A key issue in the assessment of national climate policy is the accuracy of data and figures. Much of the analysis provided by the policy community is based upon the information available on what is happening on the ground in each country.

However, as with all national comparisons, there is a problem: working out what the numbers represent is extremely difficult. Different countries report different trends in different ways.

This week in Bangalore, the Govt. of India reported that national use of renewable energy was continuing to experience healthy growth. Official reports suggest that around 32% of Indian electricity is now created from renewable energy. According to the government, the current economic slowdown in the financial sector offers an opportunity to develop new jobs in the green sector and grow a lower-carbon industrial sector–a view that has been echoed by commentators in the UK also.

However, take a closer look and it becomes clear that these figures are more complex. 32% incorporates hydroelectric power–by far the largest carbon-free source of electricity in India and a source excluded from renewable counts by other countries. Incorporating HEP significantly increases the % contribution of renewables. Further, the figure of 32% is itself disputed; the IEA suggests that combined renewables and hydro accounted for only 15% of electricity generation, although this figure is for 2005 (See graph).

Break-down of sources for Electricity in India (Source: IEA)

But, as well as being a bugbear for the policy analysts, this kind of ambiguous data reporting can also have a highly political dimension. In the context of major investment in ‘greener’ technology coupled with international political pressure on the G20 surrounding the UNFCCC process, reporting successful renewable projects is important.

In India, green energy is the flagship programme for climate policy. Bangalore, for example, is hosting the Green Energy Summit in early March 2009 to boost investment in much-needed energy projects in India. Indian media recently reported that the summit chairperson Arcot Ramachandran (former UN Under-Secretary General) proudly announced India’s rank as the 4th ‘Wind Super Power’. In this case, the origin of the statistic is once again not at all clear but does serve to boost the Indian renewable prowess.

Numbers are rarely wrong; but it is often unclear what they represent. Further, they carry political and social contexts with them meaning that they are often used to fulfill agendas and goals. In principle there is nothing wrong with this. But when reading these numbers a careful eye is needed to overcome yet another of the many veils surrounding national climate policy.

Source: UNFCCC

The UNFCCC conference in Poland begins tomorrow (Monday 1st December 2008). The size and complexity of the event means that almost all topics in international climate politics will be covered, with extensive discussions on the road to Copenhagen in 2009.

However, as well as building momentum and tackling the timetabling for 2009, the Poznan conference itself is likely to see at least some key developments. In week 1:

1. 14.00-14.30 on Monday 1st: a press conference hosted by the delegation of the USA. While the transition team in the USA is not officially sending a delegation to Poznan, this conference will undoubtedly be driven by questions about future USA policy in 2009. (Note. we understand that delegates from the Obama team will be in the Poznan complex in an unofficial capacity).

2. AM on Tuesday 2nd: discussion about compliance with Kyoto, including a discussion about reporting of emissions data and the mechanisms for compliance. Given the widespread critique of the Kyoto Protocol’s actual effectiveness, this discussion will be key in determining what is taken forward into the Copenhagen Protocol and what is left behind.

3. Lunchtime on Wednesday 3rd: discussion of the cooperation mechanisms between countries. CDM, JI, and Adaptation are all on the agenda for discussion. Of particular interest is the UNFCCC lunch to discuss the methods and techniques through which the CDM functions.  The complexity in CDM has been the source of much debate in policy fora in 2008.

4. AM on Thursday 4th: the first of the thorny discussions on emission reduction commitments. One of the groups established under the Bali Road Map will consider with country delegations “further commitments by Annex I Parties”

Judging by previous experience, the first events in Act 1 of the Poznan theatre set the scene for the high-level delegation discussions in Poznan: Act 2. However, because of the interim nature of this conference it is likely that these meetings will go quite some way to setting the scene for much of the discussion right through to the finale next year.

Climatico will have three analysts in Poznan week 2, reporting directly to this blog. Contact them at info[at]climaticoanalysis.org

One of the difficulties with governing on the scale of the E.U. is how to accurately assess public opinion. In light of these concerns, the E.U. has been remarkably proactive with pan-Europe opinion polls. In the next few posts I’ll try to give a digest of the recent results to see how public opinion in the E.U. may influence policy.

In this first E.U. post, I want to deal with some of the basics. Across the E.U. 50% of people say that climate change is “very much a concern” for them (Gallup 2008) and 62% think that climate change is the most serious issue facing the world as a whole (E.U. TNS 2008). This last figure is particularly significant when compared to the 24% that thought the most major issue facing the world was a “major global economic downturn in May this year.

Attitudes to E.U. policy also reveal interesting results as shown in the figure below.

Fig. 1 Data Eurobarometer 2008

Interestingly, although the chart above shows 58% of citizens feel the E.U. is not doing enough to tackle climate change, this figure is much lower than that of national governments, corporations and citizens themselves (64%, 76% and 67% respectively).

The data shows quite a degree of variability between member states (see fig. 2) . It appears that the greatest levels of concern occur in Mediterranean regions (Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Portugal) and Slovenia, where as the lowest levels of concern are in the Baltic regions (Estonia, Lithuania, Poland) as well as Italy.

Fig.2 percentage respondants who list climate change as the most serious issue facing the world as a whole (EU TNS 2008)

In the next few posts I will analyse attitudes to different green policies and personal efforts to tackle climate change.

It’s not often that business executives are the focus of opinion polls, but a survey this year by Yougov highlights some truly surprising results. Yes, the sample size is small but the respondents are powerful. 200 business executives from FTSE 300 companies were polled on their attitudes to climate change in a business context, and the results make for interesting reading, especially in the context of public perception.  66% of people think that climate change will not be an important issue for businesses over the next three to four years (Ipsos MORI March 2008) but the results of this poll suggest otherwise.

