Christiana Figueres, executive secretary, UNFCCC
UN climate change talks were held in Bonn, Germany from 6 – 17 June, 2011. This is the official description:
“The 34th sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) took place from 6-16 June. The second part of the fourteenth session of the AWG-LCA and the second part of the sixteenth session of the AWG-KP took place from 7-17 June. All sessions were held at the Maritim Hotel in Bonn.”
In short the talks involving over 180 countries were about long term co-operation under the Bali Roadmap and about extending the Kyoto Protocol. The meetings were meant to pick up on the outcomes of the 16th Conference of Parties (COP) in Cancún last December and prepare for the 17th COP in Durban this December.
The Deutsche Welle summary begins with the “juggernaut” grinding forward and ends with the somewhat pathetic note that there is going to be another meeting before Durban, but they didn’t get around to deciding when and where. They cost a bit, and the developed countries, who pay, have yet to commit the funds. The Deutsche Welle report report shows that UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, is well aware of the central problem:
“There are at least two realities here that we have to bring together,” Figueres said. “On one hand, science is saying our emissions in the atmosphere have to peak in 2015. That makes things that much more pressing for governments. The other reality is tied to politics and economics, which also affect climate deals.”
In other words the talking has to come to grips with the realities of the science. So far it hasn’t. More of that later. The Guardian’s report puts the situation very succinctly:
Two weeks of tense global climate talks wrapped up on Friday, with countries insisting they had made progress on technical issues but accepting they were still nowhere near agreement in the three key areas of finance, greenhouse gas emission cuts and the future of the Kyoto protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol
The developing countries want the advanced economies to extend the formal commitments of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, with legally binding transparent and accountable commitments.
Japan, Canada and Russia have made it clear they will not play ball. The US is not interested unless major developing countries come on board. The G77 (131 developing countries) plus China are lobbying the EU to go alone perhaps with a remnant of other willing countries. So far they won’t.
The US under Barack Obama are promoting a deregulation of the climate regime with a ‘pledge and review’ system rather than binding targets based on the science. In other words, a voluntary system with no necessary connection to the task at hand.
‘Pledge and review’ looks the only way forward.
Greenhouse gas emission cuts
A recent UNEP report shows that countries’ promises for emission reductions are way below levels necessary to avert dangerous climate change, and could lead to a 5C degree rise in temperature.
To keep global temperature rise below 2C degrees, 14 gigatonnes of carbon pollution must be cut. To keep global temperatures below a safer level of 1.5C degrees even more pollution must be curbed – but currently pledged cuts only add up to 5.5 gigatonnes [less than half what is required]. Scientists predict that this could lead to 5C of temperature rise.
That came from this handy site.
Dr. Sivan Kartha, senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) was blunt:
“You can’t negotiate with science. You can’t negotiate with the Earth’s natural limits. At the moment emission reduction pledges take us far over those limits. This data shows that there is a huge gap between what is needed to be done and what is being done.”
The claim is that 65% of promised cuts are coming from developing countries, although they are only responsible for 25% of the historical problem.
You may recall that some developing countries, acknowledged and supported by Christiana Figueres, sought a lower guardrail of 1.5C rather than 2C. The African civil society group Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) want 1 to 1.5C.
Bolivia was calling for a limit of 1C and emissions reductions of 50% by 2017 for the advanced economies. See also their conference presentation here.
Finance
In Copenhagen in 2009 $30 billion of short-term funding by 2012 was promised to help developing countries reduce emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
On one count less than $5 billion of that may turn out to be genuinely new money. According to Kate Horner, senior analyst at Friends of the Earth (US), the US is particularly recalcitrant:
“The United States continues to block progress on the most important issues in these talks. Not only do they refuse to negotiate their alarmingly insufficient pollution reduction target, this week the US refused to discuss how they will meet financial pledges they have already made.”
The US is particularly negative about discussing innovative ways of raising funds.
At Cancún an additional proposal was accepted for a “Green Climate Fund”, in which developed countries would channel $100 billion each year to developing countries by 2020. The Deutsche Welle article summarised “progress” this way:
The world’s “Green Fund,” an international climate fund, has hardly cleared any hurdles either.
To give that project a jump-start, the German government has invited environment ministers to a meeting in Berlin next month. There, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen hopes to use informal talks with his global peers to salvage the negotiations.
Voting arrangements
Many countries have been frustrated by the slow progress of the talks and the efforts of some countries to slow things down. Whole days have been lost talking about the agenda and procedural matters.
