Switchboard, from NRDC › Jake Schmidt's Blog

High-level panel urges phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and commitment to low-carbon energy: Recommendations of the Global Sustainability Panel

2012-01-30T20:06:42Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Twenty-two high level representatives have just released their report – Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing—which sets out specific recommendations to “put sustainable development into practice and to mainstream it into economic policy as quickly as possible.” The report reinforces the push to phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, speed up the deployment of renewable energy, and accelerate energy efficiency efforts. When world leaders meet several times this year – culminating at the Earth Summit 2012 in Rio – they must finally follow through on the commitment to phase-down these subsidies and help unleash even greater low-carbon energy action.

The high-level report was the result of the U.N. Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability. The recommendations carry significant weight as they come from leading policymakers including current and former presidents and prime ministers, a leader from the business community, foreign ministers, and environment ministers. They outlined 56 recommendations including calls to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies and speed up low-carbon energy action. As they note, the time is ripe for this action:

“The production and use of energy, however, comes with significant costs, ranging from climate change to energy security and environmental degradation. There are multiple options for addressing these, the most significant of which include the development and widespread penetration of renewable sources and improvements in energy efficiency…

…With Governments everywhere under increased pressure to reduce public expenditure, an unprecedented political opportunity exists to reduce or eliminate perverse subsidies that fail to reflect the economic value of natural and social resources.”

Phasing down fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies drain public resources, drive global warming, and make it harder for clean energy to compete. In fact, fossil fuel subsidies are 500% larger than the subsidies provided for clean energy which led one commentator to point out: “The house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it - buckets of petrol.”

It is important that the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies is done in a way that doesn’t hurt the poor. This means a large focus must be placed on the subsidies to produce more fossil fuels – known as “production subsidies” – and a targeted approach to subsidies that support consumption of fossil fuels (e.g., subsidized gasoline, etc) – so-called “consumption subsidies”. At least $100 billion per year goes to support production subsidies – such as tax breaks for oil companies – at a time when the fossil fuel industry doesn’t seem to be hurting financially (e.g., Exxon’s profits are expected to continue to grow by over 5%).

Reforming subsidies without harming the poor should be within reach as the International Energy Agency estimates that the vast majority of the subsidies never reach the poor. As the Guardian notes:

“…the poorest 20% of the population typically receive only around 5–10% of the benefits of the subsidies, suggesting that if the policies are designed for poverty alleviation, then they're not working properly.”

So these high-level officials rightly called for the world to:

“Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.”

When leaders met in Rio this June, it is high time that they “stopped throwing more fuel on the fire” and instead help spur more efficient use of energy and greater deployment of renewable electricity.

Spurring low-carbon energy deployment. Societies across the world waste energy – there are reams of reports that show how much more efficiently we could use energy. There are literally stacks of one-hundred dollar bills lying on the ground waiting for us to pick them up. It is time for governments and companies to ensure that we are taking such actions as phasing out inefficient light-bulbs, investing in cleaner and more efficient cars, and demanding more energy sipping appliances. As my colleague likes to say: “energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit that keeps growing back”.

At the same time, renewable energy keeps on growing to the point that the headline in a recent Bloomberg news story read: “Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time”. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance new investments in “electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year [2011] compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal…”

That is why both of these aspects of the “future worth choosing” were a part of the recommendations from these high-level officials when they recommended:

“Governments should work in concert with appropriate stakeholders to…seek to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency and the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.”

When leaders show up in Rio they better come prepared to finally invest in the “low hanging fruit” of energy efficiency and make a concerted “vote for renewable energy”.

High-level panel agrees: time to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and race to low carbon energy. The recommendations from these high-level officials should remind leaders that when they show up in Rio this June they have to act. They need to stop throwing oil on the fire and instead they need to vote for low-carbon energy.

------------------

* Photos: "Old oil rig" courtesy of creative commons from Dj Linda Lovely. Solar panels courtesy of creative commons from spanginator.

From Durban to Rio: Taking action on clean energy & global warming at the Earth Summit 2012 in Rio

2012-01-20T20:23:37Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

The global warming negotiations in Durban made important progress, but much more work lies ahead to address global warming. Countries have committed to action and are beginning to act at home. This is critical as the planet and humanity doesn’t care about promises that fail to lead to action. Their action to date is vital, but insufficient. And we are running out of time. Countries have a chance in five months – at the Earth Summit 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – to take additional action that will both reduce their global warming pollution and help put their economies on a more sustainable path.

The U.N. has just released a “zero draft” of a document that world leaders will agree to at the Earth Summit. As my colleague noted, Rio+20 must be about much more than just another document. The next Earth Summit needs to stimulate real accountable actions that put humanity on a more sustainable path. There are plenty of actions that the document calls for, which could lead to real specific commitments at Rio. Will countries show up empty-handed or will they come with new actions that translate the vague promises in the “zero draft” into results on-the-ground?

Here is what the zero draft says about climate and low-carbon energy (in bold) and some specific examples of what countries and companies should do at the Earth Summit 2012 to ensure that this Summit is about more than just vague promises (in italics).

Paragraph 42: “…agree to gradually eliminate subsidies that have considerable negative effects on the environment and are incompatible with sustainable development…”

More countries must commit to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies and existing commitments need to be implemented by countries enshrining specific phase-out schedules in their national law. In total, 53 countries have taken international commitments to reform and phase-out their fossil fuel subsidies including many of the world’s largest economies. Such subsidies encourage the production and use of fossil-fossil fuels and thereby increase global warming pollution. These commitments have yet to be met.

Paragraph 54: “…we request the international financial institutions [World Bank and International Monetary Fund] to review their programmatic strategies to ensure the provision of better support to developing countries for the implementation of sustainable development.”

Phase out lending by public and private financial institutions for energy projects with high GHG emissions and scale-up the financing for renewable sources of energy. The World Bank must show a stronger commitment to move away from fossil fuel lending towards low carbon energy by adopting an energy strategy which locks in reform efforts. While some export-credit agencies (e.g., the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation) have shown important shifts towards low carbon energy, those reforms must continue and more export credit agencies must join the move away from fossil investments that cause global warming.

Paragraph 70: “…improving energy efficiency at all levels with a view to doubling the rate of improvement by 2030…”

Phase out inefficient light bulbs through the establishment of minimum energy efficiency standards that reduce energy use of new bulbs by at least 65%. Switching from inefficient incandescent lights to more efficient light bulbs such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) would achieve annual CO2 reductions of 246 million tons – equal to the emissions of 61 million mid size cars. Some countries have started to act, but more need to join the efforts to save their consumers money and reduce global warming pollution caused by inefficient lighting.

Even greater energy efficiency improvements is both necessary and possible so the efficiency goals outlined in the zero draft should be strengthened.

Paragraph 70: “…doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030…”

Scale-up renewable electricity use by countries undertaking specific policies in order to more than triple the amount of wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power that is used throughout the world. At least 119 countries had some type of national policy target or renewable support policy in 2010. In fact, according to the International Energy Agency’s new projections wind, solar, and geothermal electricity generation will grow from 2% of total electricity production in 2009 to 5% in 2020 under current policies. So doing even more should be well within reach. And eliminating fossil subsidies could help with this effort as fossil fuels receive 500% more in the way of subsidies than clean energy.

Paragraph 88: “We reaffirm that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time…”

Phase down HFCs and other “super greenhouse gases” by governments adopting new commitments covering these super greenhouse gases under the Montreal Protocol. As my colleague has discussed, the Montreal Protocol has provided huge climate side-benefits but those benefits are now being eroded by the rapid growth of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the “super greenhouse gases” that are coming into widespread use as replacements for their ozone-depleting predecessors. Unfortunately a few countries are holding back progress on getting agreement to phase-down these “super greenhouse gases”.

