On 22 July, Shoji Muneoka, the chairman of the Japan Iron and Steal Foundation (JISF), at its regular press conference criticized the largest opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) because its mid-term target of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 2020 is not realistic.

Compared to the current government led by the coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito, DPJ proposes a surprisingly ambitious proposal for global warming. Indeed, while the Government’s mid-term target of GHG emissions reductions by 2020 is to cut them by 15 percent below the 2005 levels, DPJ proposes 30 percent.

It is now highly probable that DPJ will gain a majority in the next election for the House of Representatives on 30 August and a government led by DPJ will be established for the first time.

Consequently, major economic groups have recently been seriously aware of its proposal and demanding reconsideration for DPJ.
Muneoka claimed that though the mid-term target of the Government is severe enough for industries, it is hardly understandable that DPJ proposes twice as strict a mid-term target as the Government’s target. He further points out that achieving the DPJ’s mid-term target would generate 800,000 to 1,200,000 of the employed and it is thus necessary for DPJ to show a proposal that carefully considers impacts upon Japanese economy and people.
Similarly, the Economic Association of Japan currently criticized that a proposal of DPJ is idealistic and DPJ should understand the economic situations. Further, on 17 July, Shosuke Mori, the chairman of the Federation of Electirc Power Companies of Japan, at the summer seminar of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives, claimed its proposal is unrealistic saying ‘DPJ should make clear impacts of its climate change proposal on economy and people.

Indeed, the DPJ’s proposal cannot be seen as realistic. In order to achieve this ambitious target, for example, DPJ insists on the creation of a global warming tax. However, DPJ decided not to clarify contents of the tax in its manifesto because there has been a conflicting idea on its contents within DPJ, some proposing the creation of carbon tax and others suggesting increase in consumption tax. Both plans seem difficult for DPJ because labour unions, the mainstay of support for DPJ, can hardly support carbon tax as it would be a heavy burden for the economy and because DPJ promises not to raise the consumption tax rate for four years.

In addition, though, DPJ mostly neglects negative impacts placed on people and economy by its mid-term target because economic growth stimulated by environmental investment, it insists, can avoid them. Consequently, the DPJ’s proposal for global warming in the election is much more stringent than the proposal of LDP as LDP takes carefully into consideration negative effects of its proposal. DPJ tends to propose attractive proposals for everyone without showing their negative effects. For instance, while DPJ proposes such an ambitious target for GHG emissions reductions, it contradictorily promises to make highway charges free, which might lead to increase in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Though the DPJ’s ambitious proposal for GHG emissions reductions is surely welcomed, DPJ should concretely clarify ways to achieve it and its negative effects on people and economy.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s messages have become greener in recent months.  Looking at the record, it appears that this turn may have come about when his time as EU President put him directly in line with the conflicts between member countries concerning climate change issues.  Generally these disagreements center on how to best divide the responsibilities and costs for adaptation and mitigation measures.  As far back as 2007, Sarkozy called for a national “Carbon tax” on “climate change pollutants” and suggested a European tariff on imports from countries falling outside of the Kyoto Protocol.

The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, recently visited France.  Sarkozy reportedly stated that the ”challenge of a world agreement on climate change must be met.” Following the meeting at the Elysee Palace, Pachauri said the French president was committed to pursuing a green agenda and “really wants to do something in this area.”  “He would like to see that Copenhagen is a success and he is going to work with the others leaders to do that,” said Pachauri.

It is true that Sarkozy has called on President Obama in recent months to follow the EU in the climate change arena.  For example, he scored big with his supporters when indeed the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to the Waxman-Markey (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) Bill.

But critics cite some red flags – Sarkozy recently expressed a strong preference for Claude Allegre to head his cabinet’s Ministry of Science, Industry, and Innovation. Allegre, is a celebrated geophysicist, in the French and American National Academies of Science.  Yet, a former climate change champion, he has recently reversed his opinion and no longer believes that human activity is responsible for any of the climate change modifications at hand.  He at best is seen as an “enemy” to scientists lauding that further exacerbation to climate change can be halted by changes in human behavior and energy consumption specifically.

It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy progresses as we enter the Copenhagen negotiations, after showing some erratic behavior on the climate change front.

