Copenhagen taking shape

I’ve found it difficult to get information on the likely outcome of the Copenhagen climate change conference scheduled for December this year to plan the post-Kyoto arrangements. Robert has drawn attention to talks between the US and China. Tim Hollo has a strong post at Rooted.

This morning in a complete coincidence a feed I take drew my attention to a BBC piece where the head of the UNFCCC, one Yvo de Boer, tells us they have now put on the table for the first time a “real negotiating text”. The text is available from this site or if you prefer, go directly to the pdf document.

The purpose of this post is to share thoughts and any other sources, with a few initial thoughts of my own.

But first we are going to have to learn a new language. So to enable you to dip into the document at any point I’ve had a go at identifying the acronyms. Corrections and additions are welcome.

COP Conference of Parties

EGTT Expert Group on Technology Transfer

ESTR Environmentally sound technology rewards

LDCs Least developed countries

MRV Measurable, verifiable or reportable*

NAMA Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries

NAPA National adaptation programme of action (developing countries too, I think)

ODA Official development assistance

REDD Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries

SBSTA Subsidiary body for Scientific and Technological Advice

SIDS Small island developing states

TNA Technology needs assessment

TRIPS Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (a WTO term – as in TRIPS Agreement)

* From an article on India, linked below.

The one that perhaps needs explanation is the COP. It’s the 192 members of the UNFCCC meeting in conference. Copenhagen will be COP-15.

From the above it can be seen that a lot of work is being put into the administrative arrangements for implementation and cooperation.

The text is in typical UN form with alternative texts included. The WTO does not use this technique, preferring a ‘chairman’s text’, which is the source of endless grief. The UN approach gives reasonable hope, I think, of some sort of an agreement.

CO2 targets of 350, 400 and 450ppm seem to be in contemplation (see para 12, p.8), with global emissions reduction targets ranging from 50% by 2050 to more than 85%. The top bid for the developed countries is to reduce emissions by more than 95% (see para 14 b).

Emissions reductions targets by 2020 range from “by at least 25 to 40″ to “at least 45″.

That’s all from a 1990 baseline.

A guard rail of 1.5C is mentioned as an alternative to 2C.

The options for peaking of emissions range from “between 2010 and 2013″ and “in the next 10-20 years.

In para 15 they’ve had a shot at targets for developing countries with 2020 as the main benchmark. I think that para will get knocked out.

If it does the adequacy of the whole thing will depend on whether they choose the ambitious end of the spectrum and whether the NAMA approach for developing countries under the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ will deliver or just lead to gaming in individual state’s perceived interests.

On the positive side we have China demanding 40% emissions cuts of the rich countries by 2020. If they turn out to be gaming the situation Paul Krugman suggests we should just whack on some tariffs.

India will take a hard line in wanting clear and quantified commitments of aid to the developing countries. In total:

During negotiations, China and India have called for 1% of the developed world’s gross domestic product (GDP) to be committed to developing countries for emission cuts. As of now, negotiation submissions do not mention any concrete financial commitments.

From the above Australia might not be lead in the saddlebag, but no help either with their ambitions firmly to the bottom of the range. It would be better for the world if they just shut up. Attend, but keep their heads down and just shut up.

As to whether Copenhagen as such saves the world, that depends in part on how badly the world needs saving. Based on the work done in the Climate Crunch issue of Nature I’ve head one estimate that if we continue to increase emissions at 3.5% a year we’ll use up our carbon budget in maybe 11 years (that was David Spratt the other day on Bush Telegraph on the radio).

Via a link from the thread at Rooted MIT reckon warming could be double that previously predicted:

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

The UNFCC draft mentions periodically reviewing progress (para 16) and a comprehensive review by 2016 in the light of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report. But that’s only progress, not the targets and goals until presumably 2016. Even if they are ambitious at Copenhagen, I’ll wager they’ll be back at it before then. Especially since according to Ronald Prinn, the lead author of the MIT study, their modeling:

may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going to make it worse,” Prinn says.