Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben, University of Oxford

Hopenhagen (Image by:/kallu)

I have to admit, seeing President Barack Obama finally walk up to the podium did make my heart beat just a little bit faster. After so much hype about his arrival – the potential visit in the first week, then a firm commitment to support the process personally in the second week and, yesterday, some rumours that he may not come after all – it was exciting to finally see him there. Agile, hopping onto the stage, adjusting the microphone, obviously fully comfortable in his role of addressing the world on the most important issue of our time. It is all too easy to rekindle your hopes when you see President Obama speak.

His tone of voice was serious yet hopeful. He spoke of climate change being science, not fiction (a comment most likely addressed to his home audience), of not wasting any more time by talking, and of taking action now. Of choosing the future over the past. He eloquently reiterated the US position:

1. All major economies need to declare to take decisive action. The US proposing to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
2. Transparency in the reporting of emissions that leads to a credible treaty and accountability of the parties.
3. Financing of adaptation in the poorest countries, with the US contributing $10bn by 2012 for the fast start and later, in 2020, being part of a $100bn funding effort globally. This is contingent on countries signing a treaty that fulfils the first two aims.

This triple aim of mitigation, transparency and financing could be the backbone of a new treaty, says Obama, one that has gone further than any treaty before.

President Obama’s speech was very moving, motivating and makes one think: hey, why have they not all gone for this great deal that seems so honest and makes so much sense. Well, let’s look behind the words and see what is left when we boil down Obama’s speech to what the US is bringing to the table and what they are demanding of others.

Stop talking, start acting – It must be a slap in the face of the countries that have been serious about reducing emissions since signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The US has spent the majority of the past 17 years either openly blocking progress or complicating talks to absurdity. Surely not Obama’s personal fault, but he is speaking for his country in this forum. Nevertheless, it is a positive note and gives hope for the US finally coming around to accepting climate change as a global challenge.

Choosing the future over the past – This is a direct confrontation with countries like Brazil (whose President gave a passionate speech just minutes earlier) who argue that industrialized countries have been polluting the atmosphere for the past century and cannot tell newly industrialized countries to halt climate change. It depends on your definition of equity. It depends on whether you look at emissions as a flow or a stock. Looking at emission flows, we know that countries such as China and India will be emitting much more in the future; looking at emission stocks, we know that most of the dreadful stuff in the atmosphere is due to industrialized countries having burned fossil fuels to fire up their economies in the past. President Obama wants us to look at climate change as a challenge for the future, not a bundle of opportunist behaviour of the past.

Mitigation – It is indeed very comforting to hear the US speak of mitigation. After all these years of the Bush doctrine, that is very refreshing. However, the numbers Obama is bringing to the table are very low. In his speech, he neglected to mention that the 17% reduction refers to the baseline year of 2005, a year of strong economic growth and high emissions in the US. Usually, negotiators refer to the baseline year of 1990, which is the one used in the Kyoto Protocol. When calculating the proposed US emission cut on a baseline year of 1990, we get a mere 4% of emission reduction. This is well below the proposed EU target of 20-30% and even below the US target that Clinton’s administration signed in Kyoto in 1997. I looked it up – it was 7% then. When Obama says ‘all major economies’ he means China. China has proposed taking on a target, albeit an emission intensity target, which takes the edge off the argument that the US has used for years to justify its refusal to act on climate change. It is questionable, whether Obama’s meagre emission reduction target can be called ‘decisive action’ and hence complies with his own first major aim.

Transparency – Now that China has come forward with a target, the US has a new complaint: are they really going to do it and how do we know? Both the Convention and the Protocol require industrialized countries to report their emissions according to agreed-upon methodologies. These emission inventories are checked by UN staff.

Developing countries have been cut some slack and can report their emissions in any way they want and at any time they want. They do receive guidance from the UN but are not checked rigorously. Having said that, some industrialized countries have in the past failed to report adequately and timely. Given these previously agreed upon rules, countries such as China could take on targets but would not be monitored. The US, as an industrialized country and a member of the OECD, is under much more stringent requirements to report emissions. So, Obama’s requirement number two is firmly aimed at newly industrializing countries. It is a demand, not an offer.

