USA scores own goal by moving the goal posts

by nathan thanki

There was quite a stink created this week when US Special Envoy for Climate Change (the big-shot who shows up late to the UN climate talks and gets interrupted by his constituents for not truly speaking for them) made a "remark" to his old College, Dartmouth. There was widespread condemnation of the apparent u-turn on US climate policy, which had previously agreed (in 2009, 2010, 2011) to a target of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees celsius. After all, more than 100 countries and large swathes of civil society actually call for 1.5 degrees celsius as a limit to the amount of warming. But today Mr. Stern has downplayed those concerns, saying that the US is not renaging on anything and that the "flexibility" he called for is about breaking stalemates rather than undermining this principle.

At the risk of boring everyone, including myself, let's take a look at Mr Stern's speech, available here, and read for ourselves. Comments in blue italics are mine.

Read more…

Disagreements and distrust over chairmanship of the Durban Platform

~by Graham Reeder

Last night was an exciting night in the Bonn plenary hall, it was a chance to see the real UN circus at play. There will be two co-chairs for the new Durban Platform on Enhanced Action (ADP), one from a developing country and one from a developed country. The WEOG (Western Europe and Others: all of western Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and Turkey) nominated Mr Harald Dovland of Norway as the developed country chair, there have been no other nominations. The developing country chairmanship is a little bit trickier though. The Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) have nominated Mr. Kishan Kumarsingh of Trinidad and Tobago, an AOSIS member who has chaired a number of meetings in the past including the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice. The Asia-Pacific group, however, have proposed Mr Jayant Moreshwar Mauskar of India to chair, the lead Indian negotiator and was the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It is clear that there has been major competition between countries on who should be the developing country chair.

The selection of an Indian chair would be a significant move, given that India has been a major player in the ADP negotiations and have been strongly pushing for the centrality of equity to these negotiations. Having an AOSIS member chair could be very different however, and is more in line with EU wishes given the strong influence that they maintain inside some elements of AOSIS. The Asia-Pacific group is taking a strong stance on this issue because it includes many mid-range developing economies that are very concerned about being punished for trying to develop under the new ADP. The chair position is important because chair’s, although expected to be impartial, have a tremendous amount of power in shaping how the process moves forward and who’s inputs end up in the final outcome. An Indian chair could shift the balance of power that has tipped in favour of the richest countries since the UNFCCC was high-jacked just before Copenhagen.

Until there is a chair, the COP presidency (South Africa) will chair the meetings, but because the COP president Mrs. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane is now back in South Africa, the VP of the COP, Mr. Robert Van Lierop from Suriname, was chairing the meeting. China raised procedural concerns that Lierop’s chairing the decision of chair represents a conflict of interest because he also represents a GRULAC country and called for him to step down. As far as I’ve heard, this kind of move is unprecedented at the UNFCCC, but China is very concerned that he is also conducting the informal consultations on who the chair should be, which would be highly problematic. After two hours of back and forth fighting, Gambia for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) proposed a way forward. The proposal was to have the COP presidency continue to hold consultations about the chair while the meeting itself could continue with it’s work under the presidency’s chairing with the end of next week as a hard deadline for the chair decision. Parties agreed to that decision, and the meeting just resumed with a new representative for the COP presidency (this time from South Africa) chairing the meeting. Hopefully the group can adopt a solid agenda that includes all of the elements of the Durban agreement (mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, and finance).

Equity matters

~by Graham Reeder

Today’s negotiations have almost exclusively been dedicated to the subject of equity. The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, after spending most of yesterday squabbling over its agenda, got straight into holding their all-day workshop on equitable access to sustainable development.

The word equity in the context of the negotiations decisions has its origins in the Cancun outcomes (https://unfccc.int/files/na/application/pdf/07a01-1.pdf) and was further entrenched in the Durban outcomes (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf). But the concept is much older, in fact, the concept of equity is central to the very core of these negotiations, the convention itself. Contained as core principles of the UNFCCC are ‘Historical Responsibility’—meaning that those who have created this problem are responsible for cleaning it up—‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’—meaning that developed and developing countries play a different role in tackling and adapting to climate change—and ‘Respective Capabilities’—meaning that those countries who have more capacity (read: money, technology, institutions) to deal with climate change should take on more responsibility.