Paragraph 90: “We support policy frameworks and market instruments that effectively slow, halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation…”

Reduce deforestation emissions by key corporations committing to avoiding purchasing products that cause deforestation, such as soy or cattle from deforested lands in the Brazilian Amazon, palm oil from deforested agricultural land in Indonesia, or illegal wood and wood products throughout the world. More countries should also commit to adopt, implement, and enforce requirements that all imported wood and wood products come from legal sources.

Turning the zero draft into real energy and climate action in order to help put us on a more sustainable path. These are just a couple of examples of the types of new actions that should be brought forth at the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio (Here are more suggestions that countries and companies should take at Rio.) The key to the Summit will be whether leaders focus on action that they individually or collectively can implement now, or whether they’ll hide behind good sounding, but rather vague far-off promises.

As Richard Black at the BBC points out the Rio Summit is: “a chance for world leaders to take a long view of where the global society is heading, and whether they're happy with that.” That long-view must be more than just a 20 (or 100 page set of vague declarations). Countries, companies and communities must come to the Earth Summit 2012 in Rio with clear commitments to address global warming, spur clean energy, and reduce inefficient energy use.

They have some of the right words – many of which have been said many times before – now can they bring forward the right actions?

How the European Program to Reduce Carbon Pollution from Aviation Works

2012-01-04T20:54:19Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Starting January 1, 2012 all aircraft that choose to use European airports have to reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming. It is a very simple program that has unfortunately generated opposition from some airlines and countries. But it is a common-sense approach which will spur airlines to invest in solutions that will deploy new aircraft technologies that are already being produced, while reducing global warming pollution from this growing source. Here is how it works.

HELPING TO CURB A GROWING SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION

Aviation now accounts for more carbon pollution than such countries as the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, and Australia.** This amount of pollution would make it the 7th largest emitter of carbon pollution from fossil fuel production if it were a country***. Aviation emissions are now the second largest sector regulated by the E.U.’s emissions trading program – just behind the electricity sector.

Left uncontrolled, aviation’s carbon pollution is predicted to almost triple by 2036 and quadruple from 2005 levels by 2050, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization (see figure).

As the world confronts global warming, no source of pollution can continue to grow unchecked. The best science tells us that global warming pollutionfrom all sources throughout the world must be declining no later than 2020 and must be reduced by more than 80 percent by 2050. So left uncontrolled, aviation’s growing carbon pollution will be exactly the opposite of what we need.

EUROPEAN PROGRAM IS A COMMON SENSE WAY TO REDUCE POLLUTION

The European Union (E.U.) program was enacted in E.U. law in 2009 after the E.U. tried in vain to secure a global approach through the International Civil Aviation Organization. Here is how it works (here is a Q&A from the E.U. which answers some of these in more detail):

All flights that use E.U. airports are required to reduce their carbon pollution. If an airline chooses to use a European airport it must reduce its carbon pollution from those flights during the course of the year (see here for the list of airlines that are covered for these flights). The program excludes military flights and airlines that emit minimal levels of pollution. The E.U. established a firm limit (or cap) on the total amount of carbon dioxide pollution that the flights using E.U. airports can produce during the entire course of the flight.

These emissions limits are phased in to allow airlines time to take action. In 2012, this carbon pollution will have to be reduced three percent below the average level of these flights in 2004-2006. For 2013-2020, these flights will have to reduce their pollution by five percent below 2004-2006 levels. That is a very manageable reduction schedule for their pollution.

This program is predicted to reduce carbon pollution by 183 million tones per year by 2020. That is equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road each year. It is also equivalent to about 60 percent of the reductions that are predicted to be achieved by the “historic” vehicle standards that the Obama Administration just adopted. The reductions from this program will make an important contribution to addressing global warming

Airlines can comply through a variety of measures. At the end of the year, each airline will have to turn into the government an amount of emissions allowances (or permits) – with each representing one ton of carbon dioxide – that is equal to its actual pollution for flights using E.U. airports. For example, flights into and out of Europe operated by the merged United/Continental Airlines produced more than 5.7 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2010, while American Airlines produced 3.3 million tons. These airlines would have to turn in allowances equivalent to those levels, unless they take action to reduce them.

The majority of the needed allowances will be given to airlines for free. Eight-three percent of the emissions allowances (or permits) are given for free, 15 percent will be auctioned, and three percent will be set aside for new entrants and fast growing airlines. This means that airlines will only have to pay for the 15 percent of allowances and any emissions growth that occurs in their operations. The vast majority will be given to them free. If they reduce emissions they will either have to buy less or potentially have extra allowances that can be sold to another airline. This provides an incentive for each airline to take action.

As a result airlines have a variety of tools to meet the program requirements. The airlines can:

Reduce emissions from their flights by buying better aircraft, installing technologies which reduce their fuel use and carbon pollution, operating their flights better (e.g., reducing the weight), or using less polluting fuels (e.g., sustainably certified biofuels). In many cases these are options that are already readily available. For example, all the major airplane makers offer much more fuel efficient aircraft (e.g., Boeing, Airbus, and Pratt & Whitney);
Buy allowances from the other sectors with a similar program (e.g., electricity, cement, steel) or other airlines. Sectors accounting for more than 50 percent of the E.U. carbon pollution are already covered by firm limits. Airlines can purchase allowances from these sectors to make up any shortfall. Or airlines can purchase allowances from an airline that has reduced its emissions more than required by law.
Invest in emissions reductions outside the E.U. The E.U. program allows airlines to purchase “offsets” – non-covered emissions – for a portion of their target under strict quality criteria.

THE PROGRAM SPURS ACTION AND INNOVATION

The E.U. program is the first mandatory program in the world to tackle the growing challenge of aviation’s carbon pollution. It comes after years of failure to develop a global approach. Countries that choose to take similar action at home will be able to prove that their program is equivalent and therefore have flights to and from that country excluded from the E.U. program. This makes sense. If a country acts then there is no need to control the same pollution twice. But if the country fails to act then it isn’t appropriate to let its pollution go uncontrolled. Unfortunately some countries and airlines are proposing the later – exclusion with no alternative mandatory program to reduce their pollution. We can’t afford that approach.

Airlines that are concerned about fuel prices should welcome the incentive to cut their fuel consumption and reduce their pollution. Time and time again we’ve heard complaints from industry that a new environmental program will destroy their industry. But the end result is very different from this doom and gloom scenario. Industry taps into solutions that are already available and innovates even more. The airline industry should be no different.

-------------------

* Image: Courtesy of dibaer under the Creative Commons License.

** Aviation data for 2006 from the International Civil Aviation Organization.

*** Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion data available from World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool.

Highest Court in Europe Decides that Europe's Law Controlling Aviation's Carbon Pollution is Lawful

2011-12-21T18:26:24Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

The highest court of the land in Europe has just decided that Europe’s law to require that the aviation sector reduce its carbon pollution is completely legal. The European law requires that all flights that want to use European airports must reduce their carbon pollution. The law was passed in 2008 by the European Parliament and signed into law by the 27 countries in the European Union (E.U.). The case in question was brought against the E.U. law by all U.S.-based carriers. The E.U. has shown no sign of backing down, nor should they. The E.U. program is both legal and the right thing to do to reduce aviation’s growing carbon pollution that is causing global warming. The E.U. should continue to stand strong in the face of the complaints around their program to reduce the carbon pollution from aviation. [For background on this law and the various myths about the program see this post.**]

Our friends both in the U.S. and across the Atlantic intervened in the case against the U.S.-based carriers. Here is what they had to say in their press release this morning:

“Today's decision, from the highest court in the European Union, makes clear Europe’s innovative law to reduce emissions from international flights is fully consistent with international law, does not infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, and is distinct from the charges and taxes subject to treaty limitations,” said the coalition.

