ECO Newsletter

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 ...

Dear big fossil fuel companies,

We hear that some of you have had an epiphany and have written to governments and the UN, calling for a strong carbon price. Well, it’s your lucky day! All the way from the UNFCCC to your board rooms, there is a proposal that will no doubt prick up your ears. A global fossil fuel extraction levy (also known as a Carbon Majors Levy) would be an effective way to implement a carbon price. If it were implemented at the low, low price of $2 per tonne of CO2e, it would raise roughly $50bn each year. Obviously, such a low price would have to increase each year, as you will no doubt agree that we need to phase out fossil fuels, while climate finance needs are clearly only going to increase.

Given your call for a carbon price, dear fossil fuel companies, ECO is certain that you would agree that such a fossil fuel extraction levy should apply to each tonne of coal, barrel of oil and cubic meter of natural gas. After all, the pollution emitted from these fossil fuels is causing climate change, and that means you’re profiting from causing climate damage. ECO can only imagine that your call for a carbon price has altruistic motives-not some sugar coated agenda to keep business as usual (take note, gas proponents!).
... Read more ...

Tomorrow will bring another round of discussions about the Framework for Various Approaches. ‘Round’ being the operative word, as things seem to have been going around (and ‘round) in circles. Some countries are keen (maybe too keen?) to engage, while others are not willing to talk at all—at least until the ADP discussions conclude. Parties should take advantage of the time available in Bonn to share their views and come to an agreement on key principles.

With the plethora of carbon markets popping up like mushrooms (some palatable and some highly toxic to environmental integrity), it will be important for the UNFCCC to establish common standards for these markets. Applying common standards will ensure that vital principles, such as avoidance of double counting, markets as supplemental to national mitigation plans, and environmental integrity, are upheld. And this way, regardless of the carbon market approaches pursued, emissions reductions can be real, additional, permanent and verified, based on credible baselines.