Climate change is back on the radar of the presidential election, but this time as a punchline. As is probably well known at this point, Romney gave a speech at the Republican National Convention in which he and the delegates vocally ridiculed the idea that climate change is a problem. The video is available below:
This may seem like yet another example of the GOP, as an institution, rejecting well-established climate science. For example, the only GOP presidential candidate last year to admit that anthropogenic climate change existed was Jon Huntsman, who never rose about the double digits in support. And then, of course, even he went ‘squishy’ in his position in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, where he invoked the East Anglia Climate-gate controversy, calling for more thumb-twiddling until climate scientists could get “a better description” of the problem.
Of course, recalcitrance in the face of climate change management is not a partisan issue. Famously, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which handcuffs the US Executive branch from committing to any international treaty that does not bind developing nations (and preventing US ratification of Kyoto) is a bipartisan agreement. But climate change denialism seems to be largely a Republican practice – and this in the face of ever mounting evidence from the IPCC that, yes, anthropogenic climate change exists, and is a threat to global security.
But it wasn’t always so. One of the most vexing issues in the American political system, is that environmentalism has, in the past, had Republican support. Some of the lead agencies responsible for managing environmental issues, the EPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality (as well as milestone acts, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts) were created either under President Nixon, not known as one sympathetic to the Democratic Party, or with Republican support. This local environmentalism was but one part of a growing international environmental movement, as only a few years later, the UN held the Stockholm Convention on the Human Environment in 1972.
Sadly, of course, this changed dramatically in the anti-regulatory climate of the Reagan administration, with the appointment of Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA. While Gorsuch’s tenure was mercifully brief, and despite later environmental triumphs, such as the ratification of the Montreal Protocol (under Reagan!), the damage had already been done. Anti-environmentalism and anti-regulation had become such a central plank to the GOP platform, that we are left with the fact that what should be a straightforward debate about cause-and-effect has become highly polarized and prone to gridlock.
It is clear at this point, that a GOP presidency will likely mean a 4-year hiatus on any environmental regulatory progress, if not an outright reversal of what gains have been made to date. The problem, of course, is that while environmental policymaking is partisan, environmental degradation is not.
Well, I suppose it’s about time that I started blogging again. Don’t worry; nothing environmentally bad happened between December 12 and today – or I would have caught it. Clearly.
On Thursday, I heard an interesting report on NPR. Climate scientists, such as Durwood Zaelke of the Institute of Governance and Sustainable Development, and Drew Shindell of NASA have suggested a new, effective way to fight climate change: instead of attempting to create treaties or institutions to deal with carbon dioxide, we should focus on reducing our global emissions of soot and methane.
Why Soot and Methane?
The rationale behind doing so sounds very seductive: 1) both these gases have a higher Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide per unit weight – methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2 per weight, while soot (comprised of incompletely combusted carbon, sulfur, organic carbon and other chemicals – also known as “black carbon”) has a GWP of 680; 2) as illustrated by NASA, both methane and soot are potentially harmful to human life – soot, because it exacerbates pulmonary and cardiovascular illness, and methane, as it contributes to ground-level ozone; 3) both soot (despite its carbon component) and methane have shorter atmospheric lifetimes than CO2 – one or two decades, as opposed to hundreds of years.
Consequently, concentrating efforts on soot and methane mean you would be able to discern greater changes in atmospheric CO2e accumulation. In fact, Shindell was lead author on a paper, published in Science Magazine, that suggests focusing on these two gases would reduce the amount of global warming from the projected rate of increase by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. This is no small potatoes, considering that the margin of increase recognized by the IPCC as tolerable for human society is a 2 degree increase over current global averages. Finally, and I suspect this may be a more important development than anything else, combating soot and methane means you’re less likely to confront the industries – transport and energy – responsible for producing carbon dioxide. Methane primarily comes from agriculture and landfills, particularly in less developed countries, while it is also a byproduct of coal mining. Soot comes from biomass stoves, burning wood and dung, which again are largely used in developing countries.
Obviously, the proposals advanced by Shindell and his co-authors, if funded, would provide immeasurable benefits. Reduce cardiovascular illness among lower income, biomass stove-using populations; reduce ground-level ozone; mitigate short-term climate change. But, I worry that the attempt to focus on other gases may present a moral hazard, if policymakers and the public lose sight of the main problem, which remains carbon dioxide. While soot and methane are comparatively speaking, short term problems, ‘solving’ them as issues without dealing with the main driver of climate change will only postpone severe climatic problems. Recall that carbon dioxide lasts for about 100 years in the atmosphere. The catastrophic implications of global warming would thus be postponed until well after our natural lifetimes, but what about afterwards? Surely we have a moral obligation to consider future generations.