The Court’s decision makes clear that existing law bars precisely the discriminatory treatment of airlines that the United States and others are calling for, and that the US-EU Open Skies Agreement specifically provides for this type of action when pursued for environmental purposes. The decision also finds that the equivalent measures provision of the Aviation Directive “corresponds precisely” to the objectives of ICAO Resolution A37-19 regarding interaction of market-based measures.

The coalition’s six participants include three U.S.-based groups (Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and Environmental Defense Fund) and three European groups (Aviation Environment Federation, Transport & Environment, and WWF-UK).

Time for the U.S. and other countries to move on and start reducing aviation’s carbon pollution. The U.S. and other countries should stop complaining and start acting at home to reduce the global warming pollution coming from aviation. Now is not the time for complaints but for real action.

Lip service doesn’t reduce the carbon pollution from aviation that is causing global warming. Only real action will suffice.

------------------

* Picture: ashokboghani, under the Creative Commons license.

**For related posts see:

House to vote on bill that tries to move us closer to a trade war with the EU over aviation's carbon pollution: bill should be rejected

US to attend India meeting to try to stop global warming action on aviation...will these countries now lead on efforts to get a global solution?

Top Myths About the European Effort to Control Aviation Emissions

Some in the US need to stop opposing the EU program to control carbon pollution from aviation

Stand Firm Europe: the sky will not fall when the European system to control aviation's pollution is implemented

US Airlines Say they are "Green" while fighting Anti-Pollution Efforts: Dirty Wings

Signs that Canada has a similar approach to global warming as the Bush Administration - withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol & continuing to expand tar sands

2011-12-20T17:46:50Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Literally one day after the global warming negotiations ended in Durban, South Africa the government of Canada formally notified the world that they were withdrawing from the global warming pollution targets they had taken on under the Kyoto Protocol. Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent must have signed the formal withdrawal document sitting on the plane home from the negotiations in South Africa that made important progress on efforts to address global warming. [My flight left Sunday early afternoon and arrived first thing Monday morning, so unless he left before the end of the meeting he would have had a similar timing to his flight.] Sadly this was expected as we’ve seen regular signs that the current federal government of Canada isn’t serious about addressing global warming. This is another sign that they are like the Bush Administration in its effort to not address global warming. After all, this is the country bringing the world the dirtiest oil on the planet and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, just like President Bush.

Back in 2002, Canada formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol and committed internationally to reduce its emissions to six percent below 1990 levels for the period 2008-2012. They went against the tide of the Bush Administration that had just officially “rejected the Kyoto Protocol”. The Bush Administration was also effectively saying it had no interest in addressing global warming as they later released a “target” which called for U.S. emissions to dangerously continue to increase and then miraculously peak and decline. The Bush Administration was effectively undercutting domestic and international efforts to address global warming at every turn.

Now the Harper Administration in Canada has further solidified its position as “just like the Bush Administration” on global warming. That isn’t a title that anyone should seek out. Here are some telling signs [feel free to post more similarities in the comment section].

Rejects the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. The Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, but nine years later, and just before they were supposed to have met their legal targets, they formally notified the U.N. that they are withdrawing from this treaty. Yes President Bush never even promised to meet the targets under the Kyoto Protocol and Canada at least ratified it at first. But the outcome is the same – both rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
Brings the world the dirtiest oil on the planet. Canada has unleashed on the world the dirtiest oil on the planet in the form of tar sands. This oil emits three times as much global warming pollution as conventional oil. The Bush Administration was also a big fan of Canadian tar sands. The Bush-Cheney Energy Task Force supported the continued development of Canadian tar sands. And the first Keystone pipeline – Keystone Phase 1 which brought tar sands to the Midwest – was approved by the Bush Administration.
Claims to act on global warming, while its pollution skyrockets. Since 1990, Canada’s global warming pollution has increased by over 23 percent and is projected to continue to skyrocket driven by the expansion of tar sands (see figure). Of course, instead of reneging on its targets under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada had choices in order to comply with its legal obligations. It could have taken real steps to reduce pollution at home, especially focused on tackling the expansion of tar sands. Or it could have used the mechanisms available in the Kyoto Protocol that allow a country to invest in emissions reductions in other countries and still meet their target. Canada chose neither route, so claims that it would have had to pay large amounts of money if it stayed in the Kyoto Protocol miss the point that it had cheaper approaches available. The Bush Administration…well it didn’t even pretend to try.
Lobbies against other countries or regions taking action to address global warming. The Harper Administration has been extremely active in lobbying the U.S. to not stop the Keystone XL project that would bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export. The Canadian government has also been active in trying to stop California and the Northeast states from adopting a low carbon fuel standard (so not tar sands) that would require emissions reductions in the transportation fuel sold in their jurisdictions. And in Europe, Canada has been hard at work trying to stop a similar program. The Bush Administration followed a similar tactic as it tried to undercut California’s law to reduce carbon pollution from new cars and trucks.

Don’t be like the Bush and Harper Administrations. When President Obama came into office he stated: “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change…” The “old chapter” that he was turning the page on was the chapter led by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. That was a chapter marked by an Administration doing everything in its power to push for oil and coal expansion at every turn. And that was an Administration that was trying to undercut domestic and international efforts to address global warming.

The U.S. and other countries should make a clear choice – don’t be like President Bush and Premier Harper. President Obama should reject Keystone XL once and for all and stop feeding into Premier Harper’s efforts to undercut action on global warming. And countries like Australia, Japan, and Russia shouldn’t join Canada in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.

Those simple steps would be a great holiday present to the world. Don’t be like Bush!

Greater Transparency & Accountability in Global Warming Agreement Reached in South Africa

2011-12-16T19:45:36Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

The agreements in Durban provide very important hints of a stronger future agreement that includes legal commitments by all countries. This is important progress. Little noticed in the overall commentary of the Durban outcomes was important progress on implementing the agreements that were reached in Cancun last year. As a result, the agreements in Durban establish the operational guidelines and institutions to ensure that the key elements agreed in Cancun begin working on-the-ground immediately. The agreements in Durban on transparency and accountability made important progress on building these foundations. Some important details will have to be strengthened over time, but the guidelines are a solid beginning.

[The agreements in Durban essentially boil down to three key aspects: (1) extending the Kyoto Protocol for some countries beyond 2012; (2) launching a process to negotiate a new legal agreement to cover all countries; and (3) implementing the agreements reached in Cancun. A previous post outlined details on the process to negotiate a new legal agreement and some top line summary points on the efforts to implement the Cancun Agreements. This post focuses on the “transparency and accountability” provisions that implement the agreements reached in Cancun.]

