neutral growth”from 2020 onwards.

But ECO wants to pull back the curtain on this tricky target. In fact, the industry is proposing to allow emissions to grow freely until 2020 and from 2020 onwards. This will continue to grow emissions while offsetting the increase over its 2020 levels.

In other words, the aviation industry is proposing a free ride to pollute until 2020, and then a “license for continued unlimited growth”, to be addressed through potentially dodgy offsets. Obviously, such a target is well short of what we need to keep temperatures under a 2°C, much less the 1.5°C limit that we need. In fact, with a projected growth of 270% by 2050, aviation emissions could account for up to 15% of all global CO2 emissions.

To make matters worse, these aviation emissions are predominantly due to travel by those who are better off. Yet, it will inflict an increasingly negative climate impact on the most vulnerable countries and people. How can we ensure that the aviation debt is repaid? Make the aviation sector pay an adequate contribution to adaptation and loss and damage finance mechanisms.
... Read more ...