Financing – Hilary Clinton already announced the large number of $100bn by 2020 yesterday. It turns out that this is not something the US administration will provide, but something that the US proposes to be part of as a global effort, both from governments and industry. It is supposed to be raised through public and private partnerships. It is a relief to see that President Obama was able to underscore that with a promise of a more concrete $10bn by 2012, similar to the EU amount, to support adaptation efforts by the most vulnerable in a fast start programme. But here is the hook – it is conditional to signing an agreement that the US deems ‘decisive’. Basically, it is a bribe for the least developed countries and other vulnerable states to pressure China to bow to US demands.

Mitigation, transparency and financing – Even with all its faults, the Kyoto Protocol already contains these three elements. Why not just ratify that and build on it to make it a better treaty in its second commitment period?

Overall then, Obama brings very little to the negotiation table: a mere 4% cut in emissions and some money if conditions are met. The only reason one can be excited about this is that, for once, they are not entirely blocking the process from the start. Asking China to open its books to UN evaluators is the gamble that Obama is willing to take to save the planet. If climate change is such a real concern to the country, why is the US not moving ahead with more ambitious plans to be part of the solution?

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.

 From a party not known for a forward stance against Climate Change legislation and with many members downright sceptical, perhaps we should be positive when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Saskatchewan last week and declared himself a believer, that Climate Change was a “reality”. The interview, worth reading in full, brings to light some of the thinking of Republicans on Climate Change and the North American energy market.

Senator’s Graham’s views are particularly important for several reasons. Firstly the Climate change bill that passed through the US house and is awaiting its senate hearing is possibly the single most important turning point in getting a global deal on Climate Change. As Graham himself noted, the bill narrowly passed in the house meaning that it dropped Democrats, given the house is often seen as more partisan, the implication is that the bill would need to be watered down to make a passage through the Senate. While this may be true to some extent, Graham is being slightly disingenuous, the House bill passed with enough votes – some Democrats were able to vote against it for their constituency, safe in the knowledge it would pass (i.e. if it had been closer they would probably have also voted for it).

Senator Graham’s views were likewise interesting in terms of the shape of Climate legislation in North America, which can probably be read as a reasonable gauge of Republican thinking on energy policy if not Climate Change policy.

“Carbon sequestration is the key to anything you want to do when you talk about getting away from fossil fuels or controlling CO2 emissions”

Not that this will surprise many, but CCS ( Carbon Capture and Storage) is in the near future at least a political reality– whether its viable or not. For both Canada and the US, CCS is the magic wand which can placate their powerful fossil fuel lobbies – especially Coal in the US and the oil-sands in Canada. Both Obama and Harper have alluded to its necessary use – and with many Democrats hailing from coal states such as West Virginia and Virginia, it will be next to impossible for Climate Change legislation to be passed without it. Similarly in Canada, the powerful geopolitical role envisaged from Alberta’s oil sands including in any North American Cap and Trade, ensures that both countries will create opt outs or subsidies to nurture their particular fossil fuel industries.

On Oil Sands Senator Graham words will disappoint environmentalists:

“the United States should accept it, because every drop of oil that we can receive from our friends in Canada is one less we have to buy from people who don’t like us.”

“I think the future’s on your side when it comes to your U.S. neighbours accepting your products.”

Almost without a doubt, there is a necessary trade-off to be made in environmental issues. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) may be a “believer” in Climate Change, but his language was firmly rooted in pragmatic security and economic issues- cheap and safe energy – if Congress does swing back towards Republicans, future Climate Change debates will be shaped by this kind of language. This isn’t necessarily negative, in order to make Climate Change a permanent legislative priority it needs to be bundled into other issues, to appeal to wide base. In this case, the issue is energy security, while for many this was meant to be about fuel economy standards, reduction in oil for power stations and growth of new green energy industries – yet in the interim this will mean oil sands from Alberta. The battle for environmentalists will be to try to lobby for the clean- up of the Alberta sands and the US coal.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (Photo: Pawel Flato)

Two key members of the Swedish government – the Prime Minister and the Environment Minister – appeared last week to adopt contrasting tones when commenting on the EU’s expectations of other parties at the forthcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen.

