Climate Conference in Copenhagen - progress and threats analysis on a halfway point of the negotiations
dodano: 2009-12-14
Analysis of the first week of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen allows to create an interesting picture of the game that is taking place among different parties. There is a lot at stake as it is the fate of the agreement which can be the world’s only chance for effective fight against climate change.
There is still a chance that by next Friday countries will have agreed on fair, legally binding and ambitious outcome. Especially moving weight of the discussion about the form of the agreement towards two legally binding documents seems promising. However, the ministers and heads of state who will arrive to Copenhagen this week will still have to solve many problems so that the world does not miss this chance.
Arguments among parties currently concern mainly the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations in this area take place within two paths: Ad Hoc Working Group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG KP) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG LCA). The first one should reach an agreement on amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, and the second one needs to set the rules for a new agreement that will be binding for all the countries, including the US. Therefore, the most important issue was to present draft texts of both agreements by the groups’ chairs.
According to parties and observers, many provisions in these texts still have to be worked on and strengthened. In the KP proposal there are still nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology present and forests’ definition still includes plantations. The problem of surplus of assigned amount units (AAUs) has still not been solved. The LCA proposal’s form is still unclear and it is unknown if it is just a decision, political agreement or a legally binding treaty.
Unfortunately, developed countries firmly stand on their positions and still have not proposed such emission reduction targets by 2020 in comparison with 1990 level that would be ambitious enough. According to scientific reports, the necessary level of reductions is 40%, emissions have to peak in 2017 the latest and then they should decline. According to the latest reports of Ecofys and Climate Analytics, current declarations when summed up give 8-12% emission reduction in comparison with 1990. If they won’t go up the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might increase to 800 ppm and global temperature - to 3.5°C.
Among countries with the weakest targets, there are US, Russia, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Lack of ambitious reduction declarations from these countries means that even reaching ambitious targets by the others will not allow to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Unfortunately, as a result of loopholes in mechanisms of calculating reductions and emissions in particular areas even ambitious targets can prove inefficient. Even though the currently declared targets result in reduction, if we subtract loopholes from them it turns out that emissions can even increase by 4%. It is like this for example in case of calculating emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), problem of surplus of assigned amount units as well as offsetting rules i.e. meeting reduction targets through actions abroad.
Another important and controversial negotiation topic is financing emission reduction and adaptation to consequences of climate change in developing countries. The European Union offered support for this purpose as the first one, allocating €2.4bn annually as a part of the so-called fast track financing in 2010-2012. This declaration was an outcome of the European Council meeting in Brussels which was rather disappointing apart from that. The EU position lacks clear commitment that the funds will be additional to the declared official development aid (ODA). Meanwhile, developing countries, especially African states, point out that the amount of necessary air must reach approximately $195bn per year, half of which should be spent on reduction or avoiding emissions and the other half - for adaptation actions. Leading heads of European states mention the necessity of establishing a new mechanism for financing aid for climate protection in developing countries such as e.g. tax on international financial transaction, the so-called Tobin tax.
On the other hand, developing countries are more and more involved in climate protection even thought they are not responsible for historical emissions. During the negotiations declarations of slowing down the emissions growth were made among others by China (decreasing carbon intensity of economy by 40-45% which means reductions of greenhouse gas emissions per GDP unit), India or Indonesia (reductions by 20-25% and by 26% respectively, in comparison with business as usual).
For many countries that are most affected by consequences of climate change it is their survival that depends on the success of the negotiations. Among all the presentations that took place during the sessions, the most agitation was caused by a speech by the chairman of the G77 group, Lumumba Da-Ping from Sudan during his meeting with NGOs on Friday, 11 December. He said among others, that “IPCC says 2 degrees will result in Africa warming up to 3.5. Small island states equally threatened by sea level rise. Two degrees Celsius is certain death for Africa, certain devastation of island states”. He added that emissions reductions have to be radical and take place immediately since delaying actions means sentencing another millions of people to unimaginable suffering. “The idea that you start from 4% today and achieve 80 or 50 in 2050 simply means that you do not care about the lives of people who will be devastated until you pick up the pace ”.
Tuvalu’s brave demand for continuing two tracks of negotiations was similar in tone. Some media claimed that with its proposal Tuvalu tried to intimidate Denmark who allegedly prepared a proposal of agreement not taking into account interests of developing countries. However, it was definitely not Tuvalu’s intention. In this country the majority of people live below the level of 2m above the sea level. The tallest pick is maximum 4 metres. „We are not naive to the circumstances and the political considerations that are before us this is not just an issue of Tuvalu. Pacific island countries: Kiribas, Marshall Islands, Maldives, Haiti, Bahamas, Grenada, and also Sao Tome in West Africa and all the LDCs: Bhutan, Laos, Mali, Senegal, Timor-Leste, and millions of other people around this world are affected enormously by climate change. The fate of my country rests in your hands” - said representative of Tuvalu with tears in his eyes .
Luckily, the fuss about „Danish proposal of agreement” that unexpectedly appeared in the media, did not really affect the course of the talks, although developing countries were outraged.
The EU so far position of the negotiation’s leader has been weakened. On one hand, EU declarations are stronger than these made by a majority of developed countries. On the other hand, it is clear that the EU position is affected by sceptical attitude towards the negotiations of new member states. For Polish government unconditional increase of the reduction target from 20 to 30% is unacceptable without a revaluation of division of commitments among particular countries, however, which is worth reminding, in 2003 it adopted the Climate Policy that calls for 40% reduction by 2020 in comparison to the base year. The EU should not wait with serious declarations until the very last moment. This delay makes commitments from other developed countries less probable.