Moreover, there is something deeply unsettling about a policy approach that has implications for future obligations on lower income populations, or developing countries, while treating carbon dioxide emissions in the developed world as a fait accompli. Zaelke, who worked on the UNFCCC, said this in regards to the new study: ”I mean, it’s like picking a fight with the biggest bully in the schoolyard. You know, you get your lunch money stolen, you get your pants pulled down, and you get sent home humiliated. We’ve made about that much progress with CO2.” That same article goes on to say: “ Few governments have been willing to endanger development with limits on CO2.”
First, that last sentence is misleading. The entire EU bloc has been more than willing to restrict CO2 emissions, quite sharply, and has done so even in the face of a global recession. Rather, a few (but key) governments (you know who they are from following Durban, I imagine) have refused to address CO2, leaving us all with the bag. Second, if we want to characterize CO2 as a bully, I would hope that we as a global society will eventually generate the courage and determination to confront that bully, rather than acquiescing each and every time.
Now that we know that the only thing coming out of the recent COP-17 at Durban is an agreement to agree in the future, and the Zombie Protocol, the question becomes: what are nations going to do to address climate change? In a move straight out of a Schumacher film, Mongolia is planning to engineer ice shields to keep their capital city, Ulaanbaatar cool – particularly since Mongolia has warmed 3x faster than the rest of the world on average.
While this may or may not work (and it’s very doubtful that it will), it’s somewhat unfortunate that Mongolia, with a mere 15.6 million tons of CO2e (PDF), or 3 million tons per capita is both a tiny contributor to global warming, and particularly vulnerable to the changes already being observed worldwide. Moreover, while climate mitigation is almost certainly something that countries should be investing in, engineering solutions to global warming is only a small and potentially problematic response to the emerging crisis.
Approaches like this, or other, more complex geoengineering solutions such as (seriously) space mirrors – contemplated by the UN and IPCC, no less – are flawed in that they 1) take away attention from the root causes of the problem, by not addressing underlying consumption (indeed, they make it easier for richer societies to continue consuming, as long as they pay their way in technological solutions); 2) may cause environmental problems of their own – particularly in doing things like (again, seriously) dumping iron in the ocean; 3) in the words of David Attenborough (yes, THE David Attenborough), are “fascist” – they place too much power in the hands of rich nations. I mean, controlling the weather is something straight out of a bad science fiction movie. We’ll keep an eye on things, but hopefully we’ll spend more time investing in ways to cut consumption, rather than punting it down the road. In the mean time, enjoy these chilling puns!
In a surprise turnaround, the ending of Durban’s COP-17 is actually about as positive as I could have hoped, given the state of affairs on Saturday morning. At 6:00am yesterday, Poland’s Marcin Korolec (who took over for Chruszczow), announced that this COP has led to a “historical moment,” noting that they “adopted the Durban platform, which will us lead to legally a binding agreement, adopted by 2015, which will engage all parties, including the major economies.” It is currently expected that the agreement negotiated in the future COP will come in to force in 2020.
Agreeing to Agree
In short, the Parties have agreed to agree (in the future). Although almost derailed at the last minute by India, and although stopping short of creating a new binding agreement to cover between 2012 and 2020, this nevertheless marks a change in that developing countries (particularly the BASIC ones) have agreed to be bound by iterated, specific obligations. This would not have been possible without splits in the G-77+China caused by the wavering of Brazil and South Africa on the BASIC group, and with the support for the EU’s position offered by the most climatically vulnerable poor countries among AOSIS and the Least Developed Countries. While there is still no guarantee that a relatively binary North-South split will not derail the future negotiations, it is heartening to see compromise possible between the richer and poorer nations on this pressing issue. In the words of Connie Hedegaard: “What difference does a roadmap mean? It marks a turn away from the 20th century, where the developed countries have to commit, and the others have to do voluntary actions. In the future, we can have different efforts, but whatever we pledge, whatever we do, will have the same legal value…. This is very important.”
