As former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his family stepped down from service, the new Conservative leader, David Cameron has finally stepped in to Number 10 Downing Street. In the most exciting, yet controversial general election for decades, the UK has seen a Cameron and his next in command, Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats arrive yesterday to his new London office to discuss plans for the UK economy.

Despite signs of a stock market crisis as a result of the UK’s first hung parliament in 70 years, the value of the Sterling has risen slowly, and the FTSE 100 index has also risen modestly in yesterdays closing results. This is a positive sign that the financial markets are not too phased by the new coalition, and that we are not headed for a stock market crash.

However, not everyone shares this view. In an attempt to understand what does the coalition mean for future policy development, many UK voters and businesses believe that a coalition will slow down the decision making process. As stock markets opened for trade in the early hours of the election results morning (01:00), the general consensus of the traders was that a hung parliament would have a negative effect on trade and consequently devalue the pound. Slow decisions would also mean a loss of revenue for business, unable to make investment decisions due to lack of direction from the government. As a result, this may lead to the withdrawal of business from the UK market.

A major dispute already facing our new parliament in the first day of office is that of nuclear energy. Whilst the Tories are supportive of building nuclear power stations, the Liberal Democrats are against this. Simon Hughes, energy spokesperson for Liberal Democrats states that “A new generation of nuclear power stations will be a colossal mistake, regardless of where they are built. They are hugely expensive, dangerous and will take too long to build.”

Commitments to policy specific investments may prove hard to back, if agreement at the leadership level is not joined up. In the case of nuclear, the coalition has managed the conflicting views and issued the following statement on nuclear:

“We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.”

Furthermore, although both parties agree to reduce CO2 by a minimum of 34%, to meet the targets set by the Labour party in the Climate Change Act (2008), it is not clear on how both parties can deliver this target. For instance, the Tories have stated that they will not support specific ‘low-carbon’ technologies with the aim to let the market decide which technologies to adopt, yet the liberal democrats are more explicit about backing wind-power.

Like Labour, the new coalition agrees to back the 10:10 targets, to reduce co2 by 10% by 2010) and also agree to support the Green investment back which is designed to fund new, low carbon developments. This financing also extends to supporting the ‘greener’ homes agenda, to meet the zero carbon homes target (for new builds) by 2016, as well as the continuation of the feed-in tariff for microgenerators for future clean energy.

What remains unclear is the finance allocated to achieve these aspirations, which is the job of the today’s appointed Environment and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne to agree with his new peers, treasury and members of the public. As new environmental discussions approach in day two of the new coalition, the agenda for environmental policy will become clearer.

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.

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.

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:

• Brazil – 80% percent reduction in deforestation by 2020
• Indonesia – 26% percent by 2020 from “business as usual” levels
• China – carbon intensity reduced “by a notable margin” by 2020 on 2005 levels.

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?

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.

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.

December 2009 is the key date when global world leaders aim to agree a ‘Global’ climate change plan at the forthcoming UN Summit at Copenhagen.  UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, outline what they would like to see emerge from the December 2009 Copenhagen summit in replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. 

In his recent speech, Gordon Brown revealed a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which was presented to Parliament, and sets out why a Copenhagen deal is so important, and for the first time, what deal the UK Government is pushing for; some aspects are outlined below:

Emissions Reduction: Commit to firm reductions in amount of greenhouse gases they emit at Copenhagen.  The European Union has already pledged that it will reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30% if other countries commit to a similar level of action in a global agreement.

Adaptation: The UK wants a deal which gives developing countries the support they need to develop their own national plans to adapt to climate change. Other Adaptation actions could include better water conservation, new farming methods and plans to build new homes and businesses away from flood plains.

Tackling deforestation: The UK wants to see a deal which at least halves the rate at which we are cutting down tropical forests by 2020, with a complete end to global forest loss by 2030 at the latest.

New technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage to prevent emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations entering the atmosphere; Electric vehicles that produce lower emissions; Solar and other renewable power that produces cleaner energy; Energy efficient products for use in homes and business.

The UK plans for action are based on the UK Climate Projections a few weeks ago, that showed that Britain will also suffer if we do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.  By the 2080’s temperatures could, under a high emissions scenario, be up to 12 degrees C warmer on the hottest summer days and sea levels could rise by 36 cm.  

Together with our EU partners we have already made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an offer to reduce emissions by 30% if an ambitious global deal is agreed. 

The talks will discuss the sectors in which the greatest reductions can be achieved.  This will also vary on a country by country basis, as the largest carbon emitting sectors will vary, and the impact on national strategies in preventing future growth which will almost certainly cause debate for some.

As part of a broader marketing campaign within the UK, Ed Milliband is the forefront of ‘Act on Copenhagen’ the official UK government website launched on 26th June, and designed for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.  In addition, thousands of pamphlets will be issued to schools, citizen’s advice centres and libraries explaining why a global deal is vital and giving 15 top tips on what each of us can do to cut our carbon footprint as part of the global effort.

Not everyone will hold the same view as the UK and therefore anticipate that a convincing argument will need to be pitched at some world leaders, and China is one of them.  In the face of a strong and ever growing, and prosperous economy, what actions will be taken to limit the growth of factories, air travel and industrialization?

Developing nations are emitting up to 50.3 per cent of world emissions, a study provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, therefore, Gordon Brown will play a leading role in not only to pledging to reduce emissions from all members, but in leading the securing of a global agreement on climate change – a role which many leaders may wish to take.  With Ed Milibands recent announcement for a UK coal consultation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration, this may be the driving force for the UK to show that they are leading the Copenhagen debate, and not following it. 

Gordon Brown plans to meet with the President Obama administration at the September meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh before presenting his plans, with the hope of a successful outcome at Copenhagen in December.