Switchboard, from NRDC › Jake Schmidt's Blog

Amazon Rainforest Still Very Susceptible to Dieback Due to Climate Change

2010-03-19T22:26:28Z

In the ongoing onslaught on the science underlying global warming, one recent criticism has focused on the finding that global warming could cause large-scale dieback of Amazon rainforest as cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (a point spun by the opponents of action on global warming as this post highlights). Leading scientists with years of experience studying the Amazon rainforest have just released a letter that puts into perspective this recent controversy. The gist of their conclusion is that we should still be concerned.

In the letter (available here), 19 highly respected scientists who conduct research on Amazon forests, climate, and/or fire refute claims that there is no link between drought (one of the possible impacts of global warming in this region) and Amazon dieback. This “controversy” arose because the IPCC cited a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) instead of a peer reviewed journal as is common practice by the IPCC. And a recent study from researchers at Boston University claims to “debunk myths about vulnerability of Amazon rainforests to drought” (as you can see here by the coverage).

But as it turns out the WWF study was merely a collection of a large body of peer reviewed articles and as these leading scientists conclude:

“the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests [to] drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.”

In response to the Boston University study that supposedly “debunked” the “myth” of Amazon dieback due to drought their response was:

"First, there is no myth. Rather, there are multiple, consistent lines of evidence from ground-based studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that Amazon forests are, indeed, very susceptible to drought stress. Second, nothing is debunked by the new study."

So why do we care about this potential dieback of the Amazon rainforest? The Amazon Basin’s trees hold carbon stocks equivalent to more than a decade of global fossil fuel emissions. The forest also releases enough water to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and to the ocean via river outflow to influence world climate and ocean circulation systems. So if you are trying to reduce global warming pollution and minimize the impacts from global warming, the last thing you want to do is create conditions that lead to a huge increase in emissions (massive Amazon dieback) and that could exacerbate one of the possible impacts of global warming (changes in ocean circulation).

So what is the connection between this huge carbon stock, rainfall, fires, and global warming? As this post on RealClimate from a forest scientist highlights: “The evidence for the possibility of a major die-back of the Amazon rainforest is due to two factors:

That climate change induced decreases in rainfall in the dry season occur, and
The trees cannot tolerate these reductions in rainfall.

As the 19 scientists point the link can be as follows:

“Reductions in rainfall can affect Amazon forests by increasing tree mortality, but also by increasing their susceptibility to fire. The initial fire kills trees, increasing the likelihood of subsequent fires for years afterwards in a vicious positive feedback loop.”

As the RealClimate post points out there is some uncertainty about whether rainfall will be reduced in the Amazon due to global warming, but several peer-reviewed studies have shown that this is a real possibility.

So the Amazon rainforests aren’t totally “out of the woods” or guaranteed to “go up in smoke”, but they are still very susceptible to dieback due to global warming as these respected scientists highlighted.

I for one would rather not risk losing an area of rainforest larger than the continental U.S. because some ill-cited peer reviewed studies or new study raised some uncertainty. As my colleague has pointed out (here and here) there are plenty of facts on-the-ground that point us clearly towards the need to reduce our global warming pollution. The Amazon and the planet aren’t worth such a risky bet.

China and India to Report their Global Warming Pollution Every 2 Years

2010-03-16T13:30:40Z

Both China and India have now reaffirmed that they will report their global warming emissions every 2 years. The framework of this was agreed in the Copenhagen Accord which outlined that every two years developing countries will report their national emissions inventories and emission reduction actions based upon internationally agreed guidelines (as I discussed here).

Here is what the Accord actually said in this regard:

“Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications…every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties”.

And now two key players in those portions of the agreement have just reiterated to domestic audiences that they will implement this provision. That is a very positive move which takes further international steps to address global warming as agreed in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here).

China’s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, highlighted before the National People’s Congress (the legislative body in China) that under the requirements of the Copenhagen Accord, China has agreed to submit an inventory report every two years to the UN Secretariat (as my colleague reported). And Indian Minister Jairam Ramesh just announced that they will be releasing an emissions inventory for 2007 in May, to be updated every two years (as reported by The Hindu).

So why is this so important from an environmental standpoint? One of the fundamentals of any environmental policy is a three step process of knowing:

Where you currently are (e.g., how good, bad, or ugly is your current environmental situation);
Where you want to head (e.g., what are you trying to achieve in order to solve the challenge); and
Where you are at various points towards your end goal – point 2 (e.g., in 2 years time are you making good progress towards your goal or not).

Creating a process to improve the assessment of progress. Before the Copenhagen Accord, the world had an incomplete system of accountability and transparency. All countries developed national emissions inventories and submitted “National Communications” containing summary information on national emissions, actions that the country was undertaking to reduce emissions, and reports on the country’s progress. But these National Communications have been extremely limited for developing countries as they have been too infrequent to generate information on current trends. For the most part, official information on developing country emissions dates back to 1994. That is an incomplete snapshot as we know that those emissions have changed dramatically since then. For example in 1994 China and India accounted for 14 and 4% of the world’s emissions from fossil fuels and now they account for 22 and 5%, respectively -- both country’s emissions essentially doubling over that timeframe.*

So the announcements by Chinese and Indian officials are important steps to improve the environmental assessment provisions of the international framework. And it will add confidence to efforts to regularly assess the progress that countries are making towards their commitments recorded as a part of the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here).

Going into Copenhagen we effectively had official global warming emissions from developing countries reported every 15 years and now we have emissions reported every 2 years. A point highlighted by Minister Ramesh: “The last data on emissions dates back to 1994”.

So the fact that the world didn’t have good, regularly updated, and consistent information on where key countries emissions stood and a system to regularly assess progress was a significant limitation. But this limitation is slowly being eliminated as countries take concrete steps to implement the key provisions of the Copenhagen Accord. China and India have now reaffirmed to important domestic audiences that they will move forward domestically with the transparency provisions – a critical cornerstone of the agreement reached in Copenhagen.

---------

* Data from the World Resources Institute’s Climate Analysis Indicator tool for 1994 and 2006, respectively.

Where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?

2010-03-11T14:42:34Z

It is almost 3 months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (as I discussed here). Given the state of the Accord just after Copenhagen with some calling it a failure, some outlining the foundations in the Accord for international efforts (and as my colleague discussed here), and others…well not quite sure what to make of it, where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?

If you just picked up the paper, watched TV, listened to the radio, or read blogs you might think that things aren’t really moving as there is very little coverage of international global warming discussions (especially compared to last year when every 5 seconds some news story or analysis emerged). But that doesn’t mean that nothing is happening on the international front. In fact, despite the lack of regular coverage, things are moving forward – albeit tentatively, behind the scenes, and without a big splash. Here are four things that are occurring that are worth following.

Over 108 countries have “associated with” the Copenhagen Accord (as summarized here).* These countries account for over 80% of the emissions and 77% of the population of the world. The last two major pieces fell into place when China and India formally “associated with the Accord” in the last 2 days (as my colleagues discussed here and as covered by the New York Times). Basically these countries are saying: “we agree to international action on global warming and on the basis of the outlines agreed in the Accord”. Of course many of these countries have urged for deeper action than outlined in the Accord, but by Associating with the Accord they are signaling that they want to proceed internationally to address global warming.