Mexico and Papua New Guinea have come up with a proposal to junk the complete consensus requirement and to have decisions ratified by a 75% majority “if efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted.”
Christiana Figueres thinks that would be a rather tall order. Reuters reports that the US and China won’t wear it and many developing states most at risk from climate change fear being overruled.
Bolivia, still smarting over what happened at Cancún, when their single vote against consensus was deemed by the chair not to count, won’t support it and are considering legal options. The Rights of Mother Earth are not negotiable. They want countries’ obligations locked down and tied up.
Reaction
Naturally the official press release emphasised the positive in diplomatic language.
This Chinese report picked out the positives:
- Negotiations made “clear advances” on such issues as extending carbon trading mechanisms, climate fund management and slowing deforestation
- A mechanism to boost global green technology sharing was approved,which will include a Climate Technology Center and Network to establish a worldwide clean technology stakeholder community.
- Strong convergence emerged on how the Adaptation Committee will be governed, what its composition will be and what its specific role will be. It could be operational by Durban.
Su Wei, China’s chief negotiator, was generally positive. This Chinese report was quite impressive, I thought.
The problem with the Bali Roadmap is that it contained a lot more than has been taken up in later negotiations. Some developed countries seem to be continually narrowing the agenda, excluding developing countries’ needs. Australia has been negatively mentioned in despatches in this regard.
The conduct of the meeting was so partisan in favour of the developed countries that India took an unprecedented open swipe at how matters were handled.
From this distance I would agree with these civil society groups that an appropriate sense of urgency on the part of developed countries is simply lacking. In this Figueres’ call for the political heavyweights to get involved probably won’t help. They seem to be the main problem.
I have an admiration for the stance taken by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, which gave a 25-minute evaluation of the conference. In short, Ambassador Pablo Solon said there had been no progress on the main substantive issue of the emissions pledges from the developed countries. In fact in some cases their efforts are deteriorating. On the other hand there seems great enthusiasm for extending market mechanisms. There is more interest in making money rather than in the science. In general, Bolivia is opposing the commodification of nature and insisting on the recognition of natural limits.
Interestingly, he doesn’t feel alone. He has plenty of friends in the corridor if not on the conference session floor.
This seems to me to be by far the biggest problem. Many of the people representing their countries with a true urge for progress in committing to strategies and benchmarks appear to be heavily constrained by how the political class at home are insisting upon not taking it seriously enough, too.
A 2015 peak in emissions seems about right from the work we’ve done.
Yep – just checked it. Big overturning emissions scenario coming down very low by end of century, but peaking in 2015.
That’s a million miles away from the political insanity on carbon prices in this country at the moment – both major parties arguing the toss over a 5% reduction by 2020 from one of the highest per capita emitting countries on the planet.
Oh, and another handy post Brian
Brian,
“On the other hand there seems great enthusiasm for extending market mechanisms. There is more interest in making money rather than in the science.”
What does this mean? Is this your hatred of markets resurfacing? Is there some intrinsic conflict between markets and science that I am unaware of?
Leaving that aside, I can see why the US lacks enthusiasm for these gigs, if they have to put up with 25 minutes of grandstanding from Bolivia. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to hold a party with just the grown-ups invited – say US, Japan, BRICs and EU – and allow them to nut out a deal? That would establish a global critical mass that would allow the remainder of the world to be brought into line through carbon border tariffs.
Yes, of course, that will mean the powerful oppressing the weak, but wasn’t it ever thus. Do we really expect the spirit of global equity to suddenly break out just in time to save the world? Isn’t that expecting a bit much?
I & U, if only the grownups were to be involved, that’d mean the Greens and pretty much no-one else. OTOH, the US, Japan, BRICS and EU are unlikely to come to a sensible arrangement … but the spivs’ll be coining it.
tt it’s a serious issue that has been a problem for the longest time.
Roger, thanks.
I&U, you’ve gotten me wrong about markets. In the sentence I quote I was merely reporting what the Bolivian guy said. Bolivia interests me as the nearest thing to a socialist country now that Venezuela has turned out to be effectively a typically corrupt dictatorship.
I’ll say more tomorrow, and do a long comment about “the grown-ups”. It might surprise you to know that Bush set up such a grouping in 2007, and it still lives on under Obama!
Isn’t it just time that you Warministas admit that a global agreement and therefore coordinated “action” is just never going to happen? Because every conference and Gabfest produces precisely the same sort of result, claims of progress which are at best illusory.