But wait! That’s not all! Resurrecting the Kyoto Protocol almost single-handedly, Korolec, speaking for the EU said that they “…proved that the Kyoto Protocol is alive…” (it’s alive!) by agreeing to sign on to a second commitment period starting next year. While the KP itself (covering, at this point, only 37 countries – including the 27 EU countries – and 15 – 20% of the world’s GHG emissions) is a shell of an institution, its resurrection means 1) institutions such as the CDM, LULUCF accounting rules, and flexibility mechanisms will persist, given their dependence on iterated cuts; 2) it may serve to catalyze the conditional commitments under the Cancún Agreements. So, Hedegaard , invoking the EU’s pusher strategy in this COP spoke very favorably about the extension of Kyoto in large part due to its function as part of a broader commitment, rather than as a stand-alone institution: “The EU strategy worked… The strategy, saying that we will only commit to a second period – although only a few others will do it – we are ready to do it, but only if in return we get a roadmap for the future.”
To be sure, they haven’t signed on to a second commitment period yet, but that’s due to the need to hash out the technical details of further emissions requirements – necessary, particularly since the EU has already surpassed its requirements under the first commitment period. You can’t just add new requirements, a fact observed by Hedegaard thus: “We have to go back and calculate the QELROs (Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction Objective)… It’s not something you just do in a night or so.” Echoing this sentiment, Korolec pointed out: “That was a political decision. We are now sending a text to lawyers… it’s a long legal process.” But in the end, Hedegaard emphasized the commitment of the EU to a second binding period of the KP: “We are taking a second commitment period. That is clear.” In short, while undoubtedly pretty far from a meaningful second commitment period, the Zombie Protocol serves a purpose.
Other Positives: the GCF
In addition, the Parties agreed to launch the Green Climate Fund in Draft Decision CP.17 (PDF). This Fund will provide financial support for both adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing countries. Unfortunately, although the NGO community asked for official member status for civil society groups on the Board, at present – like the UNFCCC itself – civil society groups are limited to accredited observer status. This raises concerns about whether the provision of funds and projects will benefit vulnerable societies within recipient countries, a legitimate concern, given the objections raised about REDD+ throughout COP-17. Observer status is no guarantee that civil society viewpoints will be taken seriously.
So, that’s it for this year’s COP. The blog will return to covering a range of different environmental issues, domestic and global, in particular those that focus on environmental justice and racism. Highlights for next year will include the Rio+20 conference, and various other COPs, including the Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP-11. Hopefully, with the various scholarly links scattered throughout, this has served as a useful academic take on climate change negotiations.
You Mean to Say These People Can't Agree on Something?
The Worst of All Possible Worlds
Well, in a turnaround that is pretty dismal, even beyond what I thought might be the case, the talks have been extended into another day, a possible sign of collapse. So, it doesn’t look like anything is coming out of this conference, unless the delegates manage to come up with some last-minute, face-saving deal. However, it should be noted that, the last time the Parties to the UNFCCC tried to salvage a COP at the last minute, we ended up with the Copenhagen Agreement (PDF), a three-page, vaguely stated commitment, that the Parties only “took note” of – which meant, according to then-UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer: “…recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.”
It’s not clear what this means for the GCF, the one element that seemed most likely to emerge. Nor is it necessarily the case that future COPs won’t end in meaningful commitment. However, for the time being at least, climate change will have to be governed by an inadequate, soft-law regime. Granted, the Parties may yet come up with something in the waning hours of the extension, and there have been no new webcasts or statements as yet (4:30pm Durban time), but that looks like the extent of it.
Civil Society Activist Opposed to the Green Climate Fund
The EU: “An Agreement is Within Reach”
In a very surprising (and potentially welcome) development, some of the main Parties today are indicating that there may be some kind of legally binding regime that emerges after COP-17 after all! Connie Hedegaard, speaking for the EU, which has proposed a “roadmap [at] the core of the negotiations,” said today that “…an agreement is within reach… A framework that would be global, and legally binding.”
While the EU has long been a pusher group on the idea of creating a binding regime, the EU’s proposal for the “roadmap” has received some verbal support from the US, in no small part because it calls on India and China to commit to binding targets. However, poorer nations and blocs, in particular AOSIS, the LDCs, and the African Group are also in favor of the proposal, thus fracturing the coherence of the 131 countries of the G-77 + China. It’s not a simple poor-v-rich nation debate any more. Indeed, last night, AOSIS, the LDCs and the EU released a common statement for greater effort and ambition, and stating that “…all parties to the UNFCCC need to commit…,” and committing to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
Moreover, Hedegaard is very explicitly positioning the climate change issue as one that should cross the North-South divide that has characterized climate change: “I find it significant and telling that the poorest countries of the world, the most vulnerable, they now stand together with the EU, that all parties will have to commit in the future.” Further, she pointed out that South Africa and Brazil (half of the BASIC Countries with India and China) have, as of midnight last night, signaled to the EU that it would commit to the binding commitments implicated under the roadmap.