Sweden currently holds the EU’s rotating Presidency, and over the last few months it has been outlining the bloc’s position on the Copenhagen negotiations that will take place later this year. Much of what the Swedish ministers said has followed the broad outlines of the European Commission’s January communication on a global deal – significant absolute cuts for developed countries, reductions compared to business-as-usual for developing countries, and reform of the CDM.

As recently as last week the Swedish Environment Minister, Andreas Carlgren, repeated similar opinions in a press conference. He described the proposed climate legislation currently being debated in the US as promising, but not ambitious enough. He also called on large emerging economies to be prepared to reduce their emissions by as much as 30% below business-as-usual projections.

Meanwhile, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt was reported to have indicated that a less exacting set of commitments could be sufficient for an international agreement. The Prime Minister echoed Minister Carlgren’s view that the positions expressed by both the US and major developing countries were not satisfactory. However, he also went on to suggest that Europe needed to be ‘open to other types of solutions’ besides binding targets, including special terms for China and theUS.

Without seeing the full interview with Prime Minister Reinfeldt it is difficult to know exactly how different the substance of his comments was from the Environment Minister’s. But the difference in tone underlines the nature of the EU’s role in this year’s negotiations.

During the build-up to last year’s Poznań conference all eyes were on the EU as it tried to finalise its politically ambitious Climate and Energy Package. By committing itself back then to a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, it has deliberately played its hand early. Its role (at least in public) is now effectively limited to maintaining political pressure on other countries to follow suit, and trying to retain its reputation as a global leader on climate change.

This may go some way to explain the Swedish Ministers’ good cop / bad cop stances last week: the EU is on one hand eager to articulate an ambitious vision for a global deal, while also pragmatically laying the ground for a compromise position if (or, rather, when) China and the US fail to offer what the EU has previously said it wants of them.

Europe will not have the leading role in this year’s drama at Copenhagen – China and the US will be centre stage instead. But there is no doubt that the EU’s Swedish Presidency will want to ensure that it continues to be seen and heard all the way to the final act.

Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke announcing the new Sustainability Index in July

Two weeks ago, the U.S. super-giant Wal-Mart announced plans to develop a worldwide sustainable product index that will record the ecological impact of every product the retailer carries. The sustainability of a product’s history will then be translated onto a label which the customer can see as they make their purchasing decisions. This sustainability index would be the first of its kind utilized at such a large scale and the retailer hopes that the index will become a new international retail standard.

“Customers want products that are more efficient, that last longer and perform better. And increasingly they want information about the entire lifecycle of a product so they can feel good about buying it. They want to know that the materials in the product are safe, that it was made well and that it was produced in a responsible way” says Mike Duke, Wal-Mart’s president and CEO.

Wal-Mart plans to roll out the initiative in three phases, starting with a survey of its more than 100,000 worldwide suppliers. This survey is composed of 15 questions (Wal-Mart questions (PDF)) and covers four areas: material efficiency; energy and climate; people and community; and natural resources. The survey includes questions about greenhouse gas emissions, the location of factories, water use and solid waste produced. Suppliers will use this survey in order to evaluate their own sustainability efforts, allowing for better transparency along its supply chain. U.S. suppliers are asked to complete the survey by October 1st and outside of the United States, timelines for suppliers will be created on a country-by-country basis.

In its second phase, Wal-Mart is helping develop a consortium of universities that will work together with retailers, suppliers, NGOs and governments to create a worldwide database of information about the lifecycle of products. So far, Arizona State University and the University of Arkansas have signed on to help administer the consortium and additional universities are in talks to join in, as well.

In its third and final phase, the consortium will develop an index which will translate the sustainability information of each product into a rating system that will allow customers to better understand the quality and history of the products that they are purchasing from its raw materials into the final product disposal. The format in which the information will be delivered to consumers is still under consideration but may come in the form of a color code, numeric score or other form of label.

So how does Wal-Mart’s announcement impact consumers who are not, as of yet, Wal-Mart customers?

Sustainability labels on products may lead to a shift in shopping habits similar to the effect of nutritional information provided on food products. Consumer surveys have shown for years that only a small segment of shoppers make their purchases based on values. However, many more shoppers would value shop if no additional effort was needed to gain such information and the prices remained comparable. As sustainability information for a product becomes readily available, suppliers will then have to alter their behavior in order to remain competitive with this segment of consumers or risk hurting their bottom line.

