As of July 22nd , the second effort to enact a Climate Change bill in this congress failed. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that the ‘We know that we don’t have the votes’ for a comprehensive reform. Instead, the focus will be on a slimmer package focusing on household efficiency and the gulf oil spill.
Climate Change
France has been a leading nation in climate change negotiations in the recent past. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a national carbon tax on global-warming pollutants. Generally, he recognizes that “We are on the road to failure…Time is not on our side.” He has even gone so far as to suggest the creation of a new international organisation to deal with climate change. But after major losses to his party in regional elections earlier this year, the government has been backpedaling on things like the carbon tax.
But running up to the Bonn Climate Change Talks (31 May to 11 June), France has continued to organize summits and partnerships striving to move forward the UNFCCC climate change negotiation process. Prime among these have been: 1. the Oslo-Paris REDD negotiating process and 2. the Africa-France Summit.
Paris-Oslo process was initiated by France and Norway to build on progress made at the Copenhagen last December towards an international mechanism to fund forest protection. The program — called REDD Plus, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation — will encourage rich nations to voluntarily finance forest-protecting projects while coordinating that aid to avoid waste and ensure transparency.
During the last meetings of the Paris-Oslo process on 27 May 2010 in Oslo more than $4 billion had been pledged by developing nations to kick-start international REDD+ efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring forests in developing countries. Effectively, the feeling is that with money on the table and the urgency to halt GHG emissions from the clearing and degradation of tropical forests, REDD+ should move ahead even in the absence of a new global climate agreement. But there is some concern from NGOs that currently REDD+ lacks indigenous participation and transparency
.
France has been taking an active role in brokering relations between Africa and EU-nations. The Africa-France Summit convened from 31 May to 1 June in Nice, France. The Summit addressed the theme of “climate and development.” A main goal of including reconciling climate change with development, poverty reduction, and food security was put forth. European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, took part in the Summit. He was adamant that common solutions could come under the broader African-EU Strategic Partnership.
The UNFCC session in Bonn marks the resumption of the climate negotiations within the UN framework. France believes that the UNFCCC should remain central to the negotiations and benefit form the contributions of smaller initiatives, allowing advanced progress to be made on certain tracks of the overall discussion.
Now the world waits to see the effect of the talks France has helped to broker in past months.
The Bonn UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn, Germany is taking place between 31 May – 11 June 2010. Representatives from 182 governments are in attendance, picking up on unresolved issues left over from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) this past December and putting forward a path for the implementation of international climate change action.
Day 1
The first day of the Bonn Climate Change Talks were dedicated to the SBI and SBSTA opening plenaries. The flexibilities mechanisms were discussed under the SBSTA, with disagreements voiced regarding carbon capture and storage (CCS) and exhausted forests under the CDM, although standardized baselines under the CDM will be discussed.
Yvo de Boer spoke to the press, emphasizing that the two week negotiations will remain on track as long as participating nations maintain their focus on finding a common way forward towards a concrete and realistic goal for the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 16) in Cancún later this year. In addition, he warned that a postponed outcome at the Copenhagen meeting last December does not mean that the impacts of climate change had also been postponed.
A reception hosted by the German government was held later in the evening on Monday to celebrate Yvo de Boer’s tenure as Executive Secretary and wish him farewell.
Day 2
Tuesday marked the opening of meetings for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). In addition, contact groups met to discuss technology transfer under the SBI/SBSTA, non-Annex I communications under the SBI, and other issues including documentation on LULUCF, flexibility mechanisms, and methodological issues.
Under the AWG-LCA, the Chair’s draft text was introduced and several parties noted that it was a good basis for beginning the discussions. However, some delegates noted concern over the loss of a separate section on finance, perceived imbalance, and the potential for a significant growth in text length, as well as the possible impact of time spent in contact groups on the available negotiating time.
Yvo de Boer also addressed the conference, highlighting Copenhagen’s progress toward a technology mechanism, including a climate Technology Centre supported by regional units, raising the potential for partnership opportunities between governments and the private sector.
Day 3
Wednesday’s schedule consisted of contact group meetings and informal consultations. Issues under discussion included national communications, LDCs, the financial mechanism, capacity building, privileges and immunities, Annex I emission reductions, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3) under the AWG-LCA, and other issues under the AWG-KP.