60 countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have formally recorded actions to reduce their global warming pollution (as I discussed here). Many of these countries aren’t simply waiting for some future international meeting or for the final international agreement to implement specific policies and programs to reduce their pollution. For example, as my colleagues have discussed, China and India have adopted new domestic policies since Copenhagen that will reduce their global warming pollution. Brazil signed a bilateral agreement with the US (available here) and there are expectations that the US will sign another one with Indonesia when President Obama goes there March 20-22 (hopefully with concrete near term actions).

Key countries will begin to coordinate efforts to address deforestation emissions. Over 15% of the world’s global warming pollution comes from deforestation and forest degradation, so the Copenhagen Accord agreed: “on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions [that reduce deforestation and forest degradation]”. Key countries including the US, Australia, Germany, and France agreed to contribute $3.5 billion over 3 years to “prompt start” efforts to reduce deforestation emissions. It is critical to ensure that the flow of this early money goes to effective actions that reduce deforestation as every second a football field size of rainforest is lost (and it won’t return). So instead of waiting for the next international negotiating session or greater clarity on how things proceed (and more loss of the tropical forests), a group of key developed countries and deforesting countries are meeting as we speak to begin efforts to better coordinate global efforts to combat deforestation.

High-level and influential set of policymakers will be discussing ways to generate sizeable funding to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has created a High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to be chaired by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, with representatives including George Soros, Nick Stern, and Lawrence Summers. The group is tentatively scheduled to meet March 29th and will provide an initial report to the May/June climate negotiating session and a final report to the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico in December. Let’s hope some politically possible and specific proposals emerge that can be adopted by key countries.

That is the positive momentum that has occurred post-Copenhagen. But of course not everything is all good news. The World Bank is still funding things that are taking us in the wrong direction by proposing to finance a coal plant in South Africa that isn’t capturing its carbon (and doesn’t put in place a real plan to capture it’s carbon in the future), and is barely investing in renewables and doesn’t have a real energy efficiency investment as a part of this proposal. Indonesia is proposing to classify its palm forests as “forests” in order to access money that is supposed to be set aside for deforestation reduction efforts – not exactly the aim of that funding as it is supposed to support things that are slowing deforestation, not actions that deforested rainforests in the first place. Critical actions by the US gained a little momentum when President Obama met with key Senators and made clear his support for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year, but uncertainty about US action still clouds international prospects (let alone holding back the needed investments in job creation, energy independence, and clean energy technology leadership).

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

So there is some uncertainty about how things proceed. In many respects that is only natural as the Summit in Copenhagen wasn’t your normal climate negotiations and the process after the Summit was left unclear. So the world spent a couple of months sorting out what was achieved, how the Copenhagen Accord was to proceed, and what are the next steps for the UN climate negotiations. But while that “sorting” was occurring, things proceeded and countries moved forward with actions to reduce their emissions (with some hiccups along the way).

The expectations for the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico this December appear to be focused not on agreeing to the final treaty (as the European Commission just outlined is likely), but rather to making concrete progress to implement the actions that countries committed to reduce their emissions, the finance that is to be deployed in the near- and medium-term, the rules for the “transparency” provisions agreed in the Accord, and the guidelines for efforts to solve the loss of tropical rainforests. Those actions are critical and countries have made it clear that they want those things to proceed, even while they sort out exactly how things will progress this year.

Now is not the time to sit in a holding pattern and wait for exact clarity on how things proceed. We must plug ahead and implement key actions that will put the world closer to solving this critical challenge.

-----------

* This includes countries that have formally sent letters to the UNFCCC signaling their desire to be “associated with the Accord” and those that have submitted emissions reduction actions but may not have not clarified in their submission that they want to be “associated”. All values based upon data from the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool. Emissions from 2005 and include deforestation; population data from 2006.

UN Climate Executive Secretary Resigns: His Legacy and Where We Go Next

2010-02-18T16:58:03Z

Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has just announced his resignation. So this is sparking two questions: where are we after his four year tenure and where do we head from here? Well here are my thoughts.

I talked to him when he took the job and he didn’t undertake this difficult job so he could be a life-long UN career guy. When Yvo took the job he only did it because he wanted to help move the world forward in efforts to solving global warming. Remember he took the job at the end of the Bush Administration’s tenure when US climate policy was non-existent and as a result the international negotiations weren’t really progressing. And he took the reins at a time where we were still arguing over whether or not developing countries would take action to reduce their emissions.

So yes he is leaving after the Copenhagen Summit, which some view as a failure but has several key foundations for international efforts that are critical (see here and here). But what did he accomplish?

He sought to raise the international visibility and the decision-making of global warming policy to the highest-level in governments around the world. On both fronts he succeeded. Global warming is a top international agenda in all key countries, over 120 heads of government attended Copenhagen, and 60 countries representing over 80% of the world's emissions are taking concrete actions to reduce their emissions. These are all the key building blocks necessary for solving global warming and didn't exist before his tenure. So let’s look at them a little deeper.

Global Warming is a Top International Agenda. Only a couple of years ago we struggled to get world leaders to discuss global warming every time they met and there were many countries where the head of government probably only peripherally knew about global warming. Now when world leaders meet (or talk on the phone), they almost always discuss global warming and the steps that countries need to take. Just think about how many news articles you saw last year around “non-climate” meetings where some snippet of global warming news came out as a result of world leaders discussing it. Or think of the reports of bilateral meetings between key countries and you’ll probably remember some specific mention to global warming. Unheard of just a few years back.

Heads of Government from Over 120 Countries Were Engaged in Copenhagen. We always knew that to solve this challenge internationally would require critical decisions from the head of government in key countries. After all, global warming is an issue that cuts across all aspects of a country’s economy (so it can’t just be the environment ministry actively engaged). So there are decisions that only the “top dog” in the country can make. In Copenhagen we had over 120 heads of government in attendance and many of them weren’t just there for a photo-op. They were rolling up their sleeves, hashing out differences, and making tough decisions necessary to move us forward (as I discussed here). Unimaginable just a few years back.

Countries Representing Over 80% of the World’s Emissions are Taking Concrete Steps. Sixty countries representing the vast majority of the world’s emissions have now committed to take specific actions to reduce their emissions (as I discussed here). That was doubtful just a few months back and some almost take it for granted how big of a shift that was.

What does this all mean for international efforts? Is Yvo leaving the death-knell for international efforts? Of course it isn’t the death-knell. How can the whole system fall apart with the departure of one person, when 60 heads of government have formally committed to take action and over 100 countries have said that they want to “associate with” the Copenhagen Accord (as tracked here) – which basically means: we want to continue to address global warming internationally. The climate skeptics will attempt to use this as another arrow in their imaginary quiver. But international efforts to address global warming will continue (key countries have said so in their letters to the UN, available here). And key countries will still implement policies and programs to reduce their emissions (you can track them here with us). So I expect no change in the fundamental elements of international efforts – whether or not key countries take specific actions to reduce their pollution.