Ed Miliband hailed the G8 Declaration as a “real breakthrough”. For the first time, it seemed, the ‘Outreach 5′ states were putting aside their differences on international mitigation action and joining the G8 to commit to a 2 C warming target. However, in India these moves have not been universally accepted or endorsed, suggesting that the G8 Declaration has still failed to answer the key question: who is going to do what to reach the 2 C by 2050 target.

An article appearing yesterday in India’s centre-orientated Hindustan Times quotes a member of the Indian UNFCCC negotiating team suggesting that India has not modified its position on the need for Annex 1 mid-term targets. For the 2050 goal to be realistic, he argues, there must be mid-term targets by rich nations.

There has also been much consternation within the wider Indian policy-making community more broadly since Manmohan Singh signed the Declaration in Italy. A range of newspaper articles and TV items have pointed to the strong opposition to mitigation action that a) harms economic growth and b) is not part of a financial transfer mechanism from Annex 1 countries.

The Hindustan Times article, for example:

What this suggests, it seems, is that while India is happy to agree to the goal in question, the means of getting there is an issue on which there has been little movement, despite Manmohan Singh’s signature in Italy.  Indeed, as my colleague Ian Ross notes, Hillary Clinton’s visit to India has not been the smooth ride that her press secretary valiantly continues to tell us it has been.  Several media sources report that Clinton engaged in a blunt exchange with a member of India’s Ministry of Science and Environment, which houses the negotiating team.  India, Clinton was told, will not be accepting cuts or limits.

This is nothing new; I could have been writing this blog six months ago.  However, what has changed is the USA’s persistence that action by India is required for a “successful” negotiation in December, and that they remain confident they will get it.  From this week’s events in the media and in Hillary Clinton’s meetings, that does not seem immediately likely at present.

So, what would this mean?  What if India will not budge on the issue of burden sharing to reach 2 C?

Well, the ball would be back with the US.  Would they strap in and go for an agreement anyway, risking a rejection in the Senate when ratification comes around?  Would they push for a watered down treaty, preferring instead to focus efforts on the domestic legislation they have moving through?  I think that neither of these are politically palatable options–the first domestically, the second internationally.  The US Government have pledged action at both levels to both groups of stakeholders.

As a results, some kind of middle way may well be the most likely option.  And there are a number of opportunities here.  It is coincidental, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is also in India promoting American nuclear investment in India; could there be room for manauvering the much-discussed international ‘Green Fund’ (see Ian’s post) to send more US technology to India in return for an Indian energy generation target? This would have the advantage of pleasing both sides, especially the US nuclear lobby.  It may, though, not be possible when all 190 other parties are involved.

Another alternative maybe the ‘no-lose’ targets (which Dafydd Elis posted on last month).  If the US becomes a buyer of international carbon credits (which the draft domestic legislation would allow) then India potentially has much to gain from selling its ‘no lose’ credits on a presumably buoyant international market.  It would then set a mitigation baseline.  Again, though, we come back to domestic legislation that will not be finalised before December and on which India would be committing itself.

Should Barak Obama’s the worst case scenario come to pass–where no agreement can be reached in advance of Copenhagen–then much will rest on the political pressure in December itself.  Incidental media pressure, possible horse-trading with other policy areas, and the other domestic issues of the day.  From a climate policy perspective, this is not ideal, as it often takes several years to work out how to make last-minute ideas into workable policies (I think here of the CDM, which was added to Kyoto with hours to go and was not finalised until the Marrakesh Accords 2 years later).  And there is always the possibility that nothing will be agreed, although I think that unlikely.

The key issue here is what options are on the table that could serve as tools for a compromise–both now and then.  Nuclear, no-lose, US emission purchases, domestic legislation, a Green Fund: in some combination it is these that are likely to be the deal breakers.  Manmohan Singh’s coincidental state visit to the US in mid-November is sure to be an important date in the respective climate delegations’ calendars.

Manmohan Singh (source:wikimedia.org)

Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of “a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.

Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious - Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week, marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over emissions reductions.

Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make sure that its emissions reductions are “MRV-able”, but as mentioned above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen. This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.

Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle room.

Bangladesh Floods (source: oneworld.net)

Last year the UK pledged £75 million to Bangladesh, often cited as one of the countries that will be hit very hard by climate change. Even modest sea level rises could flood 20% of land. The cash will be used for things like raising homes in high-risk flood areas, provide flood-resilient crops, and a national early warning system for cyclones.