DEVELOPED COUNTRY TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Following from Cancun, NRDC outlined several key design elements for the guidelines and operations of developed country transparency and accountability. The agreement in Durban made important progress on several of these fronts by (see Section II.A and Annex I and II of one of the Decisions in Durban):

1. Tracking progress in reducing emissions and implementing the necessary actions – outlining the details that are to be included in the biennial reports. The agreement in Durban requires reporting on a number of key elements essential for regularly tracking the progress of each developed country towards their emissions reduction commitments, including by:

Requiring that the first biennial report will be submitted by the beginning of 2014. The agreement in Cancun outlined that developed countries would submit reports every two years, but didn’t specify when the first one was to be submitted.
Building upon existing reporting provisions so that the current rules are the minimum standard that is required. Under the current system developed countries report annual emissions data according to internationally agreed rules. Similarly, developed countries are required to report on their emissions reduction actions. The agreement in Durban ensures that those existing requirements are retained as a minimum requirement.
Outlining the information that a country will have to report on its economy-wide target. In Cancun, countries outlined economy-wide reduction targets, but important details on those targets weren’t included in this decision. The Durban agreement specifies that countries are to include details on: the base year (e.g., 1990, 2005, etc), gases and sectors covered, how they are going to count emissions and increased sequestration in the forestry and agriculture sectors, and their use of international market-based measures (e.g., offsets) to meet their target.

2. Tracking financial and technical support to developing countries –requiring common reporting of the financial assistance provided to developing countries. The Durban agreement requires that developed countries report their financial and technical assistance using common reporting formats so there is a transparent means to track this assistance. This reporting is to breakdown the investments by mitigation vs. adaptation, multilateral vs. bilateral, and the type of funding (e.g., loan, grant, etc.).

3. Holding countries accountable – specifying the rules for the international review and assessment of developed country actions (the “International Assessment and Review”). In Durban, countries agreed that the “international assessment and review” would be implemented under the following rules:

First review would commence two months after the first biennial report is submitted – so in the first part of 2014—and would occur every two years.
Includes both technical reviews and international assessment by all countries. The guidelines agreed require a two step process for each developed country. Step 1—Technical analysis by experts. An expert team is tasked with analyzing each biennial report, annual greenhouse gas inventory, and full “national communication” of the country. These experts will develop a summary report based on their findings. Step 2— “Multilateral assessment” of the progress of the country towards its emissions reduction target. The country under consultation will make a presentation and then there will be discussion on the elements of their reports, the expert analysis, and any other questions that countries have on the reporting. This forum will result in a summary report which contains a record of the discussion.

DEVELOPING COUNTRY TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Going into Durban, NRDC set forth a number of key features of a strong system of “transparency and accountability” for developing countries. The agreement in Durban made critical progress to implement a number of these key issues by (see: see Section II.B and Annex III and IV of one of the Decisions in Durban).

1. Tracking progress in reducing emissions and implementing the necessary actions – outlining the details that are to be included in the biennial reports. The agreement in Durban details a number of key elements essential for regularly tracking the progress of each developing country towards their emissions reduction commitments, including by:

Requiring that the first biennial update report be submitted by the end of 2014, with exemptions for the least developed countries and small island states. Subsequent reports are to be provided every two years after that.
Mandating reporting of more up-to-date global warming pollution data for each country. The first biennial report is to include global warming pollution emissions from no later than 2010. Subsequent reports are to contain emissions data no more than 4 years prior to when it was submitted. Countries are to provide consistent time series data. So instead of global warming pollution data that is more than 10 years old for many developing countries we’ll get data which is at most from 4 years ago and which is documented consistently over time. This is an important improvement which will give us more real time information on where countries stand and their progress to their commitments.
Ensuring that countries provide detailed global warming pollution data by sector and all key gases according to internationally approved methodologies. Countries are to use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved methodologies and to provide the detailed data which underlies their overall reporting. This would mean that the underlying data and assumptions would be available for peer review. In addition, countries agreed to broaden the reporting to all six greenhouse gases, instead of the required three that are currently required for developing countries.
Provide detailed information on the specific actions a country is taking to reduce global warming pollution. Countries would have to document each action they are taking to reduce pollution, information on the progress in implementation, and the impact of those measures on pollution.

2. Holding countries accountable –adopting rules for the international consultation and analysis of developing country emissions and actions (the “International Consultation and Analysis”). In Durban, countries agreed that the “international consultation and analysis” would be implemented under the following rules:

First review would commence six months after the first biennial report is submitted – so by mid-2014.
Includes both technical reviews and international assessment by all countries. The guidelines agreed require a two step process for each developing country. Step 1—Technical analysis by experts. An expert team is tasked with analyzing each biennial report, annual greenhouse gas inventory, and full “national communication” of the country. These experts will develop a summary report based on their findings. Step 2— “Multilateral assessment” of the progress of the country towards its emissions reduction target. The country under consultation will make a presentation and then there will be discussion on the elements of their reports, the expert analysis, and any other questions that countries have on the reporting. This forum will result in a summary report which contains a record of the discussion.
Each country is subject to analysis and review, with small-island developing states and least developed countries given the choice to be assessed as a group.

AREAS FOR STRENGTHENING OR GREATER CLARITY. Countries agreed to strengthen these rules over time in recognition that ensuring accountability will require a system that is regularly improved. There are three key areas that need strengthening or greater clarity either through improved guidelines or in the actual operation of the process. First, the guidelines aren’t clear on whether “observers” (e.g., non-governmental organizations) will able to attend the “multilateral assessments” for developed and developing countries. The common practice in the climate negotiations is for similar types of sessions to be open to the public. After all, no country wants to avoid the spotlight, especially if they are living up to their commitments. A country would only want a closed session if it had something to hide. It will be important to ensure that there is real public access to the ongoing assessments.

Second, it will be important for developing countries to shorten the time lag between the submission of their report and the reported global warming pollution data that is contained in the report. Once a country has built-up a systematic means to track global warming pollution, it is critical and feasible to maintain a regular reporting.

Lastly, it is essential to strengthen the system to catch the countries that aren’t on track to meet their target. The agreement in Durban outlines some systems to better assess whether a country has the policies in place to meet its target. But these will need strengthening over time in order to ensure that we see early on any countries that are “off track”.

GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AGREED IN DURBAN: NOW LET’S GET TO WORK AND IMPROVE OVER TIME

Countries have agreed to the critical detailed guidelines of more frequent, transparent, and credible reporting of their emissions and actions. It is time to move quickly to implementation. The first reports are due starting in 2014, so countries need to begin to establish a system to document these details and begin collecting the necessary information.

The system will need to be improved and strengthened over time as nothing is ever done in the first round, but these rules are a solid beginning.

Important Progress at Global Warming Negotiations in Durban; Major Work Ahead

2011-12-11T16:40:34Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

As Nelson Mandela famously said*: “It always seems impossible, until we are done.”

That is exactly how it seemed at the United Nations COP-17 climate negotiations over the past two weeks – extremely difficult (and even impossible at times). The negotiations lastest more than than 36 hours after they were supposed to end. They culminated in some extremely passionate statements from the floor and a quick “open air” negotiation among the major players to try to address one last minute disagreement. Eventually they ended in agreement in the dim light of Sunday morning.

The agreements reached in South Africa make important progress, but much more work lies ahead to address global warming.

Here is a quick overview of what was agreed and what it means:

HINTS OF A STRONGER FUTURE AGREEMENT

Developing countries were pushing the European Union to undertake further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for the period after 2012. The E.U. was very clear from the outset, and held firm the whole time, in saying that they would only undertake such commitments under the Kyoto Protocol if they secured a “roadmap” in Durban to negotiate a new legal agreement that covers all countries. The most vulnerable countries – the small island states, least developed countries, and countries in Africa – Brazil, and U.S. also joined in the push during the two weeks. This was an important dynamic, as no country wants to stand against the most impacted countries, especially when the meeting was being held in Africa which is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of global warming. So this dynamic was a crucial new development that helped get agreement in South Africa.

