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.
Author: Sabrina Chesterman
Hillary Clinton announces US support for a large Climate Change Fund (Image by: Andy Revkin)
As the high level plenary rolls on, countries are disaggregated in their commitments, divided in their sovereign requirements and the bottom line remains, the COP still is no closer to a firm climate agreement.
An agreement needs to be founded in confidence and credibility, a momentous task considering over 100 different states need to be aligned. Developing countries are fiercely protecting their national sovereignty, developed nations cannot agree on exact funding packages, tensions heighten and frustrations build as each world leader steps to the stage to present their national case and advocate for a solution to climate change, which all agree must be done at Copenhagen.
Gordon Brown called it the task of statesmanship for politics to overcome the obstacles. As the hours tick away, and statesman, presidents and prime minister advocate for an equitable outcome, do we start losing hope that endless talks and speeches prepared and written, perhaps weeks before Copenhagen and tweaked before delivery is not the most constructive use of time? One hopes as statesmen advocate their key messages on the plenary stage, senior negotiators are putting the texts into a workable and politically acceptable agreement behind closes doors.
In the continual roll call of world leaders at the high level plenary, a few developing countries have established their arguments with eloquence and established a useful commentary. It is clear there is a mutual understanding of the common but differentiated responsibility with regards to existing emissions. Some leaders have not distinguished along the Annex I (developed) and Annex II (developing) country basis, as is done under the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, as Hilary Clinton referred to, ‘major economies’ need to commit to funding and emissions cuts to their greatest extent.
As contract groups convene behind closed doors, developing countries remain firm in the support for Kyoto. As Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, rightly pointed out in his press conference, why wouldn’t developing countries advocate for a continuation of Kyoto, it’s the only framework that currently exists which compels developed countries who have ratified the protocol, to make emissions cuts?
Hilary Clinton affirmed the United States was prepared to join others to help raise 100 billion dollars a year by 2020. However, the reluctance of China to make firm statements this afternoon has made the chances of a unanimous pact appear unlikely. President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, highlighted the fundamental need for China to engage in final decisions. He used their example of innovation, in allowing millions of Chinese people to shift from a poverty status. Jagdeo challenged China as an indispensible actor to make sure Copenhagen doesn’t become the gravest failure of democratic statesmanship.
The week has been hampered by discussions focusing on procedure rather than substance and leaders know decisions made in the next 24 hours will mean they will be blessed or blamed for generations to come.
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.
expect more photos like this...
“Unless we see an advance on ambitious industrialised country targets and significant finance on the table, it is very difficult for negotiators in this process to continue their work in good faith” – that’s how Yvo de Boer summarised the current situation today.
But what’s frustrating de Boer (and I’m inclined to agree) is that most rich countries are letting negotiations go to the wire. They’re holding back their final positions, for fear of losing an advantage in the negotiations. And that’s despite poorer countries, most notably the BRICS+, putting lots of constructive stuff on the table. Here’s just a few:
It’s fine to keep your cards close to your chest during the fun and games a year before the summit, but now there’s only the Barcelona meeting to go before Copenhagen. That’s really not very much negotiating time left… and there’s still no consensus on emissions cuts or a serious commitment on finance on the table.
Admittedly Gordon Brown got the ball rolling a few months ago by putting a figure on it, but there is still no agreement on the size of climate funds or how to manage them.
And there’s no sign of things changing any time soon, especially with Waxman-Markey unlikely to pass through the senate before Copenhagen. So, I’m sure we’ll be seeing many more photos like above one over the next few months. But with initiatives like this currently rumbling back in the House of Representatives, perhaps that’s a good thing?
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.
Wednesday saw Chancellor Alastair Darling announce the first official UK carbon budget to tackle the problems of climate change, which is designed to finance existing policy commitments to achieving a low carbon future.
Darling announced that:
- £405 million will be provided to finance the development of low-carbon energy and advanced green manufacturing sectors.
- £375 million will support energy and resource efficiency in businesses, public buildings and households for the next two years, out of which £100m is allocated to social homes and £100m for the construction of new green homes.
- £70 million of funds are earmarked for small-scale, decentralised low-carbon energy projects.