Next week more than 100 heads of states and governments will arrive from all over the world for the negotiations. It will create a unique opportunity to make decisions important for the whole world. Heads of states who will arrive to Copenhagen have to remember that they bear great responsibility for the future of humanity. They were given a chance to increase quality of life worldwide and direct all countries towards sustainable development path. We cannot allow this chance to be wasted, the lack of trust among countries to stop us from solving the largest problem we have ever faced.
Arguments among parties currently concern mainly the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations in this area take place within two paths: Ad Hoc Working Group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG KP) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG LCA). The first one should reach an agreement on amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, and the second one needs to set the rules for a new agreement that will be binding for all the countries, including the US. Therefore, the most important issue was to present draft texts of both agreements by the groups’ chairs.
According to parties and observers, many provisions in these texts still have to be worked on and strengthened. In the KP proposal there are still nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology present and forests’ definition still includes plantations. The problem of surplus of assigned amount units (AAUs) has still not been solved. The LCA proposal’s form is still unclear and it is unknown if it is just a decision, political agreement or a legally binding treaty.
Unfortunately, developed countries firmly stand on their positions and still have not proposed such emission reduction targets by 2020 in comparison with 1990 level that would be ambitious enough. According to scientific reports, the necessary level of reductions is 40%, emissions have to peak in 2017 the latest and then they should decline. According to the latest reports of Ecofys and Climate Analytics, current declarations when summed up give 8-12% emission reduction in comparison with 1990. If they won’t go up the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might increase to 800 ppm and global temperature - to 3.5°C.
Among countries with the weakest targets, there are US, Russia, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Lack of ambitious reduction declarations from these countries means that even reaching ambitious targets by the others will not allow to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Unfortunately, as a result of loopholes in mechanisms of calculating reductions and emissions in particular areas even ambitious targets can prove inefficient. Even though the currently declared targets result in reduction, if we subtract loopholes from them it turns out that emissions can even increase by 4%. It is like this for example in case of calculating emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), problem of surplus of assigned amount units as well as offsetting rules i.e. meeting reduction targets through actions abroad.
Another important and controversial negotiation topic is financing emission reduction and adaptation to consequences of climate change in developing countries. The European Union offered support for this purpose as the first one, allocating €2.4bn annually as a part of the so-called fast track financing in 2010-2012. This declaration was an outcome of the European Council meeting in Brussels which was rather disappointing apart from that. The EU position lacks clear commitment that the funds will be additional to the declared official development aid (ODA). Meanwhile, developing countries, especially African states, point out that the amount of necessary air must reach approximately $195bn per year, half of which should be spent on reduction or avoiding emissions and the other half - for adaptation actions. Leading heads of European states mention the necessity of establishing a new mechanism for financing aid for climate protection in developing countries such as e.g. tax on international financial transaction, the so-called Tobin tax.
On the other hand, developing countries are more and more involved in climate protection even thought they are not responsible for historical emissions. During the negotiations declarations of slowing down the emissions growth were made among others by China (decreasing carbon intensity of economy by 40-45% which means reductions of greenhouse gas emissions per GDP unit), India or Indonesia (reductions by 20-25% and by 26% respectively, in comparison with business as usual).
For many countries that are most affected by consequences of climate change it is their survival that depends on the success of the negotiations. Among all the presentations that took place during the sessions, the most agitation was caused by a speech by the chairman of the G77 group, Lumumba Da-Ping from Sudan during his meeting with NGOs on Friday, 11 December. He said among others, that “IPCC says 2 degrees will result in Africa warming up to 3.5. Small island states equally threatened by sea level rise. Two degrees Celsius is certain death for Africa, certain devastation of island states”. He added that emissions reductions have to be radical and take place immediately since delaying actions means sentencing another millions of people to unimaginable suffering. “The idea that you start from 4% today and achieve 80 or 50 in 2050 simply means that you do not care about the lives of people who will be devastated until you pick up the pace ”.
Tuvalu’s brave demand for continuing two tracks of negotiations was similar in tone. Some media claimed that with its proposal Tuvalu tried to intimidate Denmark who allegedly prepared a proposal of agreement not taking into account interests of developing countries. However, it was definitely not Tuvalu’s intention. In this country the majority of people live below the level of 2m above the sea level. The tallest pick is maximum 4 metres. „We are not naive to the circumstances and the political considerations that are before us this is not just an issue of Tuvalu. Pacific island countries: Kiribas, Marshall Islands, Maldives, Haiti, Bahamas, Grenada, and also Sao Tome in West Africa and all the LDCs: Bhutan, Laos, Mali, Senegal, Timor-Leste, and millions of other people around this world are affected enormously by climate change. The fate of my country rests in your hands” - said representative of Tuvalu with tears in his eyes .
Luckily, the fuss about „Danish proposal of agreement” that unexpectedly appeared in the media, did not really affect the course of the talks, although developing countries were outraged.
The EU so far position of the negotiation’s leader has been weakened. On one hand, EU declarations are stronger than these made by a majority of developed countries. On the other hand, it is clear that the EU position is affected by sceptical attitude towards the negotiations of new member states. For Polish government unconditional increase of the reduction target from 20 to 30% is unacceptable without a revaluation of division of commitments among particular countries, however, which is worth reminding, in 2003 it adopted the Climate Policy that calls for 40% reduction by 2020 in comparison to the base year. The EU should not wait with serious declarations until the very last moment. This delay makes commitments from other developed countries less probable.
Next week more than 100 heads of states and governments will arrive from all over the world for the negotiations. It will create a unique opportunity to make decisions important for the whole world. Heads of states who will arrive to Copenhagen have to remember that they bear great responsibility for the future of humanity. They were given a chance to increase quality of life worldwide and direct all countries towards sustainable development path. We cannot allow this chance to be wasted, the lack of trust among countries to stop us from solving the largest problem we have ever faced.
« Back