The concept of equity is extremely important for parties to address right now, as it needs to be the basis for new negotiations on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The presentations have been lively and, for the most part, articulate. Sivan Kartha from the Stockholm Environment Institute, a senior scientist for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) kicked the morning off with a highly articulate presentation on how to fairly allocate the remaining atmospheric space as well as the burden for addressing climate change based on science and the principles of the convention. Prodipto Ghosh from the Energy and Resources Institute continued with a highly theoretical and academic approach to defining equity and applying it scientifically to emissions reductions that went over most negotiators’ heads. After that, presentations were given from a whole range of parties and a couple of other organisations (like the South Centre).

The crux of equity is that developed country parties both need to take the lead on cutting their own emissions and finance emissions reductions and sustainable development in the developing world by providing money and affordable clean technologies. This was agreed upon in the convention and has been affirmed countless times, but some rich countries are using the current economic climate and economic growth in China and India as an excuse, saying that they cannot afford what they owe and that times have changed. But have times really changed all that much? China and India’s economies have grown, but their per capita income and emissions have remained small. The US, EU, Canada, and other developed countries however have grown much wealthier, and their per capita emissions are still very far ahead of other countries. Singapore argued that a per capita approach to emissions counting (rather than a gross national emissions counting approach) is unfair to small countries as it exaggerates their emissions. However, Egypt was quick to note that if a per capita approach is taken alongside the other principles of equity, where developed and developing countries are distinguished by capabilities and responsibilities, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Equity will be a central theme of negotiations here in Bonn, as the new Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action begins work here, figuring out how equity will unlock the door to ambition will be necessary to determine how we move forward.

Bonn Intersessionals Kick off

~by Joe Perullo and Graham Reeder

Photo credit: UNFCCC.int

The sun is shining in the old capital of western Germany as the 36th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (Implementation and Scientific and Technical Advise) kick off on day 1 of the Bonn intersessionals.

Intersessionals are smaller meetings than COPs, they are charged with getting the work done that the annual COPs agree to and preparing for the following year’s work, the atmosphere is more casual and delegates can be seen chatting in the hallway with one another. However, that isn’t to say that the meetings are a vacation; this session has a very full agenda with crucial work to be done that will determine the future of the climate regime (and by extension, the climate).

The Convention’s new body, created last December known as the Ad-hoc Working Group for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, more simply the ‘ADP,’ will have its very first session during these meetings this Wednesday. This body is what will virtually replace the LCA (Ad-hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action) which will finish its work this year. Like the LCA, the ADP will cover issues of Technology Transfer, Finance, Capacity Building, Adaptation, and Mitigation. Unlike the LCA, the ADP does not contain words like ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities.’ Their absence from the text is the result of utter stubbornness by developed countries, particularly the US, to not agree to anything that would contain these words and threaten their race to the bottom.

Equity still has a chance though! While it is not mentioned in the ADP text itself, Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and Historical Responsibility are two foundational principles of the Convention, which the ADP must adhere to. Developing countries claim that, since the ADP is a subsection of the Convention, these rules still apply.

So the battle for equity is ever clear, and as the ADP begins to take form over these negotiations, we will see which interpretation of it prevails.

One clear theme of these negotiations will be ambition. The ADP is all about increasing ambition, a welcome change of tone from the LCA, which has been bogged down in incredibly slow progress and stalling. The question is, ambition from whom? As the ADP is designed, it is important to remember who has already showed ambition in reducing their emissions: the developing world.

While rich countries have complained that the poor are asking for too much and not doing enough work, the developing countries have cut more emissions that the entire developed world, and have done so without being bound to legally binding emissions reductions. Rich countries (the US notably excluded, who couldn’t even muster ratifying the Kyoto Protocol) on the other hand have completely failed to reduce their emissions despite being legally bound to do so. While some, like the EU, have gone about hiding their mess under the rug with loopholes, offsets, and creative accounting, Canada has just gone ahead and stormed out of the room, complaining that it should be up to the world’s poor to clean up it’s mess. Canada is having too much fun playing in their tar sand-pit to stop. It is important that all countries participate in fighting climate change, but we cannot forget who has created this mess and who has the capacity to clean it up. China and India have huge populations and, on a per-capita basis, are neither rich nor major emitters, the burden of fighting climate change cannot be shifted to their shoulders and this meeting will be important for keeping the burden of responsibility where it belongs: with the rich and developed.

Lots of other work will be going on under the different bodies of the UNFCCC over the next two weeks, and we’ll be here to keep you up to date of what is going on.