But even before Yvo’s announcement there were some changes likely to occur in how the UN process unfolds. But those are just the process aspects. It would be like saying that a train (which has already been operating for years, is still moving forward, and has the tracks laid out) can no longer run because a new engineer is taking over. A new engineer will now take over the UN climate negotiations, but its customers (countries) are still demanding that the train get to its destination (concrete actions to reduce emissions from key countries). The system isn’t broken and the whole thing isn’t being sent to the scrap heap. There will just be a new voice over the intercom. It won’t have a Dutch accent, but I guarantee it will still say: “next stop, what actions is your country doing to reduce its global warming pollution?”

Countries Accounting for 80% of the World’s Emissions are Taking Steps to Curb Their Global Warming Pollution

2010-02-16T18:35:38Z

As I mentioned here by the end of January countries were to register their actions to reduce global warming pollution as agreed under the Copenhagen Accord. And by deadline countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution (and a bit more) have registered their actions to reduce their pollution. So what does this all mean?

We’ve pulled together a little summary table which shows the commitments from all the countries (available here*). A total of 60** countries have outlined commitments to take steps to reduce their global warming pollution. These include all the top 12 emitting countries, all the countries in the BASIC negotiating group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), all the current members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (with the exception of Chile that just joined, but who is taking steps as my colleague discussed here), and 12 of the top 15 countries in terms of economic output (by gross domestic product).

These countries are the “big players” which almost single-handedly hold the key to solving global warming. The steps they take are critical. So let me repeat: countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have just committed to steps to reduce their global warming pollution. As I’ve discussed here, this is a huge shift from where we were just 2 years ago (and even 6 months ago). That is something to build upon since the key to solving global warming is whether or not key countries are committing to take action, implementing policies and programs to achieve those commitments, and whether those actions are actually reducing emissions (as I discussed in this ClimateWire/NY Times article).

This focus on ACTION is one of the reasons that we created a new website to track the actions that countries commit to and their policies/programs to achieve those commitments (see Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming).

So how do the actions of these countries stack up against global efforts to hold temperatures to less than 2°C (3.6°F) – the goal agreed in the Copenhagen Accord? There have been a couple of recent analyses which provide some insight. Their conclusions range from: “we are within reach” to “we are headed way off track” – as I’ll discuss below (and as my colleague discussed right after Copenhagen).

“We are within reach”. An analysis by the Peterson Institute (and reported about at DotEarth) concluded that: “if countries follow through on their pledges and follow on with more aggressive action, it looks like keeping global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius is still within reach.” A report by Sir Nick Stern of the proposed pledges prior to Copenhagen found that: “if delivered, [they] constitute a big step towards a path consistent with the 2°C goal”, but there was still a gap in 2020.

“We are headed way off track”. An analysis by a coalition of research institutes called Climate Action Tracker concluded that: “the current pledges leave the world heading for a global warming of over 3°C above pre-industrial levels”. A study by the Climate Interactive team similarly found that we are more likely headed for an above 3°C world as they concluded that: the current pledges “if fully implemented, would allow global mean temperature to increase approximately 3.9°C (7.0°F)”. And another analysis by Project Catalyst of the pledges on the table prior to Copenhagen found that: “Copenhagen must lock-in commitments at or above the high end of the current proposal range in order to preserve the possibility of limiting warming to 2°C”, but there was still a big gap in 2020. They also concluded that: “The low-end of the proposal range would risk permanently losing the opportunity to limit warming to 2°C and exposing the world to unacceptable climate risks”.

A bit confused how the same proposals to cut emissions can result in different conclusions on the impact of those emissions reductions for solving global warming? Think of it this way: for every ton of global warming pollution that you don’t reduce now you have to reduce later, since it is essentially about how much cumulative emissions the world emits.*** So these different studies draw different conclusions largely because they assume different rates that the world can reduce emissions after 2020 (the date when most of the targets were defined). This is because they have different assumptions about: how fast technology can be developed and deployed (e.g., if you don’t drive innovation now, you won’t have the necessary technologies in the future), the political will to undertake aggressive actions in the future (e.g., future politicians will never put in place the necessary policies to embark on that rate of change), etc.

What does this all mean? Do we throw in our towel and give up or do we celebrate as we are on the necessary path. The answer is neither, so we must:

Find ways to ensure that countries meet (or exceed) their stated commitments. The atmosphere doesn’t look favorably on pledges that aren’t met (nor should we) so we must encourage, nudge, etc. countries to live up their commitments. This means that countries will need to effectively implement policies and programs in their domestic law that reduce emissions and it means “giving life” to the transparency and accountability provisions that were agreed as a part of Copenhagen (that I discussed here).
Keep at it. If you thought that solving global warming was going to be achieved in one meeting or one year, you were following the wrong issue. Solving global warming will require the dedicated focus over a sustained period of time. And that effort will have to get more aggressive over time as I highlight in point #3.
Change the politics and prove that it can be done. Right now the current global warming politics is stuck between those that say that this can be done and those that say that it will destroy the economy (or in developing countries, it will stymie efforts to pull millions of people out of poverty). Of course, we know in the U.S. from independent analysis that meeting the reduction goals is cost-effective (see here and here), will create more jobs (see here), will achieve other important objectives like reducing dependence on foreign oil (see here). And we are seeing some developing countries pulling millions out of poverty while still implementing serious efforts to reduce their pollution. So it can be done. But to change the politics we need to prove that it can be done by actually doing it across the world, which is why we need to get started. That is the typical history of environmental regulation – we get started, we find out that it can be done without destroying the economy (despite claims to the contrary), and this allows us to make it tougher over time.

So, we must lock-in the emissions reduction actions that we have, ensure that they are met, and make them tougher over time.

* The compilation of country submissions was greatly aided by our intern Lovelyn Nwarueze and our program assistant Carolina Herrera.

** I've updated this tally to breakout the 27 countries of the EU.

***That is an overly simple way of describing the challenge as there are important feedbacks which might be triggered if we exceed certain thresholds, but it helps to simply the differences in the conclusions of these studies.

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

Follow me on twitter: @jschmidtnrdc and Track countries' actions to reduce emissions.

Canada’s Proposal for Global Warming Actions Needs Lots of Work

2010-02-03T02:48:36Z

As a part of our effort to track progress towards countries commitments (see our new website From Copenhagen Accord to Climate Action), we’ll be inviting guest posts from key individuals and organizations in the particular country. This is a guest post by Gillian McEachern, Program Manager for Energy and Climate at Environmental Defence in Canada. NRDC works with Environmental Defence and other Canadian organizations on a number of environmental issues in Canada (see here for more detail).

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

Yesterday Canada officially handed over decision-making responsibility for tackling global warming to Washington. The Harper government’s submission to the UN set Canada’s target at "17% (below 2005), to be aligned with the final economy-wide emissions target of the United States in enacted legislation."

This is nothing new – for years, Canada hid behind US inaction during Bush’s reign. But, this time around, it’s likely to backfire. First, the new target makes Canada unique among developed countries: we are the only one to date that has signed up with the UN for an INCREASE over 1990 levels. This puts us behind the U.S., Japan, Australia, the European Union and Russia – our trading partners and competitors in the growing clean energy economy.