There comes a time when the only reasonable thing to do is to stop wasting time energy and treasure on attempts to control (or even just nudge) the climate and to instead develop way to adapt to what ever may come in the future. Anything else is just pointless hubris.
Meanwhile, the oceans continue to become deserts…
Pricing CO2 works – says Tory NZ PM.
”What I can tell you about the emissions trading scheme is that it’s worked,” Mr Key said.”In the time that we’ve had it in place, all applications for new electricity generation have been in renewables, as opposed to 50/50 coming from thermal energy. Secondly, we’ve now had a period of afforestation … as opposed to a substantial period of deforestation.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-zealand-proposes-joint-emissions-scheme-20110620-1gbvc.html
Ever feel like youve been backing the anti-reform candidate, OO?
Brian,
Sorry if I misunderstood you. But you did express “admiration” for Bolivia’s stance and reported it uncritically.
If Bolivia is a socialist economy, it is best off using socialist tools (ie central planning) to mitigate carbon emissions. Similarly, market economies should harness markets to do the work. I don’t see any contradiction here.
Lefty E,
Did you see media watch last night? As someone who never reads the Australian – and only hears about its views second hand on LP – I am confused. Media watch quoted the following:
Can you (or anyone else) explain what is going on?
I&U I did think the Bolivia paragraph in the post might cause some comment, but the post was long enough already so I didn’t elaborate there. First up, I can’t claim to know a lot about Bolivia, but I think it is a socialist government rather than a socialist economy. The PM, Evo Morales, is indigenous and represents the poor majority. I understand that there are separatist sentiments amongst the former ruling elites, principally the 15% Caucasians who have differential access to the rewards of Bolivia’s mineral wealth.
The place is apparently extremely ethnically diverse, so maintaining cohesion requires political skill.
What I admire in the climate change context is their single-minded focus on what the science is telling us and the need for urgency.
In science vs business they are complaining about the priorities.
Amongst civil society groups and many of the poorer countries there does seem to be a bias against emissions trading. They like to see real cuts made by developed countries rather than buying their way out of trouble. There is something being suggested called “blue oceans” trading, which I know nothing about. Bolivia was particularly negative about it, saying as far as they are concerned it will never happen.
That being said, Bolivia points out that in the history of the UNFCCC 278 consensus decisions have been made. Listening to Solon, they don’t seem to be entirely doctrinaire in their approach and seem willing to accept progress towards desirable goals, rather than an all or nothing approach.
Solon says that he has plenty of informal support from other delegations saying that what Bolivia is doing at the conferences is necessary. Presumably these representatives have marching orders from home or other reasons for not lining up openly with Bolivia.
Brian,
I am not familiar with Bolivia, but I think that a lot of developing nations would see (probably rightly) a UN agreement on climate change as another vehicle for delivering them increased foreign aid, compared to the status quo. Therefore, “support for the science” from them may be special pleading, just as much as climate denialism is for the capitalists. So I don’t know if it is “admirable” although it is certainly helpful.
In fact, I believe that a global ETS (were it ever to come about) would deliver increased “aid” to developing nations (through the sale of emissions permits to developed nations “buying themselves out of trouble”) far in excess of any prospect of future government aid. Of course, that is predicated on a global deal actually allocating sufficient permits to those developing nations in the first place.
I&U, Bolivia has the constant reminder of retreating glaciers, which tend to concentrate the mind.
My thinking is that a bit down the track an international ETS scheme would be helpful, maybe necessary, if it could be set up in away that everyone could have confidence in it.
Sorry, here’s the long bit about grown-ups. Bush at the end of May 2007 announced that he would convene a Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. The link I had then now leads you to the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF). I can assure you it is the same beast, based on the major CO2 polluting economies, with concern to have all continents represented. All trace of Bush’s stuff seems to have been erased from the site.
Bush made his announcement in the week before the Heiligendamm G8 meeting, chaired by Angela Merkel, where climate change was a headline agenda item. Merkel wanted to establish the 2C guardrail as an official aim and accept 50% emissions reductions by 2050.
You can see how seriously Bush’s move was taken here, here and here. Bush was completely averse to targets, didn’t mind crapping all over Merkel’s meeting and seemed to want to sideline the UN efforts completely.