South Africa: the Gracious Host
In a very carefully hedged statement, the South African Minister of Environment positioned itself as active in seeking a solution on the climate change issue and the EU roadmap. “As you know, the negotiations are still ongoing. We are part of finding a solution that would be attractive to all delegates. I’ll just leave it at that.” Lord, what I wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall of these debates. Of course, given that the press and NGO participants are regularly excluded, that is not likely, unless I get nominated to a national delegation. (Note to self: if academic career doesn’t work out…)
Finally, Hedegaard pointed out that the US has repeatedly said that it would be interested in a legally binding deal under the EU roadmap, provided that others (including developing countries) were bound – a statement that aligns with China’s recent statements. Optimistic, yes?
Cautious Optimism
However, this optimism should be tempered by the fact that this regime is governed by consensus. 1) the Umbrella Group is probably going to be unhappy with an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, and 2) the other two BASIC Countries are unlikely to be happy with the binding agreements implied in the EU roadmap. Further, reports on the text of the roadmap, which has been made available so far only to the press that is actually at COP-17, indicates that the binding targets are only going to come into play “after 2020,” when the current (non-binding) requirements of the Cancún Agreements are commonly held to expire. This agreement could come into force in 2015 – “not an unfair deadline – four more years!” she emphasized – although the US is sending clear signals that it is not interested in establishing a timetable.
Further, alluding to the “small rooms” in which most of the discussions and decisions take place, Hedegaard made it clear (in as diplomatic manner as possible) that “those few big ones… are still not giving in” in committing to a decision in a timely pace. While the COP is scheduled to end today, and may drag out for a few hours more, this may yet scuttle the progress that has been made over the past 2 days.
The Clock is Ticking…
In short, if you want meaningful, binding action now, your choices are: 1) the non-binding Cancún Agreements starting now; 2) an extension of the Kyoto Protocol (sans Canada, Japan, and the US) starting 2012; 3) wait until 2020 for binding cuts to take place. This is not to say that no meaningful action will be taken, but it should be emphasized that, if we are going to cut global emissions in such a way as to prevent serious climate change (i.e., above 2 degrees C), it will have to be done through action that is more ambitious than any of the global commitments or agreements made between now and 2020.
Nor is it clear, for option 2, what extending the Kyoto Protocol would mean. In addition to the fact that three major Annex I economies have clearly stated that they are not interested in a new period, the EU, and technically, post-Soviet states have exceeded their Kyoto requirements. For it to be meaningful, the new Parties would have to create new targets, which would almost certainly be a profoundly politicized issue. You can take a look at some of the options considered by the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA here (PDF – specific to the KP) and here (PDF).
In any case, no Decisions have been announced yet; it is 11:11pm Durban time – the COP-17 is scheduled to end today, and we’ll see what comes out. I predict (hope?) 1) institutionalized GCF; 2) very watered down Kyoto Protocol, obviously sans Canada, US, Japan and BASIC country requirements. The only question remaining is whether Parties will make a commitment to negotiating a binding regime in a future COP to come into force by 2020. That could go anywhere at this point.
Abigail Borah: “The United States Government Does Not Speak on My Behalf”
In an inspiring display of bravery, Abigail Borah, class of 2013 of Middlebury College, spoke today against the politicization and gridlock of COP-17 of the UNFCCC. Here’s how it went down: At the 7th meeting of the COP today, the various delegates walked through their national positions on climate change. Two hours and twenty minutes in, the Greece Minister of Environment, George Papakonstantinou, just finished alluding darkly to the unwillingness of some Parties to commit to binding agreements, asserting that – even though Greece is in the midst of an economic crisis – such action is necessary. The next presenter scheduled was Todd Stern, from the US Department of State. Then, right before he could speak, this happened (skip ahead to 1:15):
While Borah was making her speech, the COP President attempted to shut her down, stating: “Thank you, can we listen to the speech? Nobody is listening to you.” However, this was belied by the fact that, right after she finished her speech (and Borah will now be banned from the rest of the conference), the audience of government delegates, press, and civil society representatives erupted in applause. In response, the COP President tried to spin the situation: “Mr. Stern, this clapping is for you. You have a very nice welcome now, so you can start.”