The Durban agreements launched a “process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument, or outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties”. This process is supposed to be completed as early as possible but no later than 2015. This means that countries will now be working towards an agreement that, at a minimum, has “legal force” for the actions by all countries. This outcome brings large countries like China and India into the room to negotiate meaningful commitments to address the urgent need to cut global emissions. This is important progress.

We still have a ways to go as the final details of the legal agreement weren’t reached in Durban. It is clear that if all major emitting countries don’t commit to actions with “legal force” then it will be rejected by Europe, the U.S., and the most vulnerable countries. Whether all the major emitters and most vulnerable countries can rally around an agreement is uncertain, but now we are on a road towards that aim before it is too late.

IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY GUIDELINES AND INSTITUTIONS

Countries followed through on their agreements from last year by setting out the detailed guidelines and institutions to put these frameworks into operation on-the-ground. [More on each of these in subsequent posts.]

Increased Transparency and Accountability. Countries agreed to detailed guidelines for biennial reporting of their global warming pollution and their actions to combat global warming. They also agreed to have those reports subject to expert review and a formal “consultation” amongst all countries. This will mean greater transparency and accountability which is essential for ensuring that all countries are living up to their commitments.

Launched the Green Climate Fund. The agreements also helped establish the new Green Climate Fund as one of the means to mobilize investments in developing countries to help deploy low carbon energy, support reductions in deforestation, and assist the most vulnerable countries in increasing their resilience to the impacts of global warming.

Helping spur technology deployment and adaptation action. Countries helped launch a new “technology center and network” which will ensure that developing countries can effectively tap into the growing opportunities to deploy low carbon energy. And countries supported a more focused effort to help countries improve their resilience to the impacts of global warming.

FOLLOW THROUGH AND STRENGTHENING IS ESSENTIAL

Countries now must follow through on the commitments they made in Durban. They must act at home, while also continuously working toward even more detailed international agreements in the near future.

Even more needs to be done in the coming years as recent studies have shown that we are right now building the power plants, factories, buildings, and cars which could very well determine how much we “lock-in” dangerous global warming.

The steps taken by the 194 countries meeting in South Africa won’t address the global warming by themselves. They create hope for the future, but only if countries, companies, and citizens follow through.

-----------

* This was the logo on the lanyards passed out by the environmental NGOs.

Video Blog from Global Warming Negotiations in South Africa: It always seems impossible, until it's done

2011-12-08T12:24:57Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

This year the lanyards given out by the environmental groups have a famous Nelson Mandela quote that is quite fitting for the current state of play in the final days of the global warming negotiations in South Africa. The quote from Mandela says: “It always seems impossible, until it’s done”. Will countries rally in the final days and hours or will they block progress? Will they rise above their current stated positions? Will they move forward with strong actions to reduce emissions by all key countries and help the most vulnerable deal with the impacts of global warming?

Ministers are meeting in closed sessions now. Agreement seems out of reach at this stage. It is hard to tell how this can come together. Let’s hope they can get their act together. Failure isn’t an option. The consequences of not addressing global warming are too serious.

It is not impossible.

Video Blog from Global Warming Negotiations in South Africa: Beginning of the second week as Ministers arrive

2011-12-05T10:30:24Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

It is Monday of the second week at the global warming negotiations. For anyone that has followed these negotiations you know that the second week is when the final action occurs. Some hints emerged last week on “where we are headed”, but clear signs will have to emerge this week as the U.S., China, India, Brazil, small island states, African countries, and the E.U. play a key role. Will they agree or will they block? That is the key question going into the second week.

Check out my video blog from the conference.

To begin to negotiate a new legal agreement or not? The mandate question at the global warming negotiations in South Africa

2011-12-04T22:15:15Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

For the last two global warming negotiations – in Copenhagen and Cancun – there were serious efforts by countries to get a “mandate” to negotiate a new legal agreement that would strengthen international efforts to address global warming. Before this meeting this issue – “where we are headed” – was shaping up to be the key political decision at this year Ministerial meeting in Durban, South Africa. So what gives countries a sense that this might be the year for such an agreement and what is the state of play?

WHY MIGHT THIS YEAR BE DIFFERENT?

Four words – Kyoto Second Commitment Period – is the short answer. Here is the dynamic at play this year that hasn’t existed in the past. Developing countries – such as China, India, small-island states, countries in Africa, etc – want to get the European Union to commit in Durban that it will implement their next round of emissions targets under the rules and structure of the Kyoto Protocol. This is the first through fourth demand of the developing world (as I discussed here). The European Union – one of the key countries likely to take on further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 – have stressed that they will only commit to further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol if they get a “mandate” (sometimes referred to as a roadmap) to negotiate a new legal instrument that would require emissions reductions of all key countries. Their negotiating mandate (as reflected in the Conclusions of their Heads of Government and Environment Ministers) is pretty clear. The statement from all the Heads of Government in the EU stresses:

“It is urgent to agree on a process towards a comprehensive legally binding framework and a clear time line, ensuring global participation, including from major economies. The European Council confirms the openness of the European Union to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol as part of a transition to such a framework…”

The U.S. wants China and India to commit to legally binding commitments in a new agreement, which has been a long-standing position of the U.S. government.

Developing countries want something out of the E.U. And the E.U. wants something out of developing countries. That is the making of an agreement and why this year is different than in the past. After all, the current targets for developed countries run out at the end of 2012, so without an agreement in Durban on the next round of cuts the Kyoto Protocol will be functionally in a comma. Is this dynamic the making of an agreement in Durban on the mandate to agree to a new legally binding accord?

STATE OF PLAY: the mandate question at the end of the first week in Durban

The formal negotiations during the first week brokered no major breakthroughs on the question of “where we are headed”. We wouldn’t expect such a break through to emerge the first week as this is the main political issue in Durban. Ministers will have to be the ones to make this decision during the second week (probably as a part of the end game dynamics). But some hints have emerged this first week that provide a glimpse into those end game dynamics. Here are the clues.

Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries, and a number of countries in Africa are pushing hard for an agreement to move to a legally binding commitment in a defined timeframe. The countries most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming have “shouted” loudly this past week. They put forward specific proposals to finalize a new legally binding agreement next year. These countries are essentially saying: we need the strongest possible international system to address a challenge which, in many cases, is about their fundamental survival as a country.

China provides hints that they might be prepared for a binding commitment in 2020. In the past week we’ve seen some clues from China that provides a glimmer of hope on the issue of a mandate for a new legal agreement. They aren’t official statements as those will likely only come as a part of the final agreement, but some bread crumbs have been laid. According to Bloomberg: “The nation may be willing to accept a target on carbon- dioxide emissions after 2020, Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, said in an interview…” Similarly, China Daily (a major paper in China) states: “China is likely to agree to a quantified target to limit its greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, said a senior expert with a government think tank.”

We are definitely seeing some hints of softening from China on this question of whether or not they’d be willing to accept a binding commitment at some point in the future. In the past they’ve never been willing to say the words binding commitment.

E.U. is standing firm. The E.U. has stood firm in its position that it will only commit to a second round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol if there is a clear mandate to negotiate a legally binding target in the very near future. Based on interviews with the Presidency of the E.U., the Guardian stated: “Europe is taking the toughest negotiating stand it has ever adopted on global warming…the bloc is determined not to back down, as officials are angry that the EU's goodwill on climate change has been taken for granted.”