Finance was a hot topic of the day, under discussion during the AWG-LCA contact group meeting. The AWG-LCA Chair provided a list of questions regarding the enhanced provision of financial resources which was then discussed during both the morning and afternoon group meetings. Many delegates noted a positive and constructive tone to the discussions, although complaints included discussions going in circles, parties maintaining their pre-Copenhagen positions, and the role of the UNFCCC being threatened by various parallel initiatives.
Day 4
On Thursday, delegates met together for contact groups as well as informal consultations. Issues under discussion included a review of the Adaptation Fund, intergovernmental meetings and capacity building, Annex I emission reductions, research dialogue, the Buenos Aires programme of work (decision 1/CP.10), and preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3).
The fourth day of negotiations took on a positive tone with signs of progress. A proposal put forth by AOSIS and backed by several other developing countries called for joint discussions between the two AWGs of Annex I emission reductions (limited to Annex I countries). This proposal was well received although broader joint discussions on the topic of mitigation still face large opposition. In addition, the US and some other developing countries might not be on board with the AOSIS proposal. Also making headway, the LULUCF submission by developing countries received positive response along with the agreement to reconstitute the legal issues group under the AWG-KP.
Day 5
On the fifth day of negotiations, the AWG-KP plenary took place and contact groups and informal consultations occurred. Topics under consideration included Annex I national communications, Annex I emission reductions, arrangements for intergovernmental meetings, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), technology transfer, and the focal point forum under the NWP convened.
Discussion over COP16 and side event arrangements took place and speculation arose over the still-undeclared location of the negotiating session taking place this autumn ahead of Cancún. The hope for joint discussions between the two AWGs was not as strong as the day prior. However, the energy may rise again when delegates meet for the final week of the Bonn climate talks.
Day 6
The second week of negotiations on Monday began with more contact groups and informal sessions. Under discussion: the Buenos Aires program of work (Decision 1/CP.10), preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), capacity building, the scientific, technical and socio-economic elements of mitigation, and Annex I emission reductions.
The topic of the joint meeting of the two AWGs arose again following the weekend hiatus. Of focus on Monday was the issue of common space for the AWGs, but no consensus has yet been reached. Despite support from AOSIS and various countries in Latin America, the US had not indicated that it would get behind such a meeting and some countries amongst the G-77/China remained in opposition.
LULUCF has also been receiving attention this week: transparency in LULUCF accounting is appearing to gain headway, a common position on reference levels was taken by the G-77/China, and reference constructions are showing signs of opening up.
Day 7
The topics of discussion during Tuesday’s contact groups and informal consultations included: the financial mechanism, capacity building, national communications, review of the Adaptation Fund, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), and Annex I emission reductions.
With closing plenaries taking place on Wednesday, not much new was presented as delegates worked hard to wrap up issues under consideration over the past week. At noon, an informal briefing took place by the UN Secretary General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) in which members announced that potential finance sources are currently being prepared in a report which is hope to be completed and presented before COP16 in November.
Day 8
Wednesday marked the end of the climate talks in Bonn. Contact groups and informal consultations took place during the day to discuss Annex I emission reductions and the preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3). Later in the day, the SBI and SBSTA convened for their closing plenaries.
On Wednesday afternoon, a joint SBI/SBSTA session took place in order to say farewell to the outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. Thanking the negotiators, IGOs, NGOs, industry, and his colleagues for their work over the past fourteen years, de Boer stated that “we do not have another fourteen years” to show that the UNFCCC can deliver progress. He noted that as negotiators work towards a legally binding agreement, there are divergences over the meaning of “legally binding” which serves as an advantage as it enables a broad definition. He further emphasized that agreements on several complex subjects cannot be reached with “15,000 people in the room” but through a “clear mandate to work in a smaller group and report back to the COP.” In his closing remarks, de Boer concluded that negotiators “will not only try, but also succeed.”
Read Yvo de Boer’s farewell statement here.
Further Reading
Bridging the road from Copenhagen to Cancún – Can the Bonn Climate talks lay any firm foundations? (Posted 31 May 2010 by Sabrina Chesterman)
France has prepared for positive Bonn outcome (Posted 6 June 2010 by Jennifer Helgeson)
Bonn Climate Talks: Paving the way to Cancún (Posted 8 June 2010 by Sabrina Chesterman and Nyla Sarwar)
On April 1, Tokyo’s Metropolitan Government (TMG) started a cap and trade system, which was the first attempt by a metropolitan area in the world. Further, at the national level, the current administration, led by a coalition composed by the Democratic Party of Japan, the People’s New Party and the Social Democratic Party, proposes a cap and trade system in its bill on the basic law for prevention of global warming (Ondanka Taisaku Kihon Hoan) and the Diet started deliberating the bill on April 20. Though a cap and trade system is going to be carried out at the national level, its structure has not been clear, and METI and businesses very actively seek to make the structure of a Japanese cap and trade system preferable or acceptable for them. As environmental NGOs propose different ideas concerning a Japanese cap and trade system from those of METI, the battle between green NGOs and METI over significant aspects of a cap and trade system has been fiercely happening. Especially, whether a Japanese cap and trade system should adopt an absolute target or an intensity target is one of the most controversial issues.