Furthermore, in an effort to broaden the number of participants and encourage universal transparency along its supply chain, Wal-Mart has implied that any of its suppliers who chooses not to take part in the new Sustainability Index initiative will become “less relevant” to the retailer. As the superstore pressures its 100,000 suppliers to adhere to the new standards, other discount retailers such as Big W, Target, and Kmart will likely follow suit.

While Wal-Mart is providing seed capital for the funding of the consortium, the database and index will neither be Wal-Mart created nor owned. This is important because the initiative can have greater global reach if it can be taken on as a new standard, requiring industry-wide collaboration and acceptance. According to Duke, “We can’t do this without partners. This cannot and should not be a Wal-Mart effort. It can’t be a U.S. effort. To succeed, the Index has to be global. It has to involve many stakeholders as vital partners.”

Unfortunately for those of us who are eager to see these labels on our products and, more importantly, see companies shift to more sustainable business practices, the new labeling system is not expected to be fully in place for another five years. And, the fact that Wal-Mart is a Goliath that almost breeds consumption and waste, the oxymoron of turning to Wal-Mart for the answer certainly won’t be lost on the more environmentally-minded consumer. However, despite the fact that there are no overnight miracles for making the market place more eco-friendly, it looks as though, with patience, the new Wal-Mart sustainability index has the potential to turn green into gold.

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.

President Obama, in close discussions with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is to give the green light for US consumption of oil sand oil, or rather the import of fuels considered among the “dirtiest” in the fuel market. In a meeting last week, President Obama decided that the Canada’s oil sands represented an important part of national security supplies for petroleum in America’s near future.

The move is not without immediate precedent, as Francois Cardinal at cybercress.ca notes, both Hillary Clinton had offered support for oil sands at a recent conference on energy security, and Obama’s national Security adviser General Jim Jones was similarly adamant that the US would be foolish to reject the possibility of a stable source from a close partner in Canada.

The move will disappoint many in the green movement, given Obama has previously been less supportive of oil sands, noting that the Us needed to ween itself off dirty and dangerous oil supplies. In particular at a recent summit with Canada, President Obama described US coal as equivalent to Alberta’s oil sands, given environmentalists hope that the US would take a tough line demanding far reaching cleanup efforts if the oil sands were ever to be imported.

Speaking at a recent energy conference the Calgary Herald noted Energy Secretary’s Chu’s position

“This is energy that one hopes to develop in a clean way, and so that you can decrease the environmental footprint, both in the energy invested in order to recover it and on the local environmental issues,” Chu said Monday in response to a Herald query.

“There are also environmental issues having to do with the recovery of the oil sands, the very tarry stuff that’s left behind, the residues. There haven’t been solutions to that yet,” added Chu, who met privately with Premier Ed Stelmach on Monday for about 30 minutes”

How far the environmental issues are pushed depends on a large number of factors, in terms of Canada’ s federal Climate policy projects such as oil sands are only required to reduce the intensity of their energy consumption in order to keep with Canada’s GHG targets, in short allowing growth in absolute Carbon emissions. Worse, of the projects designed to reduce emissions from critical polluting sectors, most of Canada’s research investment is going to “clean coal” rather than oil sands:

“Alberta Minister of Environment Rob Renner said Tuesday that the lion’s share of $ 2 billion planned for the burial of carbon was destined for the coal industry”

However, environmental movements within Canada, have made strong progress in other states such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec which could increase the pressure on states such as Alberta to set more ambitious reduction targets and forcing them to channel greater investment into cleaning up the oil sands. Furthermore, the role of California the US’s biggest car using state has effectively banned Alberta oil unless it cleans up, through regional Environmental alliances such as the WCI such policy could be diffused throughout other key states, potentially even within Canada.

In summary, oil sands as noted previously now look set for a stable future, one albeit without the much feared spectacular growth that marked environmentalists concerns prior to the recession and one in which increasing pressure will probably be put on the oil sands to reduce their environmental impact, but in terms of derailment, the oil sands appear to have escaped that pitfall.