Gordon Brown made a widely praised speech a few weeks ago promising that the $100bn needed every year for adaptation would come “separately from and additional to our promises on aid”. He did leave a small loophole in there though, saying that 10% could come from existing budgets.

It turns out however that the £75m for Bangladesh was announced previously under existing DFID budgets, so has already been accounted for and doesn’t therefore qualify under the additionality principle, which I suppose is fair enough. A little confusing though…

This additionality principle is something which NGOs have been calling for ever since financing for adaptation was set to become a reality. The argument runs as follows: since rich countries bear the bulk or responsibility for causing climate change, adaptation finance for poor countries should be over and above what has already been promised to them in terms of aid that is not related to climate.

Meanwhile, the Tories have not explicitly committed to Brown’s pledge that adaptation financing will be additional to ODA. It is perhaps telling that in their Green Paper on development (launched last week), they say they will “mainstream” adaptation, but makes no mention of a cap, like the 10% proposed by Brown.

Last week, Ontario announced new plans to offer rebates on the purchase of electric cars purchased after July 1^st 2010. The long term aim of the Ontario government is to have 1 in 20 cars by 2020 electric, as part of a move to encourage greener transport policies. The law would allow rebates of “$4,000 and $10,00” for hybrid and plug in electric cars – making the vehicle prices closer to normal car prices of around $30,000.

The move is the latest by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who continues to lead his state on a remarkable path towards a more sustainable state, making Ontario a leader among states and provinces in North America. The move fits into a broader pattern of environmental legislation with an economic underpinning. One of Ontario’s most far-reaching laws included the “right to connect”, legislation that means any renewable energy supplier has to be hooked up to the main grid, in a push to encourage decentralised renewable energy growth in the state. Ontario does not see this simply as an environmental objective, with state legislators, aiming to push their province to the forefront of renewable technology in research and supply as the world slowly turns towards low carbon future. The latest push is not without some direct self-interest, as Ontario owns 3.9% of General motors, with it’s Chevy Volt due to come onto the market in 2010.

In keeping with their broader attempt to create a more holistic sustainable approach, the law also allows for electric cars to use High occupancy vehicle lanes even if only one person is driving in them. The report behind the new law also suggested an expansion of electric car provisions across the state. How effective the scheme will be naturally depends on Canada’s wider economic fortunes; nevertheless its the cumulative impact of Onatario’s legislation that makes the province a leader in environmental legislation.

Regardless of how quick the uptake is, the move is hardly without a rational basis, with Toyota set to prepare for mass production of the Prius in 2012, Honda and Nissan also in production of the electric car, it may not be unreasonable to suggest a tipping point in the electric car market. If the opportunity of a new market was not enough perhaps the more sinister implications of oil-shocks, may motivate those buying at the pump to save money by investing in ever more fuel-efficient vehicles. In either case, Ontario’s early provisions of plug-in stations will once again have put its citizens in a strong position to capitalise on changing markets through incremental legislation towards a sustainable state.

Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President and climate change campaigner, was in Melbourne on Monday for the launch of the new think tank Safe Climate Australia and to help train 300 people from 19 nations to address and encourage their leaders on the issue of climate change. Gore’s visit also coincides with Australia’s first ever Youth Climate Summit which hopes to mobilize a new generation of climate change activists. Speaking before a group of 1,000 Australian business leaders, Gore praised the Rudd government for pushing forward with emissions trading legislation ahead of the climate change conference held in Copenhagen this December.

Safe Climate Australia is a new environmental think tank composed of scientists, business and civic leaders and is modeled on a similar project in the United States called Repower America. The group demands that emergency action must be taken in order to address global warming and plans to help Australia move away from emissions-heavy coal towards a zero-carbon economy. Gore stated that the mounting environmental challenges in the world require immediate action.

According to the SCA organizer, Brendan Condon, the SCA hopes to develop a blueprint for the transition of all major sectors of the Australian economy to net zero carbon with a draft expected in 12 months.”This is a massive body of work that will include collating all relevant scientific research, developing systems architecture, scenario planning, emission reduction and sequestration strategies.”

While Gore praised the work of Rudd and the progress that the United States and Australia have made toward making climate change a higher priority, Gore mentioned that he would have written stronger emissions targets than currently proposed in Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) bill. “It’s not what I would have written, I would have written it as a stronger bill, but I’m realistic about what can be accomplished in the political system as it is,” Gore said.