“I’m delighted that I have a very enthusiastic crowd here. This is great.”
After Borah was ejected, Stern continued with his speech, reiterating comments made earlier in the week – the appropriate, and “only basis” on which climate change can move forward, is the Cancún Agreements. Later today, in a press conference discussing environmental criticism (and mentioning Borah obliquely) Stern will repeat the idea that the US commitment to Cancún is sufficient as an approach to climate governance: “What is embedded in the Cancún Agreements is much more meaningful in terms of potential emissions reductions than what is in Kyoto; there is no contest.”
To this end, Stern cited actions such as the increase in CAFE standards, and the $90 billion invested in green energy under the Obama administration. Further, in an attempt to burnish the US’s green credentials, Stern points out that a “leading environmentalist” – Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign for the Auto Industry – described the move as “…the biggest single step that any nation has taken to cut global warming pollution.” I covered the debate over the Cancún Agreements already, but suffice it to note that, accepting the US’ position that this would be the most appropriate basis for this current COP requires accepting that there would be no binding framework, which would 1) undermine the possibility of the conditional obligations of Cancún; 2) undermine the likelihood of extending the Clean Development Mechanism; 3) undermine the institutionalization of the Green Climate Fund, at a minimum – even though the US is vocally supportive of the GFC. Indeed, today, Stern said that the US is committed to “promptly moving forward” on that front.
Granted, the CDM (and other flexibility mechanisms) are severely problematic – poor implementation and measurement may mean that countries receive credits for actions that were unnecessary, or double-counted. You can see a report published today by CDM Watch on the problems of flexibility mechanisms here (PDF). In short, loopholes currently mean that developed nations can meet their pledges primarily by “accounting tricks,” such as hot air, as indicated in the report. Thus, being critical of the US’ position should always be tempered by the observation that binding regimes (such as the KP) are no guarantee of success.
In any case, the official US position is that 1) they have already made a proposal for a binding regime that was rejected by China; 2) the US is exercising political leadership, stating that: “It’s nonsense to suggest that what we’re doing is proposing a kind of hiatus to deal with climate change until 2020. I’ve heard this everywhere from ministers, to press reports, to the very sincere and passionate young woman… I just wanted to be on the record saying that that’s just a mistake. It’s not true.”
Developed and Developing Countries: AOSIS
On the point of the CDM and the Cancún Agreement, the German NGO Forum on Environment and Development presented a synthetic study (PDF) on the commitments pledged last year indicating that “…the developed countries had put smaller pledges on the table than developing countries,” at a ratio of 5:4 GtCO2e. This is severely problematic in that this is, in their words, “far out of line of what would be considered equitable,” and exacerbates the problem of the Emissions Gap, and the likelihood of a rise in temperature above 2 degrees C.
As a Caribbean, I thought about these discussions – the inequity between the rich and the poor nations; the remaining Emissions Gap (even with the most optimistic interpretation of the Cancún Agreements); climate responsibility – all of this, as I watched the somber presentation of the AOSIS members. ” Citing the scientific information that is widely accepted in the conference, the Minister from Grenada stated: “You think that our countries are a paradise. It’s a paradise when you come to visit, but for us, it’s a living reality.” It’s important to remember that, while climate change (and the mitigation effects of climate change) are likely to be very costly, for too many , climate change could lead to the erasure of an entire people – already, two South Pacific Islands in the state of Kiribati have disappeared beneath the waves. The AOSIS delegate says he thinks it’s not too late. I hope he’s right.
Well, Monday started out so promising, with an apparent signal from China that it would commit to a binding agreement on climate. However, an analysis of what transpired today throws some cold water on the whole shebang. Let’s see what happened today:
Slipping Beneath the Waves
Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, observed that the Parties of the current COP are the ones who will determine how to address the problem of “…out of control climate change, a world divided bitterly between rich and poor, the vulnerable and the privileged…” No pressure. In doing so, he referred to very vivid anecdotes of resident children of Kiribati, fearing to go to sleep at night, due to the threat of their country “…slipping beneath the waves.” So too, did he cite statistical evidence, such as UNEP’s climate change reports on the Emissions Gap and others.