U.S. has shown no sign of a shift in position. Despite a letter from 16 major environmental and development groups in the U.S., the government’s position has so far not shifted. The U.S. has retained its position that the “mandate” must explicitly define key parameters of the final agreement at the outset. Basically stating: we need to know the exact route before we even begin, instead of we’ll be clear on where we have to end up but we’ll follow our GPS to the destination. This position lead the Associated Press to lead with a headline: “Europeans, Africans and nonprofits attack US for holding back UN climate talks.”

Indian hard line? The Indian Cabinet is reported to have taken a hard line stand. The Hindustan (a major paper in India) reports that the Indian Cabinet agreed to a position stating that: “India should not give in to the pressure of the developed world and should say no to a binding climate treaty.”

SOME COUNTRIES HOLD THE KEY TO SUCCESS

Key countries and groups of countries have positions that are intertwined. They each want something on an issue that the other can move on. That is either the makings of a deal. After all, no one wins if there is a stalemate.

The E.U., China, U.S., African countries, small island states, Brazil (who is the lead negotiator for the developing countries on this issue), and India hold the key to success on the issue of defining where we are headed. Will they each move in Durban or will they insist that the other side has to move all the way towards their position?

Each country or group can make strong shifts in position which will ensure that Durban defines a clear mandate to negotiate a new legally binding agreement in the immediate future. Let’s hope they take this opportunity and help the world move forward on efforts to address global warming. The power is in their hands.

* Photo: courtesy of Jake Schmidt, NRDC.

Video Blog from Durban Day 4 - Countries starting to draw lines in the sand

2011-12-01T15:04:03Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Four days into the global warming negotiations in Durban, South Africa countries are beginning to draw clear lines in the sand. The European Union has signaled that they are unwilling to back down from their position that Durban needs to adopt a clear mandate to negotiate a new legally binding agreement that covers all major players. The Guardian states:

“Europe is taking the toughest negotiating stand it has ever adopted on global warming. At this week's UN climate talks in Durban, the bloc will depart from decades of "dovish" practice by insisting stiff conditions must be met by China and other developing countries if a global climate treaty is to be arranged.”

Similarly, major environmental and development groups, including NRDC, sent a letter to Secretary Clinton urging that the U.S. change its position on two key pieces critical for success in Durban. The first piece was on the mandate to develop a new legal agreement that covers all major players. Basically the letter said the U.S. must show leadership by helping craft a path to get a new legal agreement, not throw up barriers at the outset. They need to ensure that they aren't allergic to the meal that is served, but they can't demand that everything on the menu meet their tastes at the outset. The second piece was ensuring that the Durban negotiations helped establish the new Green Climate Fund and begin a serious negotiation on means to raise meaningful revenue. The Washington Post and Bloomberg both have stories on the letter.

Check out my take on where things stand on Day 4.

Video Interview: Global Warming Negotiations on Day 3 - the mood, waiting for fireworks, and expectations for the end dynamics

2011-12-01T09:26:01Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Yesterday I did an interview with OneClimate TV. The interview covered the dynamics to date at this early stage in the negotiations and how things might shape up as we reach the end. We also discussed where to expect the main fireworks – beginning with the creation of the Green Climate Fund and ending with Ministers deciding if they are going to commit to develop a new legally binding instrument. Check it out.

Stay tuned as I'll have more video blogs in the coming days.

What must global warming negotiations in South Africa accomplish (Part 3)?

2011-11-28T22:00:12Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

One year ago, countries rallied around the Cancun Agreements with multiple standing ovations and strong words of support. While these agreements are not sufficient by themselves to fully address global warming, there are several key elements which establish a foundation for international action on global warming. Since Cancun, countries have been working to turn those agreements into operational guidelines and institutions to help ensure that countries are meeting their emissions reduction commitments, helping to mobilize resources to assist developing countries in reducing emissions and building stronger resilience to the impacts of global warming, and ensuring that these actions are the floor and not the ceiling of their efforts. In Durban, countries must turn standing ovations into guidelines and institutions that help the world combat global warming.

[This is Part 3 of a three part series of posts on the global warming negotiations in Durban. Part 1 discussed some emerging good news of action on-the-ground, troubling signs which confirm that we must act now, and how countries must be able to “multitask” in Durban. Part 2 discussed the state of play on the main narrative of the meeting in Durban – the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and “where we are headed”.]

The Cancun Agreements included: (1) commitments by key countries to take action to reduce emissions; (2) systems to improve transparency and accountability; (3) creation of a “Green Climate Fund” to help mobilize significant investments in developing countries to address climate change, and (4) progress on helping reduce deforestation emissions, speed up the deployment of clean energy, and assisting the most vulnerable in becoming more resilient to the impacts of global warming; and (5) mechanisms to ensure that these agreements are the “floor” of global action.

Breathing life into these agreements was to be one of the key aspects of the negotiation leading into Durban. If countries can resolve the major political issue (see Part 2) confronting Durban then these implementation details are ripe for agreement. (For more details on each of these listen to my recent webinar for Yale University and see the presentation from this event).

COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS: Making Progress to Address the Problem

Developed and developing countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution made specific commitments to reduce their emissions in Copenhagen and Cancun. Unfortunately, at this stage the commitments of countries are putting us on the precipice of very damaging global warming. Deeper actions are required if we are to avoid the extreme weather and other damages that scientists predict will occur.

However, we are starting to have some greater clarity in key countries about the actions they’ll implement to reduce emissions. For example, the US has new car standards, new appliance efficiency standards, and is developing carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. China has begun to release detailed rules and regulations for the implementation of their energy and carbon intensity targets, including new policies to significantly ramp-up solar energy. The Australian government has passed their national climate law with a price on carbon and firm limits on the carbon pollution from the largest polluters. Brazil is facing a crucial test on its efforts to address deforestation as some agricultural interests have pushed for a weakening of the their landmark “Forest Law” prior to the country hosting world leaders for the Earth Summit in June 2012. India is moving forward with efforts to significantly scale-up solar power as a part of their effort to reduce their carbon intensity.

Ideally countries would come to Durban and outline in detail the steps they are taking to reduce their emissions. They would speak to the new set of laws they have implemented since Copenhagen and Cancun, the additional steps they plan to take, and how much progress they have made to meet their commitments. Unfortunately, this critical aspect is only undertaken in the side presentations and corridor discussions. The transparency and accountability provisions thus have become a critical tool in tracking this progress. This must change as we can’t have a Ministerial level negotiation on global warming where countries don’t have to outline their actions to reduce pollution. The spotlight must shine on those that are living up to their commitments and those that are falling behind.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Developed and Developing Countries

In Cancun countries decided to specific details on how to increase the transparency and accountability of their emission reduction actions and financial support. More countries understand the importance of resolving these issues and detailed guidelines have been proposed by a number of countries. Following from Cancun NRDC provided specific recommendations on how this agreement could be implemented on-the-ground for developed and developing countries.

In Durban, it is critical that developed country flesh out the:

details that will be in their biennial reports including information on their emissions, actions, the financial support they provide to developing countries, and how the ensure data credibility;
provisions to build upon existing reporting so that the current rules are the minimum standard that is required; and
rules for strengthened international review of developed country reporting and the new international assessment of developed country actions (the “International Assessment and Review”).

For developing country, it is essential that countries spell out in Durban the:

time series for greenhouse gas emissions data that they’ll report (e.g., at least 2010 in the first report, with additional historic data);
details that will be in their biennial reports including detailed information on their greenhouse gas emissions, a detailed description of mitigation actions planned and implemented, the status of implementation of the country’s emissions reduction actions, and information on the country’s process for domestic collection and validation of reported data;
Guidelines to inform how the country performs domestic data collection and validation; and
rules for the new international analysis and consultation of developing country emissions and actions (the “International Consultation and Analysis”).