Rudd’s proposed legislation has also been attacked by green groups who claim that the emissions targets are too weak. Currently, the emissions trading legislation commits to an emissions reduction target of 60% by 2050 and interim targets of between 5-25% by 2020. Rudd hopes to push the trading bill through parliament in August, four months ahead of the Copenhagen conference.

While Prime Minister Rudd’s legislation has come under fire, Gore still remains encouraged by the progress made by the Rudd government. “I am sincerely convinced that the right way forward is to get to the maximum that the political system will allow us to accomplish and begin the change, and then, as we gain experience with it, toughen it, strengthen it, make it better based on experience as business and industry learn how to adjust.”

Scientists warn that Australia can be vulnerable to damage caused by warming temperatures such as more severe storms and droughts as well as rising sea levels. Gore sited the record temperatures and brutal wildfires this past February in parts of Victoria that took the lives of 173 people as evidence that the planet has a “fever” brought on by climate change. “The odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past. This crisis is gaining momentum and the reason why is not that complicated.”

At the climate change talks in Copenhagen later this year, governments will meet in order to negotiate an international environmental agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. While an agreement between leaders will be difficult, Gore remains optimistic. Gore stated before reporters, “One of the barriers in the Kyoto process was that the United States and Australia did not provide the kind of leadership necessary…Now with new leadership in both the United States and Australia our two countries are providing leadership. When that leadership is most needed is in the run up to Copenhagen, it can make a huge difference.” One of Rudd’s first acts as Australian Prime Minister was to sign Australia on to the Kyoto Protocol and both Australia and the United States have been active in the negotiation process leading up to Copenhagen in December.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions - after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear - the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

The G8 Research Group has invited Climatico to speak at a press conference at 12:00 on Friday 10 July 2009 in Press Room 3 of the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy.  Accredited journalists should assemble at the Pool Meeting Point at 11:45.

Those hoping the G8 would achieve a breakthrough in Climate negotiations, would only need to look at the history of the G8 to know it is often more like an extended press conference for the G8 countries to touch base and put out some symbolic gestures on the issue of the day, meanwhile the real negotiations are happening behind the scenes round the clock all year long.

But in terms of gestures what was achieved?

That the G8 countries aim to keep global emissions low enough to avoid a 2C rise in temperature

That it should aim to cut 80% of emissions by 2050, and the world aim for 50% cuts.

Neither stands out as groundbreaking, and worse for environmentalists was that several measures discussed appeared to fall by the way side: Mexico proposed a “green fund” for developing countries, something floated by Brown prior the G8 meeting and worse still developing countries are of the opinion that only a 40% cut by 2020 by developed countries could get them to make serious cuts.

Nevertheless, The G8 has not been a failure and in fact is another albeit small stepping stone for an event which garners far too much publicity for what actually goes on. While the developed countries proposed cuts against those demanded by developing countries may make negotiations appear at an impasse, in reality, a solution is probably not so far off.

Three factors, discussed could make a breakthrough:

The first is the role of a “Green fund”, developing countries protest that the G8 make deeper cuts because they are responsible historically for emissions but more importantly because their people are already more prosperous. If a significant ‘green fund’ was made available, it could have the dual role of aiding development and doing so sustainably. This could also take the form of technology transfer, in combination with funding, which remains a critical road block to developing countries supporting environmental energy options.

The second is the Waxman-Markey bill currently being debated in the US senate, this needs to pass with a credible amount of its original intention left intact, if it does, that paves the way for further North American legislation ( with Canada and possibly Mexico in some role), perhaps more importantly it gives the US genuine clout to lead.

The third and most important factor lies with US negotiations with China, Russia and Brazil. Already the US has persuaded China to come to the table, as well as reticent Russia. Although importance should also be attached to the role of Brazil, India and Indonesia, is is these two countries, the next most powerful of non-western countries that could make or break global negotiations. I

The US has its work cut out; continued behind the scenes work will be the modus operandi in the run up to Copenhagen. However all policy relies on momentum, a global deal even a disappointing one, changes the domestic policy debates for the better, this could create a positive interchanging momentum that increasingly reaches for greater efforts to cut emissions globally.