Second, Harper is betting that the U.S. won’t pass climate legislation, giving Canada a further excuse to do nothing. The last thing the Canadian government wants is to actually need to do something real on climate change for fear it would impact the massive expansion planned for the tar sands, the country’s fastest growing source of emissions. But, the Obama administration has shown that it’s serious about tackling this issue, and when the U.S. passes legislation dealing with climate, Canada will be caught with its pants down.

Third, despite all of the rhetoric from Canadian politicians, we really aren’t doing what the U.S. is. The U.S. has legislation under development. Canada has none. The U.S. has invested 14 times more per person in renewable energy and energy efficiency than Canada. Instead, Canada has cut funding for renewable energy and pumped it into the tar sands. Canada has no plan to actually reach a target and is relying on the leadership of a few provinces like Quebec and Ontario to do the heavy lifting while emissions from the tar sands triple over the next decade.

Copenhagen Accord = Climate Action - Update

2010-02-01T14:48:58Z

In December 2009, more than 120 Heads of Government attended the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, the largest meeting of world leaders in history (the previous largest one was the funeral of the Pope according to Wikipedia). Many of the leaders came to Copenhagen with new commitments to actions on global warming pollution (as I discussed here and here). Under the Accord, all of the big emitters are expected to record their commitments officially by January 31st, 2010 (in Appendix I and Appendix II).

Countries used to say: “we’ll act if you act”. Coming out of Copenhagen they are saying: “we’ll all act together”. So at the end of January, where are we towards those commitments?

Presidents and Prime Ministers from more than two dozen key countries that represent more than 80 percent of the world’s global warming pollution hammered out the Copenhagen Accord (as you can see in this table). So actions by these countries to reduce their emissions will be critical to solving global warming.

While the Accord didn’t accomplish all that we will ultimately need to address global warming, the Copenhagen Accord made progress on one of the key foundations for international efforts -- ACTIONS BY KEY COUNTRIES TO REDUCE THEIR GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION (as I discussed here, my colleague discussed here, and NRDC’s President discussed here).

NRDC will be tracking the commitments that countries outline to reduce their emissions. We will also follow the steps taken to implement these commitments -- the laws, policies, programs, etc -- and countries progress towards those commitments. And we’ll be tracking the support that is provided to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of global warming. So please follow progress on our new webpage and help us go From the Copenhagen Accord to Climate Action: Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming.

We are at the end of January -- the timeframe established in the Accord for countries to register their emissions reduction actions. So let’s look at what key countries have registered as their actions towards reducing their global warming pollution.

United States -- reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 and ultimately in line with the energy and climate legislation passed by Congress. See David Doniger’s post for more details on the US.

China -- reduce emissions per unit of GDP of 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and a commitment to increasing energy from non-fossil fuels to supply 15 percent of China's primary energy consumption by 2020. Also committed to increase forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 and increase forest stock volume 1.3 billion cubic meters above 2005 levels by 2020. See my colleague Barbara Finamore’s post for more details on the actions in China.

India -- reduce emissions per unit of GDP of 20 to 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. To meet and exceed this goal, India is increasing fuel efficiency standards by 2011; adopting building energy codes by 2012; increasing forest cover to sequester 10 percent of India's annual emissions in their forests; increasing the fraction of India's electricity derived from wind, solar, and small hydro to 20 percent in 2020 (from the current level of 8 percent). My colleague Anjali Jaiswal’s will post for more details on the actions in India.

Brazil -- reduce emissions growth by 36 to 39 percent below business-as-usual levels by 2020 -- a level estimated to bring down Brazil’s emissions to 1994 levels. Brazil also pledged to cut deforestation by 80 percent from historic levels by 2020 (as I’ve discussed here).

European Union -- reduce emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and would increase their commitment to 30 percent if other countries commit to ambitious efforts.

South Africa -- reduce emissions growth 34 to 42 percent below business-as-usual levels by 2020 with finance, technology, and capacity-building support from the developed world. See my previous post on South Africa for more details.

Mexico -- reduce its greenhouse gas emissions up to 30% compared to business as usual levels by 2020, provided there is adequate financial and technological support. They also committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 51 million tons by 2012.

Indonesia -- reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from business-as-usual levels and by as much as 41 percent with international support. See my previous post for more on Indonesia.

South Korea -- reduce emissions to 30 percent below projected levels by 2020, which equates to a target of approximately 4 percent below 2005 levels. See my previous post for more context on South Korea’s actions.

Some of these commitments are being conveyed to the U.N. as “voluntary commitments”. And I’m sure some will say, “we’ll those aren’t meaningful since the country isn’t saying that they’ll definitely do it”. But these countries are actually putting in place laws, regulations, and programs in their domestic context to actually meet these objectives. That is important as that is where the rubber meets the road. And with the agreement on transparency in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here) we’ll actually have regular mechanisms to evaluate the progress of countries towards their commitments.

These commitments are not enough to curb global warming, but they could be the first steps on a new pathway to real progress in reducing emissions and moving to a global low-carbon economy. They signal a real willingness of countries to move past words and to concrete actions to curb their global warming pollution.

So now is the time to move past words and to action. As the international efforts continue, let’s continue to focus on the actions that countries take to reduce their global warming pollution – after all that is what will actually solve global warming. I hope you’ll help us keep track and make sure that the Copenhagen Accord leads to climate action.

-------

Updates: Mexico's letter was officially posted so I changed their commitment to this new one. Prior Mexico had only spelled out a 2050 and a 2012 objective, but the official letter announces a new 2020 commitment.

All the official letters are available here for industrialized country commitments, here for developing country actions, and here for all others that sent official letters related to the Accord.

President Obama Reminds Us That It Is Time to Get to Work Solving Global Warming

2010-01-28T04:04:43Z

Countries representing over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution left Copenhagen committed to reduce their pollution. As we discussed here and here, this was a significant step forward in international efforts to address global warming. And by the end of this week, these countries are expected to record their commitments in the Copenhagen Accord (as my colleague discussed here). So the U.S. can no longer hide behind the inaction of others as an excuse for its own inaction. That wall has crumbled -- as now all major emitters are committing to take steps to address their pollution.

So now it is the Senate’s turn for action!

As someone that experienced the ups and downs of those two weeks of global negotiations -- probably the most complicated, confusing, and critical global negotiations in recent history -- it would have been easy to pack-up our tents, give-up, and hit the road. But that isn’t the America I know so President Obama rolled up his sleeves and negotiated an agreement with other world leaders.

So “conventional wisdom” in DC can have mood swings and that is definitely true right now on a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill in the Senate (a view that doesn’t match the facts as NRDC’s President stressed here). But when faced with ups and downs, obstacles, or uncertainty on critical issues that confront the U.S., this country doesn’t pack-up. As President Obama put it in tonight’s State of the Union Address:

“…when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain…And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

… We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit” [emphasis added].