It is also important that developed countries provide greater details on the funding that they’ll provide aid developing countries in the development of the biennial reports.

While countries aren’t in complete agreement on these details at this stage, some emerging agreement arose from the last session in Panama. It will be crucial that countries resolve these issues quickly in Durban as it shouldn’t be necessary to have Ministers resolve these issues. Without progress on fleshing out the details on these provisions a number of countries are likely to block progress on other elements of a “Durban Agreement”.

CREATION OF A “GREEN CLIMATE FUND”: Helping mobilize investments in developing countries

In Cancun, countries agreed to develop a new multilateral fund to help invest in developing country emissions reduction and adaptation actions. The Transitional Committee – the group of 40 representatives that was tasked to craft the rules for this new fund – has proposed a “governing document” that would establish a board to oversee the new fund, guide the operation of the fund, and ensure strong financial and environmental safeguards. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia blocked consensus on this governing document at the last meeting of the Transitional Committee in Cape Town. It will critical to resolve the outstanding issues early so that the Fund doesn’t become a jumbled mess that gets watered down to the point where it can’t be agreed. Important details will still need to be worked out next year by the Board as it draws up the strong details for the operation of the Fund.

There is also an important debate emerging around whether Durban can launch a more formal negotiation on how to generate sizeable and sustainable funding for the medium- and long-term. International transportation, as the World Bank notes, is shaping up to be a very promising route to scale-up resources, while at the same time addressing emissions from one of the fastest growing sources. The US and some developing countries have blocked the beginning of a negotiation on generating finance from international transport (e.g., aviation and shipping). It is well past time for them to remove their resistance and help develop a global approach to reducing emissions in these sectors that also generates finance.

SPURRING LOW-CARBON ENERGY DEPLOYMENT: Removing policy, technical, and finance barriers to low-carbon energy deployment in the developing world

In Cancun, countries agreed to establish a “technology center and network” to help speed up the deployment of low-carbon energy in the developing world. This is an important tool in removing key barriers to low-carbon energy deployment. It would provide technical, financial, and other expertise to help developing countries. If implemented right it would lead to larger demand for low-carbon energy. No longer would policymakers, companies, or financial institutions be able to say: “we don’t know how to do that, the policies aren’t right, or we can’t access financing”.

In Durban countries must launch the call for eligible entities to submit detailed proposals for how they will operate such a new technology center and network. A number of countries have announced an interest in hosting one of the regional networks so there is obvious support for this new platform. Countries must launch the “centers and networks” so that this concept can be quickly turned from concept into reality. As the new International Energy Agency analysis shows, we don’t have time to wait to start to deploy low carbon energy. Right now countries are building the infrastructure that will lock in emissions for the next several decades.

REVIEWING PROGRESS: Ensuring that current actions are the “floor”

In the Cancun Agreements, countries agreed to begin a formal “review” of the actions in 2013 with the review to be completed by 2015. This little noticed provision should play a critical role in ensuring that the current actions are the “floor” not the ceiling over the next decade. Some countries are positing that additional actions will only be taken after 2020.*** While it is important that action begins now, we must also ensure that countries are deepening their actions before 2020. If we wait until then to change direction it could be very dangerous, as the International Energy Agency analysis points out. [Our friends at WRI have a good post with more details.]

TURNING STANDING OVATIONS (AND AGREEMENT) INTO IMPLEMENTATION

There are positive signs emerging that countries are taking real action to spur low-carbon societies. At the same time there are troubling signs that if we don’t act quickly and with even more gusto then we all might be headed for dangerous territory.

In Durban, countries must prove that they can multitask by addressing the “Fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and “where we are headed”, while demonstrating that they can implement the agreements they reached in Cancun, Mexico. Countries proved in Cancun that they can rally around a package of agreements which can begin to help address global warming. Now it is critical that they show that they can act. After all, deeds are more powerful than words.

* Photo credit: Picture of Planet Earth, courtesy of woodleywonderworks.

* *This is an update of the current state of play from a post at the lead-in global warming negotiations held in Panama.

*** Reports have emerged that countries are only looking to a legally binding commitment for their targets beyond 2020 has generated some pushback from some of the most vulnerable countries and some clarifications from key countries.

What must global warming negotiations in South Africa accomplish (Part 2)?

2011-11-23T14:52:27Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Global warming negotiations are at an important fork in the road. With emerging signs of promising actions occurring on the ground and troubling signs in the atmosphere, countries must decide in Durban if they can turn standing ovations into guidelines and institutions to help all countries take serious action to reduce global warming pollution and improve their resilience to the impacts of global warming.

[This is Part 2 of a three part series of posts on the global warming negotiations in Durban. Part 1 discussed some emerging good news of action on-the-ground, troubling signs which confirm that we must act now, and how countries must be able to “multitask” in Durban. Part 3 will discuss the state of play on efforts to implement the Cancun Agreements.]

The key political issue that will dominate the overall narrative in Durban is around the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and “where we are headed”.** These are two issues which were looming large in the lead-in to Copenhagen and Cancun but are set to come to a head in Durban. Getting greater clarity on these two issues will likely unlock progress on implementing the Cancun Agreements. While other issues are critical to build a strong international response to global warming (see Part 3) these two intertwined topics are likely to dominate much of the attention of Ministers.

“FATE OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL”

At the end of 2012, the first round of internationally legally-binding targets for developed countries will end — developed country targets under the Kyoto Protocol run from 2008-2012. While major developed and developing countries explicitly committed to individual actions to reduce their global warming pollution, whether or not those targets will be enshrined in another “commitment period” of the Kyoto Protocol (e.g., from 2013-2017) is an open question.*** A number of developed countries have passed domestic laws requiring mandatory emissions reductions beyond 2012, typically through 2020. For example, the European Union (E.U.) target to reduce emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels in 2020 is enshrined in the E.U.’s “Climate and Energy Package” which continues its mandatory emissions trading system for its largest polluters beyond 2012, mandates emissions reductions for each country in the E.U., and adopts other measures to reduce pollution across all 27 members of the E.U. Similarly the new Australia law sets out a path for targets beyond 2012. So for some countries, the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” isn’t fundamentally about whether they’ll act at home beyond 2012, rather it is about how those targets are “codified” internationally.

Developing countries (e.g., BASIC and African Union) have been explicit that their top priority in Durban is securing “a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol”. The exact form of that “continuation” is under intense negotiation between the developing countries and the E.U.. The E.U. has stated that it would be willing to “politically” commit to a “second commitment period” if there was explicit agreement to negotiate a new legally binding commitment for all countries by 2015 (a so-called “mandate” or “roadmap”). Many expect countries like Norway and Switzerland to follow the E.U. Some countries have said pretty clearly that they won’t go forward with further targets under the Kyoto Protocol (e.g., Japan, Russia, and Canada). Others like New Zealand and Australia haven’t said one way or another.

It isn’t clear whether developing countries will accept the EU’s position or some modified version in the final hours. The E.U. has been extremely clear that it won’t accept a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol without a clear mandate to negotiate a new international agreement which has firm actions from all the major emitters (see the conclusions from the E.U. Environment Ministers and from all 27 of the E.U. Heads of Government).

So key to resolving the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” is for countries to outline a vision of “where we are headed (a “mandate” or “roadmap”)?”

“WHERE ARE WE HEADED?”

Part of the package that is appearing would entail a commitment from all countries to outline where the global warming negotiations are headed – e.g., to a new legal agreement which covers all countries with meaningful commitments. While countries wouldn’t have to agree explicitly in Durban the exact form of the final new legal agreement, they would have to be prepared to negotiate with the explicit intention of moving to a new legal framework for all countries.