While METI strongly insists on the adoption of an intensive target, environmental NGOs are strongly pushing for the adoption of an intensity target. Environmental NGOs favour an absolute target mainly because an intensity target is supposed to promote increase in production for targeted industries. Indeed, because it is supposed that an absolute target is superior to an intensity target for CO2 reductions, TMG’s cap and trade system uses an absolute target. However, METI in its report, ‘Haishutsuryo Torihikiseido ni Tsuite’ (Concerning a cap and trade system), published on April 7, eloquently proposes an intensity target and justifies its adoption in the basic law.
Concerning the argument that an intensity target would promote increase in production, METI in its report suggests that increase in production is good for the Japanese economy and especially development of stable companies which achieve highest energy efficiency is beneficial for the whole nation and should be supported. Further, METI proposes that an intensity target would encourage businesses to achieve highest energy efficiency in the world. It is, according to METI, also possible to consider separately various adjustment mechanisms in order not to increase total CO2 emissions where a company achieves an intensity target but increase emissions because of increasing production.
In order to justify these arguments, the report cites comments of Professor Gwyn Prins at London School of Economics in an article of Montel Powernews, “Japanese industry has shown real efficiency gains, reduced emissions and increased profits at the same time.” However, it is difficult to say that METI’s arguments can be justified by the comments. Indeed, in his two main articles as well as the article mentioned above, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course and The Wrong Trousers: Radically Thinking Climate Policy, Professor Prins does not suggest that production should be increased. Either, he does not propose the adoption of an intensity target in a cap and trade system though he strongly emphasizes the necessity for reduction of the carbon intensity of an economy through increasing energy efficiency and deploying low-carbon technologies. Although he points out some deficiencies in the current cap and trade system and proposes its improvements in the latter article, he does not specify the adoption of an intensity target as its improvements at all.
In the very near future, it will be determined whether Japan’s cap and trade will adopt an absolute target or an intensity target. It is actually very difficult to determine which target should be adopted because both targets have pros and cons. As discussed above, however, it is inappropriate to adopt an intensity target because of the METI’s report as Professor Prins proposes neither an intensity target nor an increase in production and METI’s arguments are not supported by him, that is the report is misleading.
The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings continued in Bonn, Germany from 9 – 11 April 2010. This marked the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) as well as the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 9).
The meetings were focused on the organization of each of the working groups in the coming year. The main goal was to prepare for a successful conclusion of the groups’ work during the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP) 16 in Cancun later this year.
During the three day meeting there was much reflection on the COP 15 negotiations which took place in Copenhagen last December. Criticisms of COP15 have been extreme in the past months. At the Bonn meeting, 10 April, Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, condemned what he called “continued attempts by some developed countries to impose a deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord as the basis for future negotiations.”
In order to combat the failures Solon has identified in the process, Bolivia will host the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April 2010. More than 15,000 people and 70 governments are expected to attend. The object of the Summit is to bring “civil society back into the process of climate change negotiations.”
In the wake of COP 15 there has been a call from many developing nations towards more industrialized ones for increased trust. To this point, at a press conference, Solon called for a return to the full UNFCCC process, and to strengthen what had been agreed in COP15. He stated that “the central aim of any climate summit is not to save itself and accept any outcome, but to come to an agreement that will save humanity.”
In the wake of criticism and the launch of the World Peoples’ Summit, the USA has begun to slice millions of climate change support dollars from Bolivia. These cuts in funds were not stated as being directly related to the Summit launch. However, funds are also being cut from Ecuador, which is the first nation to recognize the legal rights of Mother Earth. Commenting on the cuts in funding from the USA and Denmark, Solon commented: “what kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?”
Only time will tell if the actions like the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth will affect the goals and tone of COP 16.
