Week one of Poznan has passed. What can we conclude from the perspective of a developing country like Mexico? So far no earth-shattering conclusions have been made. More so, following the view of Cambio Climático, what the past week has demonstrated, is (once again) the rift between developed and developing nations.
Mexico’s “big day” lies still ahead: Mexico’s Minister of the Environment Elvira Quesada has been quoted by various sources in the past days that he will push Mexico’s idea of the Green Fund (Fondo Verde) at the high level discussions next week. This fund, which was already presented to the G8 and G5 meetings at Hokkaido, “should be multilaterally agreed upon and established as a financial scheme that complements existing mechanisms and ensures the full, sustained and effective implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).” (see Mexico’s submission to the UNFCCC). The fund would leverage money from all countries based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities taking into account the ratio of emissions of a country in total emissions, emissions of greenhouse gases per capita and the Domestic Gross Product per capita. The fund would have the aim to leverage the necessary funding (currently held to be insufficient) to encourage mitigation actions; support adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, promote the transfer and dissemination of technologies, and help to sustain financially, the new global climate regime (for more check out this site).
The next week will show what will come out of it.
In parallel to the UNFCCC, Quesada has been specifying Mexico’s aim for cut GHG emissions by 15%.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is becoming a hotly debated topic here in Poznan, as delegates discuss the possibility of its inclusion in the CDM. Whilst there are a number of arguments for and against the technology, there are also a number of equity issues which have been raised.

Source: www.nottingham.ac.uk

Those for the development and implementation of CCS technology argue that fossil fuels will always have a role to play and CCS presents a sensible solution to the climate problem. Highlighting that we cannot reach global GHG reduction targets without it, and that we need to continue to burn fossil fuels to provide cheap energy supplies to developing countries; delegates stressed that CCS could be the transitional technology – paving the way to energy from 100% renewables. The EU has invested in a CCS pilot project to develop further understanding of the technology.

On the other hand, delegates have argued that CCS will not actually be ready for implementation before 2020-2030, and will be extremely expensive to implement – increasing costs by up to 90% from current levels. Global GHG targets demand a short- to medium-term solution, and it is recognised that due to the uncertainties surrounding it, CCS will not be ready in time. In addition, the research community has also demonstrated in several studies that a 50% reduction by 2050 could be reached by energy efficiency and renewable energy alone, without the expensive implementation of CCS.

On an equity front, delegates (mainly those of the developing countries) have argued that CCS is a technology pushed mainly by fossil fuel using countries to allow them to continue business as usual practices rather than addressing the issue by investing in low carbon technologies. Efforts should instead be focussed on further development of renewable energy technologies, which are the most widely available sources of energy, are ‘free’, and have the biggest potential to reach off-grid poor local communities. Transfer of technology should focus on those technologies which have been proven and can be implemented in developing countries and provide long term benefits for local communities. CCS remains uncertain and risky, and corporations will not accept liability for the future failures of technology – a potential reality.

Discussions are still ongoing as to whether CCS in CDM is a good idea or not, however, strong objections from many parties have been clearly noted. CDM is a mechanism to reduce emissions through proven means, not an R&D fund, and therefore should not divert public funds from proven renewable technologies to CCS.