After Copenhagen, I’ve been thinking more and more about the future that we are going to leave my two children (and your children). Do my kids look at me in 20, 30, 40 years and ask: “what happened? You were confronted with the challenge of global warming pollution and you didn’t tackle it?” Or do they look at me and ask: “how did you get it done? You faced such obstacles and yet you overcame them?” I hope that my children ask me the latter set of questions. And that is what President Obama noted in his speech:

“From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?” [emphasis added]

So despite all the recent “conventional wisdom” that President Obama would “duck for cover” and not push a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill this year, he slammed a door on those doubts (as NRDC’s President highlighted here and here):

“…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives…And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate” [emphasis added].

President Obama is signaling loud and clear that now is the time to pass comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation. A bill that will truly allow us to: “have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change”, as he put it.

And tonight, the President made it clear that the time to pass this legislation is now. Let your senators know that you agree.

Key Countries Agreed to Copenhagen Accord to Address Global Warming

2009-12-20T21:09:30Z

In the late morning hours Saturday in Copenhagen, the overwhelming majority of countries adopted a new framework for addressing global warming. This new agreement -- called the Copenhagen Accord (available here) -- was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries. These countries represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution (both energy emissions and deforestation) and the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

This agreement was hammered out Friday evening by Heads of Government from key countries, including the US, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, UK, France, Australia, Germany, the EU, Japan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Norway, the Maldives, Columbia, and Indonesia. The Accord is now open for other countries to sign-up, but by our count the vote (at least in the open debate) was 188-5 for its adoption (as we noted here) as a handful of climate laggards were the only countries that voted against its adoption (as my colleague Heather Allen compiled here).

As NRDC’s President said in a statement:

“This agreement is not all we had hoped for. There's still more work to be done. But it strikes a credible blow against the single greatest environmental ill of our time. It gathers all nations around the common goal of ending this scourge that imperils us all. And it sets the stage for further action in the months ahead. Now the Senate can take up clean energy and climate legislation in the certain knowledge that Americans won't act alone.”

From afar it is a little hard to figure out what exactly happened (and probably even for people that watched it first hand as “this was not your regular climate negotiations”). My head is blurry from lack of sleep and the craziness of the last day, but here is what was accomplished (I’ll try to post more detailed pieces on each aspect later).

1. Heads of Government from key Countries are engaged. This meeting brought together 115 Heads of Government to discuss global warming. And they weren’t just there for speeches, but to reach a deal. In fact, they were doing more than that as a key sub-segment of leaders were actually negotiating with other leaders, arm twisting, and pushing for agreement.

In my years of these negotiations I’ve never seen such a high-level commitment to the substance of action (usually when these leaders get together they just make speeches and leave). World leaders -- most notably President Obama -- took over these negotiations and used everything in their power to push forward an agreement in Copenhagen (as you can read this coverage from the Washington Post about how Obama worked with and nudged the Chinese).

2. All major emitting countries will have to commit to take action and solidify them in the international agreement. As I discussed (here and here), all major emitting countries will now have to internationally commit to specific efforts to reduce emissions. And by the end of January 2010 those commitments will be brought forward and established officially in the Accord (in Appendix I and Appendix II).

So you may be looking at the agreement as void of commitments to reduce emissions, but that will come in just over one month from now. But by the end of January we’ll have commitments enshrined in the agreement at least the 28 key countries that drafted this agreement. And as countries undertake greater action they will report them (as I discuss in point 3) and these actions will be inscribed in the Copenhagen Accord. So we’ll effectively create a means for countries to undertake increasing commitments that are inscribed in the Accord and if done right we’ll create an ongoing negotiation on the stringency of those actions.

So now the countries representing more than 80% of the world’s global warming pollution will commit domestically and internationally to take action to reduce their emissions. That is a first and a very significant move (as my colleague also noted here).

3. We will have a system to regularly know whether or not countries are making progress towards their commitments. This turned out to be one of the key sticking points going into the final days of the negotiations -- in particular between the US and China (as my colleagues discussed here, here, and here).

And there was a very significant breakthrough on this front in Copenhagen. Every two years developing countries will have to report national emissions inventories and emission reduction actions based upon internationally agreed guidelines. Those emissions reduction actions:

“will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years…they will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.”

The reporting of emissions and actions every 2 years, as well as the international consultation under defined guidelines will both add greater transparency to developing country commitments.

4. We secured real commitments to finance for investing in efforts in developing countries to reduce deforestation emissions, and adapt to the impacts of global warming. Countries agreed to support $30 billion over the next 3 years for these actions -- $3.5 billion of which is going to deforestation reductions. And developed countries agreed to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion per year by 2020 “in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation” (a proposal supported by Sec. Clinton in the final days of the negotiations which was a shot of adrenaline).

Not done yet, but the world built the foundation for a big step forward. While some people seem to be focused on what is not agreed in the Copenhagen Accord, we have to separate our expectations for Copenhagen with what we need in the final agreement. After all, we weren’t going to get a legally binding treaty out of Copenhagen as was recognized by key world leaders back in October (as I noted here).

Going into Copenhagen, I stressed that there were six key elements to the international agreement (as I outlined here). And on each of those fronts we made progress. Are we done yet on these issues? Of course not, we can and must do more on each element if we are going to truly address global warming. Did we get all the details that we need on each element? No, unfortunately for political reasons (e.g., lack of US Senate action) and due to the blocking of a small number of countries, the agreement reached in Copenhagen will have to be further fleshed out in the coming months (and years). On some issues there is less work to do than on others, but on all we only finalized part of the details necessary.

But despite these caveats, this Accord was a very significant step in the world’s efforts to address global warming. For the first time, all major economies, including China, India, Brazil, the United States, Russia, Japan, and the European Union, have made commitments to curb global warming pollution and report on their actions and emissions in a transparent fashion.

-------

Sorry for the lateness in posting updates on the final outcome, but the final days were frantic, sleep deprived (I stayed awake through the night on Friday and into Saturday morning, and confusing inside the Bella Center (lots of Heads of Government meetings, leaders running around with camera crews following, etc). So I’m just now getting around to finalizing a post as I leave Copenhagen on my way home (via London overnight due to snow blanketing the US east coast).

Heading into the second week of Copenhagen…the arc of the negotiations

2009-12-13T23:45:18Z

Wow! Has it really only been a week of the international global warming negotiations in Copenhagen. Based upon the intensity of the debate you would think that we are down to the wire in the second week of the negotiations. After all, these negotiations often only get finalized in the wee hours of the final days.

Usually these negotiations start out with a lot of optimism, then hit a lull around the end of the first week through the beginning of the second week, and then start to gain momentum towards agreement in the final days. This meeting has a very different trajectory. We started with grumbling (in response the Danish Text as I discussed here) and at the end of the first week things are tense but are down to a small set of key issues.

It is impressive that the negotiations have focused so quickly on a core set of issues. And at this stage we have a draft negotiation text (available here) which is down to 7 pages. Granted there are a number of technical decisions which add to the page length and there are differences on those details. But still even these have been narrowed down to the core set of issues. Some of these are narrowed down because the divisions have been nuanced for next year, while others have been narrowed because countries feel pressure to finally move off their original stated position.