Further, he responded directly to the repeated concerns that the global recession will make fighting climate change more difficult: “Yes, we all recognize the realities of our time, the economic crisis that dictates fiscal security. Yet, the world cannot accept ‘no’ as the answer to Durban. I say to you, this is the time to be ambitious.” Restructuring national and global energy production (among other things) may be very costly in the very short term; however, rising sea levels, unpredictable agriculture, changes in precipitation – all this would dramatically damage (if you want to put an economic spin on it) global productive capacity. In the Canadian NGO press conference, Gerry LeBlanc of the United Steel Workers similarly observes that shifting to a green economy is a forward-looking approach to thinking about jobs and the environment – really valid points, but some that are having a hard time gaining traction.
Ban Ki-Moon finally observed that $30 billion, in identified sources, has been earmarked for fast-start financing in the transition towards greener economies in LDCs. “In Cancún, you created the Green Climate Fund. Let us launch it here in Durban.” It seems like the GCF is coming out of here alive: I’ll lay 4-1 odds on an institutionalized GCF by the end of Durban. Any takers?
Seriously, Canada?
Today, Climate Action Network – Canada, on a panel led by Hannah McKinnon, spoke out bitterly against their government’s action on the UNFCCC. “What happened to the Canada we know?” asks Stephen Guilbeult. The panel goes on to point out that Canada – which again, has the 7th highest emissions per capita globally (PDF) – has poor records on 1) indigenous environmental rights; 2) commitments to the climate regime; 3) carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, the reference by the Harper government to tar sands extraction as ‘ethical oil,’ rankles. The point is driven home, when Daniel T’Solo, a Deneh activist points out the overwhelmingly disproportionate impact of tar sands extraction on indigenous peoples.
One of the positive developments seen here, is the attention to the local level impacts of climate change on different populations. At the meeting of the state delegates, as much as the NGO conferences, people are stating concern about the impact of the poor in LDCs, as well as the poor in rich countries – this marks a welcome divergence from a state-centric look at negotiations, which does not capture the importance of societal and human diversity, and what it means for climate vulnerability. The briefing ends with a really cute display of children’s art, illustrating their concepts of a just future and a just climate. I believe the children are our future, etc. Concluding, McKinnon notes that the stated withdrawal of Canada represents a “…failure of political leadership.”
Acting in a Responsible Way?
What to make of China’s recent statements that it will support a binding agreement? Ostensibly, the reluctance of the major emitters in the developing world to iterated obligations has been the source of the tension and roadblock persisting so far in the debates. Thus, if taken seriously, China’s recent statements could severely undermine the legitimacy of the US and Canada’s foot-dragging. Xie Zhenhua certainly seems to buy into this, saying: “It’s time for us to see who is acting in a responsible way to deal with the common challenge of human beings.”
The problem is, it’s not clear today what kind of binding agreement China is discussing, since Xie’s statements today focused on the Kyoto Protocol. While legally binding, it obviously carries no cost for China. Thus, the public pronouncements by Xie may serve as a rhetorical cudgel to make the US and OECD defectors look bad, rather than make any progress (initial optimism notwithstanding). While the Indian delegate mentioned the possibility of considering a second binding agreement, it’s certainly not obvious that this would include conditions for developing countries, a point that the delegate herself brought up.
Basically…
The BASIC Countries – Brazil, South Africa, India, and China – acting as a bloc today, under the coordination of China, primarily have good rhetoric, but this should not be confused with any intent towards a binding regime. Minister Xie Zhenhua claimed that “…we are countries of action. the BASIC Countries, together with the G-77 group, will play an active and constructive role in implementing the UNFCCC, the KP, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Cancún Agreement. The KP should be continued, and a second commitment period of the KP is a must.”
At the same time, the Indian delegate calls out the developed world as not fulfilling their obligations, asserting that the poorest of the world “…should not be expected to make legally binding commitments…” when they are struggling for basic survival. While true, it is not clear how this precludes action by the industrialized and energy sectors of Brazil and China, at the very least. Further, for the same reasons listed above, the KP is really attractive as a framework to developing countries (such as BASIC and the G-77), in that they don’t have to commit to anything, and can thus push for it without fear of political blowback.
The Per Capita Argument
The Indian delegate goes on to say that there should be equity in the use of atmospheric resources. This is a really interesting argument. Something to keep in mind is that the poorest countries tend to have a really minute impact on the climate in a per capita measure. One way of thinking about this is that, if the atmosphere consisted of discrete units, which could be allocated to the world’s population, each American, Canadian and Russian (to use the hyperlinked report) would use far more than their fair share, while each Ethiopian, Tanzanian and Bangladeshi would use far less. If we attempted to regulate climate according to per capita equity, the developed nations would have to cut overall outputs by staggering amounts – 80%, say – to allow the poorer populations more ecological space. While certainly politically impossible, it’s worth thinking about precisely how problematic the current allocation of the world’s resources is.