The E.U. has been very clear that for them this is a deal-breaker. Some countries believe that the E.U. will accept a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol without getting a clear mandate. The U.S. has said that they are prepared to accept a mandate to negotiate a new legal agreement but only if such a direction is explicit that all major emitters will have legally binding commitments. The Chinese and Indians have resisted such an explicit direction at this stage. Will countries move from these stated positions in order to get other pieces of the puzzle – such as a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and implementation of the Cancun Agreements (see Part 3)?

Hoping that the E.U. will “blink” and accept a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol without a mandate is a dangerous assumption. The issue of “where we are headed” was a key issue in the lead-in to Copenhagen. The thinking going into Copenhagen was that we would agree to “one agreement, two steps” – with the second step being a new legally binding framework. That second step has eluded the world since Copenhagen as there is no clarity on where we are headed.

This issue is shaping up to come to a head in Durban. It can’t be punted or dodged this time. We need a resolution.

COUNTRIES MUST MOVE FROM STATED POSITIONS TO REAL AGREEMENT

It is appearing like we won’t know what will be acceptable on the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and “where are we headed” until the very last moment in Durban. There are many, many variations that are emerging in the “corridor discussions”. High-level policymakers will have to decide the fate of these two key issues. Agreement in Durban to implement the Cancun Agreements hinges on resolution of these major political issues.

It is time for countries to stop digging in their heels and start moving towards a new international agreement with firm commitments from all major emitters. Is any country prepared to stand alone and block agreement?

It is time to decide.

----------------------

So will the key agreements in Cancun be translated into guidelines and institutions to help deliver real change on-the-ground? The next post will detail where things stand on that front and how those pieces can move forward in Durban.

----------------------

* Photo credit: Picture of Oxfam activists dressed as world leaders, Oxfam International.

* *This is an update of the current state of play from a post at the lead-in global warming negotiations held in Panama.

*** Reports have emerged that countries are only looking to a legally binding commitment for their targets beyond 2020 has generated some pushback from some of the most vulnerable countries and some clarifications from key countries.

What must global warming negotiations in South Africa accomplish (Part 1)?

2011-11-21T15:43:29Z

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Nelson Mandela famously said: “I am fundamentally an optimist…Part of being optimistic is keeping one's head pointed toward the sun, one's feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death.” With around 200 nations set to meet in Durban South, Africa November 28 – December 9 to agree on further efforts to address global warming, those words seemed extremely fitting. There is emerging good news of action on-the-ground. At the same time there are troubling signs which confirm that we must act now. In Durban, countries must turn standing ovations into guidelines and institutions to help all countries take serious action to reduce global warming pollution and improve their resilience to the impacts of global warming.

[This is a Part 1 of a three part series of posts on the global warming negotiations in Durban. Part 2 will discuss the recent state of play on the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and “where we are headed”. Part 3 will discuss the state of play on efforts to implement the Cancun Agreements.]

THE GOOD NEWS: EMERGING SIGNS OF HOPE OCCURING ON-THE-GROUND

We’ve seen two critically important dynamics this year that give some hope. First, a number of countries have made important progress in implementing laws and policies to reduce their global warming pollution. While not at the pace and the scale that we need, important follow through has occurred that is changing the dynamics on the ground. For example, Australia finally passed their climate law to require mandatory carbon pollution reductions for major polluters, the US has adopted aggressive vehicle standards and put on hold the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and China has started to outline the detailed rules and regulations for meeting its binding energy and climate commitments in its 12th 5-year plan. [For more on each of these and additional countries, as well as further steps pending in key countries, see my quick summary.]

Second, clean energy continues to grow at an extraordinary pace. Last year new clean energy investments skyrocketed by 30% to $243 billion. No longer can people say: “renewable energy is a nice thing but it isn’t a mainstream energy source”. In fact, renewable energy exists in a large chunk of the world. Commercial wind power is in operation in 83 countries and solar PV capacity was added in 100 countries last year. As a result non-fossil fuel energy accounted for about 50% of the world’s new electricity capacity added last year. That is a huge shift from a fossil dominated world to one with growing amounts of new energy coming from renewable sources.

WE MUST ACT NOW: TROUBLING SIGNS EMERGING

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their new projections of where energy and pollution is likely to head if we don’t take additional actions. And a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on climate change and extreme weather shows what we are baking into the system if we don’t act. Four troubling signs emerged from these reports which should be a wake-up call to government’s meeting in Durban:

Global warming pollution is still rising. We are seeing positive actions in key countries, but unfortunately the emissions trend is still going up. The IEA found that worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide emission grew by over 5 percent last year to a record level.
We are headed for troubling places if we don’t take on greater action. In the IEA scenario which takes account of existing policies, emissions in 2020 are projected to rise by 20 percent from today’s levels. This would put the world on a trajectory consistent with a global temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. That is a very, very dangerous point to reach as the new IPCC report shows that we are headed for much more devastating extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy rainfall, and hotter days) if we don’t act decisively.
The world is set to build the power plants, buildings, industries, roads, etc which could “lock” us into very dangerous global warming. The IEA states that: “If internationally coordinated action is not taken by 2017, we project that all permissible emissions in the 450 Scenario [consistent with a 50% chance of holding temperature below 2°C] would come from the infrastructure then existing, so that all new infrastructure from then until 2035 would need to be zero-carbon, unless emitting infrastructure is retired before the end of its economic lifetime to make headroom for new investment.”
There is a major cost of delaying action. According to the IEA, “for every $1 of investment in the power sector avoided before 2020, an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the higher emissions”.

These new reports should ring alarm bells for countries meeting in Durban, South Africa.

WHAT DURBAN MUST ACCOMPLISH: TURNING STANDING OVATIONS INTO 2ND AND 3RD ACTS

When an actor receives a standing ovation for a performance they don’t go home and say: “I never have to act again”. The best actors take their bow and go on stage the next night trying to perform even better. So will negotiators translate the standing ovations from Cancun into detailed guidelines and operations (the 2nd Act)? And will they turn those ovations into continued actions at home to meet their commitments and even deeper action to put the world on a safer path to avoid the damages of global warming (the 3rd Act)? Or will applause turn to boos?

This past year we’ve seen promising movement to define the guidelines and institutions to support efforts to improve transparency, develop a new fund to support developing country efforts to take action to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts, and build stronger mechanisms to help deploy low-carbon technologies. Of course there are technical differences at this stage before Durban, but the differences are much smaller than could be expected. Countries can find the path to get agreement on these pieces in Durban. But the “fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and decisions about “where we are headed” are shaping up to derail the whole effort if we don’t get resolution on these in Durban. Failure to resolve these issues would make getting agreement on the institutions and guidelines to implement the Cancun Agreements extremely difficult. [More on each of these in Part 2 and Part 3.]

DURBAN MUST BE ABLE TO “MULTITASK”

In Durban, countries must be able to “walk and chew gum”, while starting to sprint towards solutions that deliver low-carbon energy and reduced deforestation. Countries need to be able to ensure that they can follow through with previous commitments and agreements by implementing actions at home, while making the institutions and guidelines from the Cancun Agreements operational in Durban. And they must be able to start moving much more quickly to low-carbon energy and reduced deforestation.

Durban must be a clear path on the road to addressing global warming. We can’t afford a detour.

--------------

* Photo: "Teeth to Welcome you" a pier in Durban, courtesy of Pieterjan Grobler, under creative commons license.