If you only judged progress on the length of the negotiation text and the limited number of “core” issues that need to be resolved, then simply the structure of the current negotiation text would give you hope for this coming week. But there are a number of positive signs that we must not lose sight of:

Level of attention in key countries is at the highest level. We now have 110 Heads of Government who are going to attend the Copenhagen negotiations. And they aren’t just expected to come here to take a photo, but they are expected to help overcome impasses and to make real commitments to action. As a result you have Ministers from key countries in Copenhagen as early as last Wednesday (they were originally scheduled to arrive on Friday so clearly countries are under pressure to agree). And there are some Heads of Government expected as early as this coming Tuesday. The focus on this issue has had a huge increase this year.
World is paying attention to this issue very closely. On Saturday there was a march in Copenhagen where upwards of 40,000 people (maybe even as high as 100,000) people were calling for climate action (as the New York Times reported here). And the amount of people in the venue has overwhelmed the system to the extent that they have reduced the allowed number of people per organization (now I call that a declining cap) -- there are way over 20,000 people affiliated directly with the negotiations. I’ve never seen this many people in the negotiations, nor this much attention. We’ll need that level of world attention for a sustained period of time if we are to solve this challenge so that is very promising.
Key countries have signaled that they’ll take clear action. When the agreement was reached in Bali, it was a very big shift in the international efforts to address global warming. For the first time developing countries signaled that they would take action to reduce their global warming pollution. That was big news at the time. And now that news is very stale as it isn’t just the promise of action that we’ve secured. Rather, all the major emerging economies have outlined specific efforts that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution. And almost all developed countries have put forward more aggressive targets as a part of their commitment to continue to lead.

So that is the big ticket state of play. We have seen in just the last 2 years a huge upward trajectory of international action on global warming and more high-level focus on this critical issue.

But what should we watch this week? I see three key issues emerging as the heart of the negotiations in the final stretch:

Do developed countries come forward with clear commitments on finance? It looks like we’ll get agreement on the $10 billion per year in “prompt start” funding through 2012. The Europeans made a nice down payment (as we discussed here) and all countries are working very hard to be able to come forward with their “fair share”. So it looks like the key issue will focus around whether there is a clear signal that larger investments will be produced in the 2015 and 2020 timeframes.
Wil countries “stand behind their commitments”. The US and China (and to a lesser extent India) are in intense negotiations on how they will have to provide transparent information to show that they are living up to their commitments. I’m optimistic that they can find a path forward as both the US-China and US-India agreements contained very positive movement on this front (as I discussed here and here). As Special Envoy Todd Stern said: “…I absolutely think that there is a deal to be done here”.
How we finalize the treaty next year. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) have made a big push this past week to establish a treaty here in Copenhagen. Hopefully this will lead to a very clear political signal to finalize a new treaty next year. And we’ll need to have a specific path that gives confidence that this agreement will be finalized next year.

In just about 4 days, key Heads of Government will be in Copenhagen. They need to lock in the actions that what we’ve achieve over the past 2 years, lay the groundwork for deeper efforts next year, and create the foundation for the final treaty in months, not years. That is a goal that is within reach.

Will it be easy? No. Will it be a smooth path to get there? Definitely not. After all this is a negotiation. Countries poke and prod each other. Countries push hard on one position. But if they are really interested in finding agreement a path emerges. If they moved too quickly towards agreement then you would think: “they could have moved even farther”. So expect a lot more back-and-forth this week before agreement is reached in the “dark hours of Copenhagen”.

Agreement can emerge if we continue to stay focused on the “big ticket” items and not get lost in the details. The details matter immensely, but let’s not forget that we need to have strong underlying actions if we are truly going to have a robust international agreement. And on that front the trajectory isn’t as positive as we ultimately need, but is clearly headed upward.

Danish Text…What Is All the Fuss from Copenhagen

2009-12-09T23:35:08Z

Danish Text? Yes the draft negotiating text that was “secretly” developed by the Danes to try to move the world forward on addressing global warming pollution.

Would that be the text that certain countries can’t remember having seen? The text shared with many of the key countries, including key developing countries prior to the beginning of the Copenhagen negotiations? Yes to all of those things.

Was that the “secret” text that no one knew about -- except those key developed and developing countries that saw the text together at the same time? Yes one and the same. Well I guess the “secret” was that it wasn’t leaked sooner.

So what is the big deal?

I’m still trying to figure out why some people seem so surprised that: (1) such a draft document exists; and (2) a smaller group of key countries are sitting around the table to try to work through key differences in advance of a Heads of Government Summit.

That is how high-stakes negotiations are conducted and if that is what it takes to move the process forward to putting the world on a path to solve this challenge then I’m all for it. [The Financial Times hit the nail on the head with their story, while the Guardian totally blew up the story on the basis of some “conspiracy”].

These negotiations always have this kind of smaller process that tries to break down the differences outside the “theatrics” of the formal negotiations. After all it is hard to get consensus in a big room, with 192 countries wanting to make a point. They have different names -- "friends of the chair” or “friends of the president” -- but they are all characterized by one thing – they don’t include all 192 countries.

In my old job we used to conduct dialogues where we would try to get underneath a countries stated negotiating position. We found that when you could question countries stated position, you could understand where they were really coming from and find solutions. Often we found solutions that addressed the concerns of two countries that used to be at opposite ends of an issue. Without such a process you would never get into “problem solving” mode. All you would be doing is rehashing stated positions.

So we used to do three things:

Keep the meetings small (usually no more than 30 key negotiators);
Structure the dialogue to be a back-and-forth so we could really get to the bottom of a countries position (we put people around a square table and made them talk to each other and challenge assumptions about each others position); and
Developed “straw proposals” (draft proposals that took a position to get a reaction and then help force the group to flesh out their real concerns and hopefully agree to a path forward).

Sound familiar? Well it kind of sounds like the process that the Danes conducted to try to get us closer to addressing this challenge.

After all, we’ve had a number of negotiating sessions this year where countries have had draft negotiating text in front of them. And all that has produced is a process where proposals are shortened, rephrased, and reoriented on a page. That isn’t negotiating. Negotiating is where you say: “I can live with that if you do this”.

As a number of countries have told me privately:

“We weren’t negotiating. That process wasn’t going to produce an agreement.”

So the Danes tried to move the process forward in a different manner in order to move the world closer towards agreement. I can’t really blame them for trying this as going at the same problem in the same way isn’t leadership it is brainless. Thank goodness the Danish Presidency is trying everything it can to get a strong agreement out of Copenhagen that will lead to a treaty in a matter of months, not years (as I’ve discussed here).

It caused some “controversy” and maybe participants will get the grumbling about process out of their system early so we can get down to real negotiations. So maybe this is “the storm, before the agreement”.

I hope everyone stays focused on the real action -- are countries taking action to address this challenge (as I discussed here and here). On that front we have very positive momentum.

We must do better than this kind of “made-up” drama if we are going to solve this challenge. Lead us to solutions not to more games.

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

I’m not alone in sharing these views as you can see from these posts from other leading climate policymakers.

South Africa Commits to Global Warming Reductions

2009-12-08T12:24:03Z

In a little bit of very positive news just before the global warming negotiations began here in Copenhagen another key developing country came forward with a clear sign of the steps that they’ll take. South Africa announced that they would slow the growth of their global warming pollution by 2020.

