The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries – small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

Bang it on the table, Gordon!

The Guardian has it that the EU is once again stalling on adaptation finance being additional to aid (see previous Climatico posts on this issue here and here). Someone has forwarded them “confidential papers” where key lines of negotiating text have been removed. Apparently it says, “Cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ‘separate from’ ODA [official development assistance] targets.”

This has of course brought howls of complaint from the development NGOs, who argue, rightly in my opinion, that adaptation finance is a justice issue. Climate change was mostly caused by rich countries, the argument goes, and so any costs that poor countries incur in adapting to it should be financed by rich countries. Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia’s PM) puts it best, saying,

“[Climate change] has created a more hostile environment for development. No amount of money will undo the damage done. But adequate investment in mitigating the damage could partly resolve the problem. … Developed countries are thus morally obliged to pay partial compensation to poor and vulnerable countries and regions to cover part of the cost of the investments needed to adapt to climate change.”

Aid has completely different objectives (as well as different political economy questions around it), and should be protected from mission creep. Developing countries have consistently argued that a fair deal on finance is necessary for them to accept anything on the table at Copenhagen. If they are to get no additional funds, they might walk, and rightly so.

International Development is one of the few areas in which Gordon Brown still claims moral authority. He has banged his “big clunking fist” on the table before, to prevent rich country backsliding on development assistance – let’s hope he does it again. What he proposed last year is the least worst option – it acknowleges that adaptation and development do cross over to an extent, and therefore promises that 90% of adaptation finance from the UK will be additional to ODA. Along with the £10bn global fund he annoucned on Friday, this provides a useful framework for the EU.

On Thursday, 26 November the presidents of France and Brazil came out with a joint statement that rich(er) countries must immediately boost aid for developing nations in efforts towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. They lauded this as an essential key to obtaining a viable agreement in Copenhagen next month.

Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, invited his counterparts in countries straddling the Amazon Basin to meet in Manaus in order to come to a consensus about their views on climate change-related issues in the area (France was also invited since its overseas department of French Guyana is located in the Amazon region). Representatives from Brazil, France, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guyana all participated in the summit. President Nicolas Sarkozy came from France for the meeting with the President of Brazil, but the only other South American president to take part in the Manaus Summit was Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana.

Brazil, which has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 36.1 and 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, has been seeking a growing role in climate talks and wanted to forge a common position of Amazon countries to take to Copenhagen. Brazilian presidential spokesman, Marcelo Baumbach, stated that for Brazil “it is essential that the Amazon region takes part in the December conference with a cooperative and convergent proposal.”

To this point, during the Summit, representatives agreed to the position that “developing countries should also contribute to addressing the global climate change through mitigation actions according to their national conditions, supported by international funds.” This kind of statement moves beyond Kyoto because it tentatively allows for proposals that require binding targets on developing countries, so long as the developed world helps them financially and through technology transfer.

Even though French President Sarkozy was representing French Guyana during the Manaus summit, as the leader of a developed nation, he spoke from that role as well. During a press conference after the meeting, he hailed China’s new proposals on combating global warming as “extremely encouraging.” He welcomed the USA’s target (announced Tuesday, 24 November) to reduce its emissions 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Sarkozy used the examples of the recent proposals put forth by the United States and China towards binding targets as hallmarks of how nations that had not played a strong role in Kyoto were rising to the challenge in this next round of negotiations and really understanding the threats posed by climate change. “The latest statements by Barack Obama and China’s leaders are extremely encouraging in making Copenhagen a success,” Sarkozy said.

Climate negotiators have made little visible progress in sorting out the mechanisms by which rich countries should help poorer ones fight global warming. The European Union states that the cost to help developing nations fight global warming is about $100 billion annually. But developing countries say rich countries should pay between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of their gross domestic product.

Brazil has opened an investment fund to help conservation in the Amazon rainforest but insisted donor countries would have no say in the details of the use of funds. “The poor need to be supported without any country giving up its sovereignty,” Lula said.

20% of GHG emissions come from forest change and destruction annually. Thus, in this round of negotiations it is key to include specific provisions and mechanisms that address forest preservation (which was left out of Kyoto). Inroads are being made via the REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries) proposal.

“We need numbers, not only to reduce the temperature. Copenhagen also needs to provide funds from developed countries for developing countries,” said Sarkozy. “That needs to happen now,” he emphasized.

Climatico (Kelly McManus and Jennifer Helgeson) will be reporting on the progress of REDD during the course of the Copenhagen climate negotiations. They will offer an introduction to understanding REDD. Jennifer will also continue reports on French climate policy throughout the negotiations.

