ECO Newsletter

If you have read yesterday’s ECO (or the IPCC’s newest report), you know why we need ADP Workstream 2 (WS2). We need to close the ambition gap ASAP to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To stay below 1.5°C, we need to phase out all fossil fuels and phase in 100% renewable energies, with energy access for all by 2050 at the latest. To achieve this transition, we have to avoid any further lock-in into unsustainable high-carbon infrastructure.

That’s why ECO was pleased that the draft decision text on WS2 calls for its continuation until 2020 and for enhancing the technical expert meetings (TEMs). The TEMs have highlighted many opportunities for additional action and their multiple benefits – particularly for deploying renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. But, how do you move from identifying options to implementing effective action on the ground in terms of reducing GHG emissions?

ECO has a few suggestions:

1. Establish a process building on the TEMs for Parties to announce which of the identified policy options they plan to implement either on their own or in partnership. This should be the objective of a regular high-level ministerial engagement – and the decision needs to say so.
... Read more ...

Now that the new IPCC compendium has been worked on by the world’s leading climate scientists and published for all to see: What conclusions should countries draw from it? How about the need to phase out fossil fuels ASAP, starting today?

In the next two days, a Structured Expert Dialogue will assess the adequacy of the long-term global goal (i.e. keeping global warming below 2°C), possible strengthening of the goal to 1.5°C (yes please!), and the overall progress made towards achieving the goal.

On Tuesday, IPCC experts will bring in the fresh science from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), while on Wednesday UNEP, IEA, FAO and others will present their analysis on the matter.

A realistic understanding of where we’re heading and where we should be going to avoid catastrophic impacts is fundamental for negotiating a successful deal in Paris. Therefore ECO is pleased to present this special issue on the future of our climate as assessed by the world’s review panel, the IPCC.

There are many who consider a 2°C limit for global temperature rise to be an unacceptable climate risk. For them it’s «1.5°C to stay alive,» and the new IPCC report shows that they have a serious point.

The IPCC’s newly updated «Reasons for Concern» indicators (sometimes called «the burning embers,» refers to a chart showing increasing risk for the key indicators in yellow, orange and red colors) show that 2 or even 3 out of 5 key risks would could be at dangerous levels with 2°C warming.

The risks play out most at a regional scale, so let’s have a look at what could happen with just 2°C warming globally (recognising that warming also varies by region):

For Africa, of 9 key regional risks, 8 pose medium or higher risk with 2°C warming, even with high levels of adaptation. We’re talking fundamentals like water stress, reduced food production and the spread of diseases.

For Small Island States, highly vulnerable to sea-level rise and high-water events, and dependent on ocean ecosystems, 2°C would be a disaster.

For Asia, risks of catastrophic flooding and lethal heatwaves would be in the medium or high range even with high levels of adaptation.
... Read more ...

Ok, so we have a long-term goal of keeping global warming below 2°C/1.5°C, but what does this mean in reality? Enter the IPCC AR5 cumulative emissions budgets! This is the maximum amount of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can take before crossing these limits.

According to the AR5, after 2010 we can only emit an additional 1,000 billion tons (Gt) of CO2 into our atmosphere if we want a higher than 66% likelihood of limiting global warming to below 2°C. To keep warming below 1.5°C the remaining carbon budget is consequently smaller.

Since 2010 we have already spent about a tenth of this budget. Oops! Freezing our annual global emissions to current levels would use up the remaining budget completely in just 25 years, and almost one third of it would be gone by 2020. With current growing emissions we’ll have used up our budget even sooner.

What does it mean? It means that peaking and starting the decline in emissions soon is fundamental for achieving the long-term goal.

It also means we’re no longer in the business of managing emissions. We have to phase them out to zero, and it needs to happen fast. If you thought we had time until the end of the century, you’ve misunderstood the IPCC’s conclusions.
... Read more ...

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Portugal and the European Union are the An-nex 2 Parties yet to make their pledges to the Green Climate Fund. ECO notes the same is true for Poland, Hungary and a few others. Five years ago, developed countries had not only promised to set up the fund but, also fill it. ECO, optimistic as ever, is convinced that all of them know rather well how much in these negotiations depends on the GCF getting off to a good start. They will not let us down.