Specifically, they proposed that they would cut their emissions by 34% below projected levels in 2020 and by 42% below in 2025. This adds another country to the growing list of developing countries that have outlined clear steps to curb their global warming pollution (as you can see from my post: Developing Country Action to Reduce Global Warming Pollution).

As they said in a statement:

"This level of effort enables South Africa's emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025, plateau for approximately a decade and decline in absolute terms thereafter."

Back in July of last year, they announced that they would have their emissions peak and decline (as I discussed here and here) so this adds more detail to that commitment. They offered this commitment as a part of a broader international agreement and with support from developed countries.

This is a very positive step and will give a bit more of a boost to global warming negotiations occurring in Copenhagen. And with South African President Zuma announcing that he will also attend the Summit in Copenhagen another key leader has shown that he is committed to finding solutions to this important challenge.

Making Investments in Developing Countries to Solve Global Warming: Copenhagen (Part 5)

2009-12-06T16:10:32Z

As I discussed in Part 3 we have seen significant progress on the willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own. All the major emerging economies have now outlined specific efforts that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution.

Most of these are proposed as actions that the country would take on their own -- with no assistance from developed countries. This is a very positive shift as the debate used to be developing countries saying: “we’ll only do what you pay us to do”. Of course we know that we need to find ways to help developing countries make even deeper emissions cuts, which is why the international agreement needs to have: properly designed and performance-based incentives from developed countries to encourage even greater developing country emissions reductions (my “key element” 4 as I discussed here).

So with developing countries taking steps to curb their global warming pollution on their own, they are now essentially saying: “we’ll do this on our own and we can go this much further with assistance”. I like to picture it like this:

These “performance-based incentives” can come from two key places – similar to the deforestation debate (as I discussed here). They can come from “market” (from offsets purchased by the private sector) or “non-market” (from public funding and set asides of revenues from a climate bill) sources -- and we need both. So I’ll explain a bit more as these are critical aspects of the international debate.

Market based incentives are generated by developed countries investing in emissions reductions in developing countries. The emissions reductions in developing countries are then used by developed countries to count towards their emissions reduction commitments (often called “offsets”). We’ve learned a lot from the failures of the current international offset system (the Clean Development Mechanism) and that is why there is an emerging debate to evolve from offsets. If this evolution is done right then these investments can both mobilize additional emissions reductions in developing countries and sizeable investments in clean energy and deforestation reductions. The climate bill passed by the US House of Representatives undertakes this “evolved” framework (as I discussed here) and the Europeans have been seriously moving in that direction.

But I won’t elaborate more on the key principles that I think are essential for this “evolution” as I don’t expect we’ll get into that level of detail in Copenhagen. Rather we are more likely to get an overarching statement that investment should come from “private” financing or “market-based” approaches. If you see those words in the final agreement then the real work will begin next year as we’ll have to ensure that the rules are properly designed.

Non-market based incentives are critical as they can help leverage larger public sector financing and can mobilize clean energy deployment in developing countries. If we follow the normal development cycle where developing countries get clean technologies 10-15 years after they are deployed in the developed world, then we are in deep trouble. We need to speed up this process and non-market finance can help. And if done right it can create opportunities for companies in the US and other developed countries to tap into the growing demand for clean energy in developing countries and provide incentives for even greater emissions reduction actions in developing countries (as I discussed here).

Will Copenhagen move forward with investments in developing countries? I sure hope so. We have to start deploying clean energy and deforestation solutions in developing countries now. Every year of delay makes it that much harder and often forecloses options (e.g., we build coal plants that last a long time without capturing carbon and we lose forests that can’t be replaced).

So it looks like we’ll get agreement to generate $10 billion per year through 2012 coming out of Copenhagen – a share of which will go to clean energy deployment and deforestation reductions in developing countries. A number of key developed countries have been working hard to be able to come forward with their contribution towards this aim. Senator Kerry has written Secretary Clinton to suggest that the US should contribute $3 billion towards that aim (see here) and now President Obama signaled support for contributing towards this goal. Hopefully these two announcements signal that the US will be able to live up to that commitment as President Obama will have to work with Members of Congress to ensure the investment is finalized.

As President Obama put it:

“…there appears to be an emerging consensus that a core element of the Copenhagen accord should be to mobilize $10 billion a year by 2012 to support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable and least developed countries that could be destabilized by the impacts of climate change. The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well. In Copenhagen, we also need to address the need for financing in the longer term to support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries” [emphasis added].

But we know that this near-term investment is just a down payment in the effort to deploy clean energy and reduce deforestation emissions in developing countries. We’ll need a larger and more sustainable source of investment if we’ll really be able to invest in a global agreement that solves this challenge. This is why there will be an intense negotiation here in Copenhagen about the post-2012 investments and the institutional arrangements to ensure that the money is spent well. I’m not sure if we’ll get agreement here in Copenhagen on the post-2012 funding, but we sure need to soon.

Both this near-term funding and the medium-term funding are in everyone’s interest as I discussed here. Or as President Obama put it:

“Providing this assistance is not only a humanitarian imperative - it's an investment in our common security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help all countries reduce their emissions” [emphasis added].

So let’s get investing!

Stemming Global Deforestation Emissions: Copenhagen (Part 4)

2009-12-04T21:36:19Z

There was an extensive debate in the lead-in to the Kyoto Protocol (and after) about whether incentives for reducing deforestation would be recognized as a part of the agreement. For a number of reasons countries didn’t agree to include deforestation incentives, but did agree to allow increased forest cover to count. Unfortunately a lot of the world’s forests were lost in the meantime.

But things changed…

In 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica proposed that deforestation incentives be included in the future international agreement to address global warming. And thus launched the formal negotiations on reducing emissions for deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

This was a very positive step as deforestation accounts for an estimated 15% of the world’s global warming pollution -- an amount equivalent to the emissions from all the cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes in the world. And its loss has untold ramifications on water, stability of countries, forest dependent people, etc. (as I’ve discussed here and here).

This negotiation has gone through its normal ups and downs and there is still disagreement on some key issues (as you can see here). But we’ve seen some very positive movement to: turn the corner on efforts to combat global deforestation (my “key element” 3).

There has been a huge amount of consensus on deforestation in the global warming negotiations:

All key countries -- developed and developing countries -- are supportive of efforts to address deforestation. It has been quiet a surprise at how many countries have now signaled that they support efforts to address deforestation. It is a diverse group, which makes it more likely that clear support will be provided in the Copenhagen agreement and the final legal agreement.
Key deforesting countries have shown willingness to curb their deforestation rates. Brazil and Indonesia two of the largest deforesting countries have sent clear signals that they’ll curb their deforestation (as I discussed in Part 3). And countries ranging from Peru to Guyana and Costa Rica to Vietnam (and many more in-between) are beginning to take steps to reduce their deforestation rates. Is it all smooth? Of course not, but you can’t solve this challenge if you don’t have the will to take action of key deforesting countries.
Recognition that there is a need for a variety of incentives. There has been an extensive debate on whether funding should come from market (e.g., carbon offsets) or non-market (e.g., public funding and set asides of revenues from a climate bill). While there are still some disagreements, there is an emerging view that the answer is both. We need to leverage sizeable investments and both market and non-market funding can tap into different aspects of the solution to addressing deforestation. This was recognized in the climate bill that passed the US House of Representatives (as I discussed here) and will hopefully be retained in the Senate.