SMOS Satellite

The groundbreaking Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission satellite was launched on 2 November 2009 from the Plesetsk cosmodrome. This Franco-Spanish satellite project makes it possible to measure soil moisture and ocean salinity from space for the first time. It is an example of how the French government is keen to address climate change, not just through legislation and through proposed carbon taxes, but by playing a major role climate change science.

Thales Alenia Space is the prime contractor for the SMOS’ mission to measure soil moisture and the ocean salinity on a global scale. Until now it has not been possible to measure these aspects from space, even though the concept was first suggested 40 years ago. SMOS is a joint project between the Centre of National Space Studies (CNES) in France and the Centre for the Technological and Industrial Development (CDTI) in Spain. The mission was proposed in 1998 and is the outcome of novel uses of radio astronomy technology. In layman terms, to acquire data on soil moisture and ocean salinity, each of the antenna-receivers measures radiation emitted from Earth’s surface. The complex design of SMOS puts France and Spain onto the map for “space industry.”

The two parameters, soil moisture and ocean salinity, are of key scientific interest in better understanding the Earth’s water cycle and its relationship to climate change. Salinity directly influences ocean current circulation, which in turn provoke El Nino and La Nina phenomena. Specialists at CNES posit that the scientific feedback will provide a better understanding of the water cycle, allowing for advances in a wide range of fields, including: meteorology, risk management, marine resources, and urban development.

SMOS has a fieldview of 1000 km and captures 80 different measurements. The satellite orbits the Earth 15 times a day and will supply a map of all of Earth’s surfaces to those on the ground every three days. Dr. Christine Gommenginger at the National Oceanographic Center in Southampton, UK is thankful to the French and Spanish leadership that made the SMOS project reality. The data will be shared across the world. As Dr. Gommenginger expresses, such projects are extremely important at a time of large-scale international climate negotiations: ‘the oceans are interacting with the atmosphere, transporting and exchanging heat and freshwater; such interactions are important and will affect and be affected by global warming.”

A second salinity satellite mission paired between the USA and Argentina, Aquarius, is expected to launch in Autumn 2010.

After APECs confirmation of what had increasingly seemed inevitable – that the Copenhagen summit wouldn’t be the major breakthrough it was heralded to be – the chances of swift and effective action on climate change seem to have faded. But Europe has not been the leader on this issue its rhetoric would suggest. And the German example exemplifies this trend.

First, take Angela Merkel: she likes to point to Germany’s record as a leader on environmental technology and climate change policy; indeed, climate change featured prominently in her speech to the US Congress. Yet, at the same time Merkel seemed to constitute the major block against concrete EU-pledges of financial aid for climate change adaptation to developing countries at the EU summit at the end of October; and that even though the head of the German federal environmental agency (Bundesumweltamts) argues that Germany will need to spend €5 billion a year in adaptation funding to developing countries.

Another telling sign of ambiguity was her stance about attending the Copenhagen summit in person. Faced with opinion polls that show 90 percent of Germans in favour of her attending the summit, Merkel first announced she was going to attend the summit, only to have her press spokesman relativise this statement the next day, stating Merkel would only attend the summit if there were ‘chances for a significant breakthrough‘. As of this morning Merkel was once again set to attend the summit. A good sign, surely, but a week of changes to her decision can hardly be seen as a sign of unwavering commitment and belief.

The ambiguity about how much a priority climate change should be politically does not stop with Merkel. Dirk Niebel, development minister and member of the CDU’s liberal coalition partner FDP, drew widespread criticism by suggesting as early as last week that he thought a binding agreement at Copenhagen was unlikely to materialise – and placing any possible blame for this on large transitional economies like India, Brazil and Mexico. In retrospect Niebel’s perception of likely failure has been realistic, but statements like this always have a certain quality of political self-fulfillment. It certainly did not help Norbert Röttgen’s dramatic rhetorical attempts to convince other countries and the German public that ‘failure in Copenhagen is not an option‘. A new government always needs some time to speak with a unified voice and define priorities. But given the danger of outright failure in Copenhagen, Germany has certainly not played the proactive role that it could have. But it is definitely not alone in this failure.

The UK’s energy security prospects are once again making the headlines, as Ed Milliband this week announced the top 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants, describing nuclear power as a “proven, reliable source of low carbon energy”.

The announcement comes amidst heightened concerns surrounding the peak oil debate, with the UK ERC claiming that conventionally extracted global oil production could ‘peak’ and go into terminal decline before 2020.

However, the environmentalists have criticised the decision, warning of the “deadly legacy” of radioactive waste, and argued that investment should be focused on renewables instead. Interestingly, one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled at Kirksanton to make way for the nuclear plant, to the dismay of some locals.

Faced with the prospect of depleting supplies from the North Sea, the UK is now paying the price for its ‘dash for gas’, following the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s. To support the development of this next generation of energy infrastructure, the UK Government has announced a host of measures to reduce the planning constraints that are likely to hamper such large infrastructure projects, and hopes to have the first new nuclear plant operating by 2018.

Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide has welcomed the announcements from the UK government, and encouraged the Australian government to take heed. He highlights that unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas and therefore fluctuations in gas prices lead to price spikes in power prices.

Cheap uranium energy, on the other hand, provides a much more secure proposition to meet both energy security and climate change goals; and he adds that

“…there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years.”

Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating. Along with hydropower from dams, it is the only clean energy technology that has been shown to be scalable.

France is a case in point. It derives nearly 80% of its electricity from 59 nuclear plants and is the world’s biggest electricity exporter. It has the cheapest power rates in Europe, and has the lowest carbon footprint per person.

However, the significance of radioactive wastes and contamination threats should not be underestimated if we really want to promote sustainable development that considers the intergenerational impact and legacy of such technologies. In this vein, it might be argued that the significant funds for these large infrastructure projects would, in fact, be better targeted at scale-up and capacity building for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal and others, which don’t generate such controversial by-products.  For now, the pressure is on in the UK to streamline the planning process to enable the speedy construction required to bridge the expected energy gap.

After much speculation, including people pointing out that Copenhagen is just around the corner from Oslo where he will receive his Noble Peace prize, President Obama finally addressed the issue of his possible attendance at the Copenhagen negotiations.

In a Reuters interview Obama said yesterday that he will go to Copenhagen “If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge”

This is still a far cry from a promise to be at the talks, which is what forty heads of state already indicated they will do (including UK’s Gordon Brown, Brazil’s Lula de Silva and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy) according to Yvo de Boer . Not only is he not promising to help reach that “brink of a meaningful agreement”, but his pinning his travel on his belief that all countries are “bargaining in good faith” seems to me like a potential ‘exit clause’ from this promise.

The main reason for this feeling is Todd Stern’s testimony last week in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he said that “some developing countries … focus more on citing chapter and verse of dubious interpretations … designed to prove that they don’t have any responsibility for action now”. His full testimony, as it was originally written, was – I felt – rather haughty and laid most of the blame for the slow progress of the negotiations on developing countries. Though his actual testimony was more balanced, with more focus on US’s and other developed countries’ necessary actions, to me the general tone indicates a lack of faith in developing countries negotiators on the part of the administration.

Some observers noted in the past that Obama is not likely to put himself in a position where he will be forced to personally sign a treaty he can’t be sure of passing in Congress. It is possible then that this half promise to attend comes now as it seems extremely unlikely that Copenhagen will result in a legally binding treaty, the hopes have now scaled down to achieving a “meaningful agreement”.

So while Obama coming outright and saying that he might go to Copenhagen is good news, I would have liked to see a much stronger commitment as, at least in this case, I don’t share Al Gore’s optimism when he told the Guardian that “He hasn’t told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will.”

The announcement, made by the World Bank on the sidelines of the UN climate meeting taking place in Barcelona, will bring music to the ears of the millions of Africans suffering from climatic changes.  The decision made by the trustees of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), will commit $1.1 billion dollars to six African nations.  The choice of benefiting countries illustrates both Africa’s opportunity and potential international competitiveness within the emerging low-carbon economy but also its extreme vulnerability and limited adaptive capacity to the implications of climate change. 

The six nations will receive the money in a combination of grants or low-interest loans from the CIF which was launched in 2008, and has pledges of over $6 billion dollars to date. The CIF is a collaboration of public development financiers and is run jointly by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation and World Bank.

Leading Africa’s position in renewable energy and energy efficiency investments, South Africa will receive US$500 million which will be channelled into helping the country achieve its ambitious target of 4% renewable energy generation by 2013.   The money will be instrumental if South Africa is to achieve the target of a 12% increase in energy efficiency by 2015, a difficult task considering its dependence on coal.  Another large benefactor, Egypt, which is set to get $300 million dollars will also utilise the money to improve its power sector and the urban transport system in Cairo which is grossly under prepared to serve one of the world’s largest cities of over 17 million people.

A promising development for climate investment and possible innovation in low carbon growth is the pledge of US$150 million to Morocco for a fund dedicated to low carbon growth.  The fund will also boost energy security, a development which is likely to be viewed with keen interest from investors in the DesertTec Foundation. 

The climate finance will not all be focused on large scale infrastructure, with some of the money for South Africa dedicated to the distribution of solar water heating to millions of households, especially those with no access to electricity and in remote rural locations.

The CIF also earmarked between US$60 million and US$70 million for individual grants to Mozambique, Niger and Zambia which the World Bank felt all ‘shared dramatic risks in potential loss of land, life and livelihoods as a result of climate change’. These countries will utilise the money to pilot an initiative aimed at creating ‘resilience strategies’ against the impacts of climate change.