ECO stands ready to welcome any further and ambitious pledges, so that at least the lower threshold of the unofficial US$10-15 billion target range can be crossed here in Lima. If this comes with an explicit understanding that the GCF will grow bigger over time, we have taken the first step. Parties could then focus on the second, third and fourth steps, including ministers agreeing to craft a 2020 roadmap that spells out how developed countries are going to fulfill their $100bn promise, and to anchor climate finance in the new agreement, with collective targets and individual commitments as part of wealthy countries’ fair share in the global effort.

The IPCC found that in order to get onto a 2°C pathway, there needs to be a massive shift in energy investment flows in the next 15 years. Hundreds of billions of dollars would need to be annually shifted away from fossil fuel investments, and into, first and foremost, energy efficiency, and secondarily, renewable energy.

In energy supply, zero and low-carbon energies would need to at least triple or quadruple by 2050. Out of the technology options outlined, renewable energy, particularly solar and wind energy, are the most promising trends, with most co-benefits and fewest risks.

There’s enough potential in renewables to meet all of our energy needs. Renewables have advanced substantially in performance and cost-efficiency since the last IPCC report in 2007. During 2005-2012, wind and solar PV grew 5 and 25 times, respectively. They are now ready to be deployed at a significant scale. Renewable energy is also best suited to respond to the energy needs of the poorest and most vulnerable people.

None of this can be said of nuclear or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The IPCC found that nuclear is a mature technology, but it is declining in efficacy in addition to facing various barriers and risks.
... Read more ...

There is a growing realisation, supported by AR5, that emission reductions are not a zero sum game. In fact, emission reductions will have significant development co-benefits. There are two aspects to this.

Firstly, without emission reductions, the impacts of climate change would be so devastating that they could erode several decades worth of developmental gains in an instant. Several extreme weather events resulting in large-scale, high intensity disasters have shown us just that. These include three catastrophic floods in the Indian subcontinent alone including the Indus River floods in Pakistan, and the Uttarakhand, Jammu, and Kashmir floods in India in successive years. And we all remember, quite vividly, the destruction caused by Typhoon Haiyan. All of these events have occurred in quick succession in the last few years.

The developed world has not been spared either. Devastating forest fires have occurred in Australia and USA almost every year, alongside the well-known devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy. These damages are not something you can just do away with through economic growth.

Secondly, emission reductions that are realised through a co-benefit approach would result in more sustainable and resilient development. The provision of energy access, through renewable energy, to the 1.4 billion people globally who lack access to modern energy services, would result in more resilient development gains than a polluting, fossil fuel driven process.
... Read more ...

i) How can we try and ensure that global CO2-emissions go to zero to ensure that average temperatures do not rise beyond 1.5°C?

ii) What can the IPCC say on the past and future cost trends of CCS and renewables? Based on existing level of technological maturity, will CCS ever be a viable option for achieving global zero emissions of GHGs?

iii) What are the findings of the IPCC on the co-benefits (e.g. public health, economic benefits due to lower fuel prices) of low or zero carbon scenarios? How can one ensure that co-benefits are recognised and pursued?

iv) What can the IPCC tell us on the feasibility of effective adaptation for different scenarios / temperature regimes and on limits to adaptation? How safe is a warming of 2°C for ocean ecosystems, for biodiversity, and far would it endanger the provision of livelihoods for people, especially the poor?

Questions on intelligence from other organisations (e.g. IEA, UNEP)

a) How best can we ensure that a fossil fuel locked in future is avoided?

b) How are the trends in prices for renewables (e.g. PV or wind) since the IPCC cut-off date? How can the achievement of renewable energy cost parity be accelerated?
... Read more ...

The importance of equity in the 2015 agreement has broad support, but what an equitable agreement applicable to all actually means is both an unclear and controversial issue. Disagreement exists on the operationalisation and scope of equity, and on approaches for assessment of the INDCs.

To break the deadlock in the negotiations, CAN has made a detailed proposal for a dynamic Equity Reference Framework that is explicitly rooted in the Convention’s core equity principles. This side event will further articulate the proposal and provide an opportunity for discussions on how to bring this framework into the negotiations.
Party Respondents: South Africa (confirmed), Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, India (requested).

Please join!

The first Fossil of the Day at COP20 goes to Australia, Belgium, Ireland and Austria (alongside the other non-pledgers: Iceland, Greece, Portugal, and the European Union) for being the only Annex 2 countries failing so far to contribute to the GCF. After a string of encouraging initial contributions, it seems this band of Annex 2 free-riders see no need to contribute. This is not acceptable and stands to jeopardise the Paris agreement, under which all countries are expected to take action. To the free-riding ministers: Bring your chequebooks to Lima.