On 11 March 2010 French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, opened an international conference on deforestation in Paris. The main focus of the International Conference on the Major Forest Basins was funding for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, plus conservation, sustainable management of forests, and stock enhancement) activities during 2010-2012.
France and Norway are leading this effort to foster new climate partnership in 2010.
“Forests are in danger,” France’s Ecology Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said at a press conference. France intends to play a major role in saving the world’s forests, Borloo said, thanks to its “expertise in science and forestry.”
“The idea is to establish a partnership of everyone who wants to be included [in safeguarding forests], stated Norway’s Environment Minister, Erik Solheim. According to Solheim, the initiative will be transparent and “it will be open to everyone, even if you don’t contribute one single dollar, even if you don’t have a single tree.”
The conference brought together representatives from 54 countries, representing the main forest basins in the world as well as potential donor countries. The major focus was on the collective pledge for nearly US$3.5 billion in initial funding for REDD+ over the period 2010-2012 by Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and the US (made in Copenhagen in December 2009).
Not many details on this first conference are available, but there is expectation the throughout a series of conference mechanisms will be established to go through the United Nations, the World Bank, and bilateral channels. Norway has existing bilateral agreements, which may serve as a model in the process. For example, Norway plans to include up to $1 billion for Brazil from 2008-2015, up to $280 million for Guyana from 2010-2015 and about $83 million for Tanzania. But, each of these contributions schemes also come with strings attached, depending on performance.
During the Conference, participants engaged in three sessions on: pledges of initial funding and action for forests; coordination of initial funding and action for forests; and organization of long-term international action concerning REDD+. A second conference will be organized in Oslo, Norway, in May 2010
Many developing countries with forests to protect seem pleased with the arrangement of having France and Norway in a leadership role. Norway has a strong donor performance for forest issues, while France, and President Sarkozy in particular, has been an advocate for partnerships and open dialogue in REDD+ negotiations, before and after Copenhagen (e.g. France-Brazil initiative in November 2009).
Canada has slightly adjusted its mid-term climate mitigation targets to match US pledges. Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, recently announced that Canada has changed its mitigation goals in an effort to harmonize with the Obama administration.
Canada’s new emissions reduction target for 2020 is a cut of 17% on 2005 levels. Heading into the Copenhagen meeting this past December Canada’s mid-term target was a 20% reduction on 2006 levels by 2020. This adjustment comes as countries report their national targets to the UNFCCC as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord. The new Canadian commitment has been labeled by environmental groups as being slightly less stringent than the previous target, and well outside the range of targets proposed by the European Union (20% cuts from 1990 levels by 2020, with the possibility of going up to 30%).
On the face of things, Canada’s adjusted target is just another step towards an apparent harmonization between the Canadian and US positions on climate change, something that Minister Prentice has been calling for since taking over the portfolio.
However, differences clearly remain on policy direction and actions for addressing climate change. While Canada will now follow US pledges for 2020, it is not clear if Canada will adjust its long term targets to match those included in legislation before the US Senate. A climate bill passed by the House proposed a sharp cut of 80% on 2005 emissions levels by 2050, a target that the Canadian government does not seem to be considering.
Additionally, as previously reported on Climatico here, there is a big difference in stimulus spending on green initiatives on either side of the 49th parallel. Reports by the Pembina Institute have suggested that the U.S. is vastly outspending Canada on a per capita basis on renewable energy infrastructure.
In a recent speech in Calgary to oil executives, Minister Prentice indicated that any Canadian action on climate change was contingent on American actions. Critics have argued that this matching of American policy may result in indefinite delays as climate legislation faces an uphill battle in the US Congress. This position has also resulted in furthering internal political divisions within Canada, as Quebec Premier Jean Charest came out strongly against the federal government policy.
If Canada is to wait for certainty in the American position it could be some time before Canada implements a comprehensive program to reduce emissions, either through a cap-and-trade scheme or through regulation.
While the Obama administration is making moves towards regulating carbon emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency it is unclear how far along Canada’s plans are to similarly regulate industry north of the border. A plan to regulate emissions from heavy industry in Canada was due to be released last year (a deadline already shifted numerous times) but will now likely be stalled indefinitely.
Climatico has just released its latest report entitled, “Copenhagen De-briefing: An Analysis of COP15 for Long-term Cooperation”
This report analyses key issues under discussion in Copenhagen including: finance, technology transfer, REDD+, CDM and JI, as well as the ongoing conflicts between Annex I and Non Annex I countries. The Copenhagen Accord is also discussed along with its potential effect on future negotiations.