So this is why there is optimism that the agreement that is reached in Copenhagen will include a separate accord on deforestation (as I discussed here). And given that there is agreement on such important overarching issues around deforestation, there is an expectation that this portion of the agreement will likely be further progressed than other aspects of the Copenhagen agreement. That is good news as it will make it easier to translate these agreements into legally binding commitments that have all the “i’s dotted” and “t’s crossed”. And that is good news for the loss of the world’s tropical forests -- as it will hopefully unleash all our efforts to solving this critical challenge.

But there are some important details that will have to be resolved before the final legal agreement is done. And these will be the subject of intense negotiation in Copenhagen (and beyond), so here are some key issues to watch:

The scope of the incentives. The debate around deforestation has increased focus on other sources of emissions and sequestration (e.g., reforesting) from the land-use sector. So REDD has now been extended to REDD+ (where the plus means agriculture soil, tree planting, etc. depending on who you talk to). This is very positive as we’ll need to “reduce all the emissions and suck all the carbon out of the air that we can” if we are to solve this challenge. But we think it is critical to keep a very sharp focus on deforestation and forest degradation and develop separate incentives for other aspects of the “+”. Trying to create a single incentive mechanism that solves everything through one set of rules sounds good on paper, but will be too dependent on every rule being defined exactly right (a situation that never actually works in the real world).
Avoiding incentives to convert native forests. We don’t want to create an incentive program that on the one hand is supporting efforts to reduce deforestation and on the other hand is providing incentives for converting native forests. It would be like paying for car insurance that covers damage only from hitting other cars and then driving your car off a cliff. It would be like paying for car insurance that rewards drivers who stay within speed limits and rewards drivers that text while on the road.
Methodologies to ensure robust measurement and accounting of the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. We have come a long way towards having a system to track the loss of forests throughout the world and to assess the carbon impact of that loss. But as they always say “the devil is in the details”. There are some proposals floating around that won’t provide the necessary level of assurance on measurement and accounting. We need to have a program that creates a clear “gold standard” on this front. If the system doesn’t pass the laugh test then it won’t be able to attract the necessary public and private investment. As one movie put it (sort of): “they built and no one came”.
What kind of “safeguards” are included? There are critical issues around ensuring protections for biodiversity and indigenous and forest dependent peoples that need to be addressed before this whole thing is completed. And we need to have clear safeguards that the investments are going to real, concrete actions on the ground. I believe that we can address these issues, but we can’t rely on the “good faith” of all players -- we need clear rules and standards.

Two (maybe three) steps closer to finally turning the corner. As our President Frances Beinecke discussed here, we are hopeful that we’ll see some agreement in Copenhagen on deforestation. We’ve made huge progress since the negotiations on deforestation began in earnest.

Let’s make sure we don’t lose the forest for the trees.

Developing Country Action to Reduce Global Warming Pollution: Copenhagen Part 3

2009-12-03T21:23:54Z

"If only developing countries would take action to reduce their global warming pollution". That is the refrain that was heard in capitals around the world for years. This was driven partly by a concern over competitiveness in some places (e.g., the US and EU). And it was also driven by the reality that global emissions (both developed and developing country) need to decline if we are going to solve this challenge. And while developed countries need to take the lead in making deep emissions cuts (as I discussed in Part 2), we need to find a way for developing countries to pull millions/billions of people out of poverty while reducing global warming pollution.

"We can't accept limits on our global warming pollution". This is a refrain we used to hear from major developing countries for years. Almost anytime they were asked by a reporter (or anyone else for that matter) something like that came out. Usually this was read as: "we won't do anything to address our global warming pollution". Which wasn't exactly true in many countries, but perception is often as important as facts.

Well thankfully both refrains have much better answers now than a couple of years ago (and even a couple of weeks ago).

So the next key element of the international agreement that I'll discuss is the: willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term. This action is closely related to the "incentives for deeper emissions reductions" (my "key element" 4, which I'll cover in Part 5) and the mechanisms to ensure that countries "open up their books and defend them" (my "key element" 6, which I'll discuss in Part 6).

All the major emerging economies have outlined specific efforts that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution. These include:

China has just announced that they'll cut their greenhouse gas emissions intensity per unit of GDP by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (as my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here). And they previously announced that they would have non-fossil fuels account for 15% of their primary energy consumption by 2020 and increase forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 (as I discussed here).
Brazil has pledged to cut their deforestation rate by 80% from historic rates by 2020 (as I discussed here). They have been making pretty good progress on addressing their deforestation rates over the past couple of years (as you can see here). Brazil has also just announced that it will reduce emissions by 36-39% in 2020 below the projected level (as released here by the Brazilian government)-a level estimated to cut their emissions to their levels in 1994.
India, has just announced that they are "voluntarily ready to reduce emission intensity by 20-25 per cent [below 2005 levels] within 2020" (as reported here). This target is based upon a new estimate of the impact of a number of measures which are part of a comprehensive National Action Plan on Climate Change, where they outlined commitments to national mitigation actions, including plans to generate 20GW of solar capacity by 2020 and cut energy consumption by 5% by 2015 (as you can see in this NRDC fact sheet).
Indonesia has announced that they were devising an energy policy including land use and forestry which will reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from business as usual levels, eventually reducing emissions by as much as 41 percent with help from the international community (as I discussed here).
South Korea announced that they would cut their economy-wide global warming pollution to 30 percent below the projected 2020 levels -- an estimated 4 percent cut from 2005 levels (as I discussed here).
Mexico is developing an emissions trading system to cut emissions from the electricity, oil, cement, and possibly steel sectors. In addition, President Calderon has committed to cut Mexico's emissions by 50% in 2050 (as I discussed here). Stay tuned as it wouldn't surprise me if Mexico firmed up that commitment in Copenahagen.
South Africa has outlined that their emissions "must peak, plateau, and decline". Specifically, this would mean that South Africa's emissions must stop growing no later than 2025 and must begin declining in absolute terms around 2030-2035 (as I discussed here)

Copenhagen has been a driver for developing countries to bring forward commitments to action. These major emerging economies combined with the developed countries that are taking action (as I discussed in Part 2) account for over 80% of the world's global warming pollution. So all the major emitters have now signaled efforts that they'll take to curb their global warming pollution.

If you would have asked anyone just 2 years ago (or even 1 year ago), I wager that no one would have told you that all these countries would have come forward with such signs of actions. So Copenhagen has been an important driver in encouraging major emerging economies to bring forward commitments to curb their global warming pollution.

Hopefully this progress will get solidified in the international agreement in some manner (as I'll discuss in Part 6) and then next year we can focus on firming up these commitments and translating them into the final international agreement.

But either way, these are very positive signs that less global warming pollution will be going into the atmosphere from these key countries. I'm optimistic that more can be done, but let's not lose focus on the progress that has occurred on this front.