Renewing Kyoto
Echoing many of the delegates, Ban Ki-Moon asserted that renewing the KP is sorely needed, stating that, as indicated in previous posts, climate financing, clean development, carbon trading, and afforestation projects are closely linked to the institutional framework of the KP. Thus, while the regime itself does not provide much in the way of meaningful regulation (honestly, the US, the EU, and Canada’s position that – by only covering 25% of the world’s emissions – it is a poor regime, is a good one), its benefits may extend beyond its content, to the support it creates for other actions. This may be the only purpose it serves, however, especially considering that some of the domestic commitments – such as those of the EU – far exceed the requirements of the KP.
And on that note, I leave you with the new theme song for the climate conference. Enjoy.
Well, today’s updates are primarily about China. The country gave an interesting announcement about the likelihood of national support for a binding accord – including one with obligations on the developing nations. While I discuss the US here also, China is a big player, and not much has been heard from them lately. What have they got to say now?
Are There Any Circumstances in Which China Will Consider a Binding Deal?
Xie Zhenhua, speaking for China! Alright… it’s always interesting hearing from the main obstructionists; hearing their rationales for action. Here’s the kicker: in response to the above question, the Chinese delegate actually supported a binding regime, even if it applied to LDCs, saying “We accept a legally binding regime. With conditions.”
The conditions are: “Firstly, we need to speak to the UNFCCC and the KP. A second commitment period is a must. Secondly, developed countries must honor their commitment of $30 billion fast start fund, and $100 billion a year long term fund. And the GCF must be accelerated. And there shall be supervision and monitoring system for technology transfer and financing. Fourthly, we must have some consensus, some institutional arrangement for issues like funds, technology transfer, and forests, etc. And we need to have a review by the end of 2015. Fifthly, we need to speak to common but differentiated responsibility principles and equity. Every country shall undertake obligations and responsibilities, according to their national capabilities. China would love to take part in that. These aspects are not new, and they have been negotiated over the past 20 years. The important thing is to implement them.”
Moreover, by pointing out that China has unilaterally adopted domestically binding rules to raise their energy efficiency (measured as CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) by 45% by 2020 (notably, while this may lower China’s overall emissions, it does not have to – particularly if economic growth increases faster than efficiency gains), Xie is positioning China as a swing state on a binding regime (note – despite this positive movement, there will not be an Amendment or new Protocol at the end of this COP). Though not clear, this seems like a signal that China would be open to an arrangement that paralleled that of the Montreal Protocol – accept binding obligations, in exchange for clearly institutionalized financial and technical assistance. While this may not be enough to generate the international political will needed to get a binding agreement by 2013 or 2014, this may undercut some of the arguments by the Umbrella Group.
So, what does the Umbrella Group have to say about it?
New US Special Envoy
Todd Stern in the house. He equivocates some about China’s pronouncement, stating that he will discuss what this means directly with Xie Zhenhua later. Right now, he says the US is primarily interested in two main elements: 1) Carry out the Cancún Agreements on new takings by all the major economies, and a GCF; 2) Figure out what to do about the KP. While the US hasn’t done much to establish a clear legislative path (in comparison to, say, China) to meet its stated objective under the Cancún Agreements – namely, cut 17% below 2005 by 2020 – Stern points out that the US has, for example, raised the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards for cars sold in the US to 54.4 mpg by 2025. For Stern, this plus the recent investments in green energy by the Obama administration, point to a continued engagement of the US executive branch with climate change.
Still, one has to wonder about the US’ commitment to the Cancún Agremeents – not because the US may or may not fulfill its stated goals (in large part, this depends on the commitment of the government post-2012 to domestic environmental regulation – sobering, if any of the GOP front-runners win) but because so many of the goals are conditional on the adoption of binding obligations by other Parties.
This is going to be a two-fer, covering relevant new stuff from Saturday and Sunday. I didn’t update on Saturday, because 1) it’s Saturday, and; 2) See 1). So, right now, the issues covered here are the Strategic Body on Implementation (SBI) meeting today, to discuss carrying out the Cancún Agreements, and the UNFCCC’s half time status update.