The number of business executives who think that climate change is a significant issue lies at 85%, a higher proportion than the population at large (77% Ipsos MORI 2008). In fact, 66% of executives said that climate change had reached the board agenda, though 21% said it was not likely to be discussed in the near future. In total, 31% of businesses are reviewing their current business model to account for climate change and 22% are working towards carbon neutral status.

It’s mixed news in terms of office energy efficiency. The proportions of businesses employing energy saving methods in the office are high, but lagging behind the general public by a couple of years. The number of businesses recycling or using recycled products, at 77% is almost exactly the same as the population in general two years ago (76% Populus 2006), as is the use of energy efficient appliances at 67%.

Perhaps the most illuminating part of the study is the feelings of executives on what is stopping them becoming greener. 58% of executives felt that the government was not doing enough to educate businesses on how to tackle climate change, surprisingly, 25% of executives thought there was not sufficient support from employees to adopt carbon management strategies and 24% thought that the biggest obstacle was convincing partners and suppliers.

All in all it’s a mixed and confusing set of results, but it certainly highlights an area to look out for. Watch this space.

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals panel overturned a permit for a proposed coal-fired power station in Utah.  The panel ruled that the EPA’s Denver office had inadequately supported its decision to issue a permit to the plant without considering its carbon dioxide emissions.

In October 2007, the Sierra Club and others filed a request to overturn the permit, which had been issued to the proposed coal-fired power station, because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.

The key word in the previous sentence, and the basis for this entire case, is ‘pollution’.  The term pollution, according to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in April 2007, can now be used to describe carbon dioxide, as a consequence of its ability to warm the climate.  This gave the EPA the ability to regulate carbon dioxide through the Clean Air Act, however the EPA, with the help of the Bush Administration, has been slow to act, and does not intend to regulate on the issue while President Bush is in the White House.

The Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder said that the decision will temporarily stop permits being handed out to any coal burning power plants, essentially putting the development of all coal-fired power stations on hold for the moment.

As the President-elect, it falls to Barack Obama to decide the future of carbon dioxide regulation in the US.  In an interview in October, Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy advisor who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of Energy, said that Obama would regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, “in the absence of congressional action” on climate change.

Yesterday, traders connected the dots and coal stocks plummeted by up to 12.5%.

By setting a precedent for many more lawsuits of a similar nature, Thursday’s ruling hints at the long-term consequences of the Supreme Court decision for carbon-intensive industries in the US.  This is “an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process,” the EPA appeals panel stated.

Talk about reversing the global economic slowdown is dominating diplomacy at the moment, which may not bode well for progress at COP-14 in Poznan in early December. However, the upcoming UN Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) conference in Doha, intriguingly scheduled as a ‘starter’ days before Poznan, can provide a constructive bridge between the urgency of solving the financial crisis and the need to address climate change.

Negotiations in Monterrey, March 2002.

The conference is meant to review the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus adopted by most governments in March 2002 that among other things, included a commitment to allocate 0.7 percent of GNP to ODA. At the time, terrorism dominated almost all inter-governmental negotiations, including development cooperation, and the climate debate was in a bit of a lull. A quick search reveals that, astonishingly, neither ‘climate change’ or ‘energy’ figure in the Monterrey Consensus. This is likely to change this time around, which is good news for progress at Poznan.

The draft outcomes document released in July 2008 identifies climate change and high food and energy prices as significant new challenges since 2002. For example, it says;

“Concerted efforts to address climate change should promote increased trade in environmental goods and not result in environmentally based trade distortions. We should facilitate the transfer of low-carbon technology to support economic development efforts.”

If this language survives the final draft, it can help give Poznan a much needed boost. An important clue as to whether the economic case for climate interventions is getting enough attention is to see whether it features at FfD in Doha and on the agendas of other upcoming high level economic and financial summits.

In Bangkok, Thailand, the Better Air Quality Workshop (BAQW) is currently underway. The event is aimed at regional and local government delegations to foster cooperation on reducing urban pollution, notably of CO₂.

Delegates have heard about the challenges faced by projected population rises of half a billion by 2030 in Asian cities alone. One major challenge for climate policy is how to deal with a parallel rise in cars–and with them carbon emissions.

While more low-key than the UNFCCC, the BAQW is making important in-roads, particularly in the area of information sharing and best practice. Participants have been using Singapore’s model of urban expansion as prototype for growing Asian metropolitan areas; instead of building outwards from the city and increasing travel distances, BAQW workshop presenters have advocated building upwards, creating a compact urban area with well-planned public transport systems. This, they argue, allows city and population growth without parallel automobile increases.

In comparison to the burgeoning UNFCCC process, BAQW appears to benefit from a focus on spreading best practice through information sharing, rather than engaging in complex negotiations to find a common treaty. BAQW essentially encourages national-level policy through international coorperation, as opposed to the law-making UNFCCC that attempts to create international-level policy.

A second ‘best practice’ summit has also been announced for March 2009: the Green Energy Summit (GES), this time in Bangalore. While a more high-level meeting, agendas for GES once again appear focused on national policy comparisons, assessments of successes and failures, and, fundamentally, a discussion of how to move forward.

In this growing season for summits not all approaches to yielding the low-carbon fruit are the same. As the over-arching greenhouse continues to warm, and the summit growing seasons intensify, there are certainly things to be learnt from the new kids on the block.

UPDATE–12/11/08 10.17 GMT: News just feeding in this morning is that the U.S Governors–led by California’s Schwarzenegger–will also host a global summit on climate change. The meet is scheduled for Nov. 18-19.