Whilst plans are designed to encourage investment in resource efficiency and low carbon buildings, it is also designed to cut 34 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to keep the UK on track for its long term goal of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
The budget does therefore, show a strong commitment to creating a low carbon economy, as it is the first legally binding green budget of its kind. However, critics of the green agenda, and forecast based on Stern’s recommended total budget investment, will strongly argue that the 2009 budget falls short of the investments needed to achieve strong economic growth in the environmental sector, and to gain a slice of the anticipated £107 billion economy (1997-8).
The funding levels set aside for Housing and Green Stimulus initiatives is causing much debate among construction industry professionals, as it is said to be “simply not enough.”
Given that the construction sector is the biggest UK carbon emitter (approximately 50% of the UK market), with energy used in homes responsible for over a quarter of the UK’s carbon emissions (Source: Direct.gov), giant steps are needed to tackle this struggling industry at present. At its worst, projects are halted (Colleges), funds are not running directly into project delivery due to lack of finance from banks, and sustainable energy features are being compromised in the efforts to cut costs.
However, in a climate where most businesses, including the government are forced to cut costs, should critics of the budget request a much larger budget in order to kick start the housing and construction economy, and deliver 3 billion new, green, homes by 2016?
Please tell us your view, environmental budget versus-governments cutbacks – How should our UK budget be spent?
2 April was a big day for the international community; the leaders of the Group of 20 countries (the G20) had a dramatic one-day gathering at the ExCel Centre in London. The goals of the meeting were three-fold:
1. Reach an agreement on global stimulus measures to halt the economic slide;
2. Develop new parameters for global regulation of the financial sector;
3. Reach an agreement to create stricter regulations for tax havens.
World leaders achieved #2 and #3 to some extent, but there was little accord on stimulus spending directed to halt the global economic decline. This process is commendable considering the tension that has built between world leaders over the days preceding the Summit.
There was a notable lack of direct discussion of environmental issues throughout the course of the Summit. As Cliamatico’s G20 Reporting team relates: “in the substantive elements of the Summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change. In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.” Yet, there are strong implications to the final decisions that may affect climate issues, especially in developing nations.
A lot of press was dedicated to the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy’s, threat to walk out of the negotiations if the outcome did not meet his expectations. At a joint news conference with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, Sarkozy said now was the time to “moralize the system…we are just trying to take responsibility.” When challenged if he would truly refuse to sign an agreement that does not meet his expectations, he added: “This is a historic opportunity afforded us to give capitalism a conscience, because capitalism has lost its conscience and we have to seize this opportunity.” France and Germany were well aligned in their expectations going into the Summit.
Sarkozy discussed “red lines” on tax havens, hedge fund regulation, banking transparency, and a worldwide cap on bankers’ pay. In the end, he got most of what he asked for.
In the end world leaders pledged $1.1 trillion(USD) in loans and guarantees to poorer nations. This money includes $300 million(USD) over the course of three years for multi-country development banks to lend to poor countries that have seen reductions in credit after crisis-hit banks closed their doors.
There has been little direct discussion of the specifics of how this money will be directed. In theory, a certain percentage could go towards certified sustainable development projects but this is speculation and is not certain in the least. Since 2007, France’s environment ministry has subsumed once-larger rival ministries, such as transportation, energy and raw materials. It is notable that in many decisions the French state has included direct considerations for environment. Perhaps in the next Summit, Sarkozy can stamp his feet to demand more action on that point.
After some tense moments between Sarkozy and Chinese President, Hu Jinato, agreement was reached to crack down on tax havens and hedge funds. Additionally, a new supervisory board to highlight problems arising in the global financial system was created.
Yet, the U.S. and British calls for new stimulus measures were not satisfied during the course of the Summit. But by all accounts (following from public statements by key G20 nation leaders) they did bridge the gap between the stance of the USA and Britain against that of some European nations. Sarkozy openly praised USA President Obama for “helping to create consensus and persuade China…” He went on to say, “there were moments of tension, but never would we have thought to get as big an agreement.”
In some ways the
French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel held their news conference before the G20 summit.
Summit was a vital event not only to help the world dig its way out of financial troubles, reduce the probability of future issues, but to see how the leaders of the G20 interact with a new face around the table, that os US President Obama.
© 2010 Climaticoanalysis.org | All Rights Reserved