The Quixotic Enterprise: the KP is Dead
COP-17 President, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, starts off noting that we are at the halfway mark, reiterating confidence in – at a minimum – moving forward on the Report of the Transitional Committee of the GCF.
The Chair of the AWG-KP looks so sad. He says the body is still working towards a second commitment period, asserting that there is among the Parties, “…common ground on the need to work towards continuity,” thus avoiding an implementation gap (if not an emissions gap). This seems to contradict directly, with the positions of the Umbrella Group, at the very least. Of course, just in case anyone thought he was pollyanna-ish, he notes that “…ratification with entry into force by 1 January 2013 is not achievable.” Further, for Annex I “…provisional application does not seem possible either.” So, we can officially forget about a binding agreement starting in 2013.
So, how to get continuity? The Chair notes that Parties to the AWG-KP have proposed, variously, a “two stage process,” where Parties take a Decision, then pass amendments to the KP later, to be ratified as a second stage; 2) A Decision-only outcome, without an Amendment; 3) Parties adopt unilateral Declarations. These last two in particular “…would not involve amendments to the KP and ratification.” While noting that this would lead to reliance on voluntary commitments, at least in the next few years, he observed that pushing for a binding regime here would lead to “…locking in low ambition.”
“We Haven’t Agreed to Anything”
The Chair of the SBI starts off by saying that he is “optimistic” about the direction of the conference, and the possibility of implementing the Cancún Agreements. However, in discussing one of the draft documents for the Agreements dealing with Least Developed Country commitments (PDF), he says the Parties will “bracket the entire document,” noting that “…we haven’t agreed to anything.” The US delegate noted that this would create, in a very diplomatic phrasing, “time management problems,” but along with Bangladesh and Gambia, supported the motion.
Already heavily bracketed, the document contains some of the politically contentious elements that could come into play, if Parties are serious about getting a globally covering regime (as opposed to one covering just the top 12 emitters), including: 1) institutionalizing financial and technical assistance to the poorest countries; 2) monitoring mitigation practices in LDCs; 3) the role of the GCF. What makes this a bad sign as well, is that the 48 LDCs, as defined by the UN (i.e., not including China and India), comprise only 2% of world GDP, and a correspondingly small share of global GHG emissions. A gridlock here does not bode well for including China, India, the US, Canada and the EU under a new agreement in the near future.
Fairness and Obligations
Anyway, at present, the debate is clearly at a stalemate. Japan, the US, and the rest of the Umbrella Group keep talking about the issue of fairness: the LDCs (especially China) need to take action. The G-77 + China, also talk about fairness, but say that the historical responsibility of the HICs to current carbon accumulation means the poor countries are off the hook. Thus, while Japan is now pushing for a new working group to deal with a new protocol – thus, doing away with the mission AWG-KP – the chances of a new agreement soon (e.g., by 2014) remain really, really low.
Conditionality, Soft-Law, and Cancún
There is another way to think about the problem of the lack of cooperation here: the US has taken the position that the Cancún Agreements are an adequate approach (at least in the immediate short term) to addressing international commitments to combating climate change. At first glance, even with knowledge about the Emissions Gap at hand, the Agreements sound pretty ambitious. Let’s take a look at some of the more optimistic scenarios projected by major economies and emitters in Annex I (PDF) and non-Annex I commitments (PDF) alike.:
The US and Canada pledged a cut in the range of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and the US promised 30% by 2025.
Russia and Japan pledged 20 – 25% below 1990 levels by 2020
Australia pledged 25% below 2000 by 2020
The EU pledged 30% below 1990 by 2020
China and India committed only to making their economies more energy efficient, in China’s case, by lowering its CO2e emissions per unit of GDP by 40%; in India’s case by 25% (not including agriculture)
Brazil projected that specific actions (including limiting deforestation) would reduce emissions in 2020 to 36 – 39% below what they would have been normally.
Granted, these are non-binding and, particularly in the case of China and India, Parties are stressing the fact that these are voluntary agreements.* The problem is that the Japanese, EU, Australian, and other commitments not covered here, are conditional: that is, the Parties have included language indicating that their actions will only be taken if there is (depending on who you talk to): a “global deal,” a “global and comprehensive agreement,” or a “fair and comprehensive international framework” and the undertaking of “legally binding obligations” by “all major emitters” or “all major economies.” !!!
Without such a deal, the Parties listed above will either take no action, or take action that falls short of the comparatively ambitious goals.