Merkel tackled him informally before the meeting and brokered a face-saving compromise. The details are here. In short, targets set by the EU would be seriously considered, the science would be respected, strong and early action was warranted and all nations would continue to work within the UN framework. Importantly, the phrase
entered the lexicon, or at least became official. It’s heir is ‘pledge and review’. In other words, every country decides for themselves what they will do.
Given Bush’s predilections Merkel did well.
I’ve always thought that the more the US, China, India, Japan, Canada and the Europeans talk about climate change the better. But in a post in 2007 I said this:
My own posts around the G8 meeting of 2007 seem to be missing from the archive, but here’s one from John Quiggin written on the eve of the G8 meeting.
BTW it was just then in June 2007 that the Labor Party had a meeting in Brisbane that established the policies, with the implied science, which have shaped their policies to the present.
Brian,
thanks for that background. I had never heard of the MEF. It sounds like it has become a technical, rather than strategic, body. Not a bad thing, but not what I had in mind.
I wasn’t thinking of a representative body. Although the whole world has a stake in the outcome, only a handful of countries (treating the EU as one “country”) have the practical ability to do anything about global carbon mitigation.
I suppose an analogy might be the strategic arms limitations talks of the 1970s. The whole world would be destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse, but only those with nuclear arsenals are worth having at the table.
I&U, Bush thought the whole problem, which he only just managed to concede was real earlier in 2007, could be solved by technology. He’d be proud that the MEF seems to be continuing down that track.
I’d lost sight of it until I had reason to look it up after your comment.
I’d have no objection to a smaller representative group working on the issue and then bringing what they thought back to the broader group. In a sense I think that might happen now, but the complaint seems to be that the agenda and the conduct of business is biased in favour of what the rich countries do and don’t want.
Brian,
“the complaint seems to be that the agenda and the conduct of business is biased in favour of what the rich countries do and don’t want.”
Unfortunately, that is the nature of the world we live in. The best the poorer countries can hope to achieve is deadlock and, in the context of climate change, that is no achievement at all.
This might seem callous, but my view is that the most important thing is to get the show on the road. Once genuine carbon mitigation is underway, people will begin to realise that it is far easier than anticipated. When that point is reached, agreements can be renegotiated to better address the needs of poorer nations.
“Regular readers of this newspaper will be aware of our consistent support for a market-based price on carbon…
— The Australian, 16th June, 2011
Can you (or anyone else) explain what is going on?”
I think they must be supporting that old Howard model, I&U. :p
In short… no, I cant explain it. Probably the best idea is to look elsewhere, at the overriding priority for Murdoch: destroying the NBN.
Lefty E,
Aha! So the NBN is just a diversionary tactic to draw Murdoch’s fire, allowing the carbon tax to advance unscathed.
It is all starting to make sense now.
Well, destroying the CO2 market they allegedly support is a small price to pay for proteceting Foxtel, after all.
Since the Un came into being they have been trying to:
Get rid of nuclear weapons.
Stop Genocides.
Stop famines.
Given the abject failure on all these fronts – what evidence is there that any environmentally, economically and politically effective global arrangement will be reached on CO2 emmissions?
Hey look! It turns out our ‘ordinary common sense’ from our political centre on climate issues is *actually* a barking mad form of political sociopathy which should be locked up in an asylum to ensure public safety:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/21/3249755.htm?section=justin
I’m with those who want to leave grandstanding pygmies out – the issue is just too important to be sensitive to their amour propre. Get the big economies (present and future) together, nut out a deal (preferably one including sanctions for freeriding countries), and the rest of the world (including Oz) will have to follow.
The rights of small nations are as nothing compared to the rights of the planet.
Climate Progress has a reasonably comprehensive post on the Bonn Conference. They picked up on a few things I missed.
The 43-nation Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had their say. They want Kyoto extended, even with fewer states participating. They want an increased level of ambition from the rich countries.
Brazil, China, India and other emerging nations said:
Activity under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an artefact of the Kyoto protocol, has fallen away in recent years.
dd @ 23, there is no way that the small island states and the least developed countries, who are generally considered to be most vulnerable to climate change, should be sidelined, IMHO.
The planet’s rights aren’t under threat, dd. It’ll do just fine for at least another 4 or 5 billion years. I’m more concerned about the species that currently inhabit it (including us). [/pedant]
As Brian alluded to, the small island nations particularly need to be at the table, at least until they cease to exist except as tidal shoals.
From this article:
Further down Jorge E. Viñuales, chair of international environmental law at the Graduate Institute in Geneva makes some interesting comments, including this stark realism: