Climate Change Insights

Fifty-five Countries Meet Copenhagen Accord Deadline for Stating their Greenhouse Gas Cutback Goals

Frederick R. Anderson — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:27:57 -0500

The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says that it has received pledges from 55 countries to limit and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. For companies, particularly large multi-nationals with facilities around the world, the pledges are a useful indication of the first or additional requirements the companies will have to meet.

The Copenhagen Accord called for countries to submit their emissions targets to the UNFCCC by the end of January. Fifty-five of the almost 200 countries in attendance in Copenhagen may not sound like much. But they represent 78 percent of all global emissions from energy use. Among industrialized countries, the commitments come from Australia, Canada, Croatia, the European Union and its member states, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States. Commitments also came from almost two dozen developing nations, including the all-important "BASIC" group (Brazil, South Africa, India, China, and the Republic of Korea).

Many commitments, particularly those of developed countries, hinge on similar commitments being made by other countries. They also use varying base years to establish their targets. Consistent with President Obama's promise at Copenhagen, the United States committed to reduce emissions "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels, "in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation." The Secretariat noted that the next round of formal negotiations is scheduled for Bonn at the end of May, although several countries have indicated their wish to see a quick return to the negotiations with more meetings than the scheduled sessions. Here are the pledges from industrialized countries and here from developing countries.

Top 5 Climate & Energy Issues for US Business in 2010: Rocky Road or French Silk?

Jon D. Sohn — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:05:52 -0500

5. Where Will Things Go Internationally?
Coming out of the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen, the role of the COP in international climate negotiations is in flux. Some issues will be negotiated in this forum, yet other issues may move out of this forum. The role of the Copenhagen Accord is uncertain. It remains to be seen what new governance structures will emerge and where different countries will place their political priorities. Relatedly, enhanced China-US bilateral cooperation on reducing emissions and sharing technology promises to be an important prong of the Obama Administration in 2010.

Business Concern: Private sector interests from both climate change risk and opportunity perspectives will need to monitor and understand the direction of international negotiations and cooperation particularly as related to climate finance and post-2012 carbon market design.

4. Fast Action Alternatives & Gigaton Gaps
While both US domestic and international policy direction for “cap & trade” approaches greenhouse gas emissions remains uncertain, other options to reduce emissions are likely to gain increased prominence. Examples of feasible alternative options to reduce carbon in the global atmosphere include:

Scaled-up deployment of biochar in the agriculture and forestry sectors;
Reducing emissions in aviation and shipping industries; and
Replacement of high “Global Warming Potential” fluorochemicals with less greenhouse gas intensive options.

Business Concern: The strategies necessary to move on these and other fast-action alternatives will likely move outside traditional fora for climate policy and regulation, requiring impacted business sectors to shift some of their focus.

3. Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the G20 in Toronto
At the September 2009 Group of 20 summit, global leaders agreed to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies over time. The statement reads: “We commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption….(t)his reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The agreement expects energy and finance ministers to produce "strategies and timeframes" for eliminating the subsidies and report back this Fall at the next summit to be held in Toronto, Canada.

Business Concern: It can be anticipated that the definitions and timetables for this pledged phase-out will be politically contentious with a view to the US 2010 mid-term elections. It was the Obama Administration that pushed for this language in the previous G20. Key terms such as what is “clean energy” and what is an “inefficient” subsidy will require careful monitoring as phase-out pledges are deliberated upon in domestic budget and policy priorities in Congress.

2. Focusing on the Hard Questions for Renewable Energy
While there rightly tends to be high level focus on setting Federal and State renewable energy portfolio standards/targets, the challenges of scaling up renewable energy are much more complex. Transmission lines in sensitive areas, siting of off-shore wind power, determining the future role of hydro and nuclear sectors, scaling up production and distribution of solar, coordinated federal and state permitting processes, and more stable tax and investment incentives for renewables are just a few of the issues that will be center stage in 2010.

Business Concern: First, at-scale investment in a low carbon economy requires policies that create a long-term, stable and certain regulatory plan. As investors stated at the recent UN Investors Summit on Climate Risk, “What investors need most…is transparency, longevity and certainty.”

1. What Direction on US Climate and Energy Policy?
Reading the tea leaves of what could happen in the US Senate, as opposed to working on implementation of actual results, remains a core function of climate and energy policy analysis. The EPA intends to move forward on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from both mobile and stationary sources, but Senator Murkowski (R-AK) is moving to block these actions. “Cap & Trade” legislation appears in dire straits in early 2010, but whether Senators Graham (R-SC), Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) can put together a bipartisan coalition in the face of other political priorities and a mid-term election remains to be seen. Other alternatives in play include passing an energy & jobs bill that punts on the greenhouse gas emission piece for another day.

Business Concern: Sophisticated and multi-pronged corporate planning will be required in 2010. While many leading companies facing climate regulatory exposure have planned for cap & trade, they must now ensure that they have adequate capacity and attention to engage in looming EPA regulatory and rulemaking approaches under the Clean Air Act.

In summary 2010, promises to be more of a “Rocky Road” and the private sector must stay alert and engaged to maintain a competitive advantage.

Memo to Senator Murkowski: Legislate for Logical Solution

Jon D. Sohn — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:42:47 -0500

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has a point. There are many, if not a vast majority of policymakers, who agree with the senator that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is best left to thoughtful Congressional legislation, not EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. Thus her looming threats to introduce amendments or resolutions or other procedural maneuverings to “take a time out,” slowing down EPA rulemaking procedures aimed at addressing climate change.

But failing to seize her moment in the spotlight and put forward a specific legislative solution is where her logic falls apart and observers note the senator’s ear to certain greenhouse-gas-intensive industries that oppose action on climate change. This leaves me to believe that if we take climate change seriously, then perhaps EPA action is in fact better than no action at all.

Sen. Murkowski says that she doesn’t want a “gun to the Senate’s head” and claims that choosing between Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer bills and EPA regulation is a “false choice.” While she acknowledges the science of climate change and notes the impacts in Alaska, the senator’s stated intent is to ensure that EPA regulations don’t come into place prior to Congress finishing its deliberations because she fears significant economic hardship from an EPA approach to the climate challenge.

The senator emphasizes that Congress must pass a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — she’s on record as being in favor of passing legislation to reduce emissions. Her position that the Senate needs to pass legislation based on sound policy that takes into account environmental integrity, economic impacts and job creation is absolutely appropriate.

What is lacking, however, from Sen. Murkowski’s foray into the fire, are a sense of urgency and a positive solution. Urgency is a scientific and economic necessity. Peer-reviewed science notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s worst-case scenario forecasts are increasingly likely without immediate action, which is why so many are eager to see the EPA move forward.

The Senate is tied up in its predictably partisan politics all with an eye toward mid-term elections. Meanwhile, EPA is following its mandate and the law, and is trying to urgently tackle the problem. As logical as Sen. Murkowski may be in her desire to find a congressional solution to climate change, so is EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her intent to urgently solve a problem that economist Sir Nicholas Stern has called “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.”

The senator from Alaska has made her point and has everyone’s attention. But now is the moment for real leadership and putting forward a concise legislative option that places a science-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise, Sen. Murkowski is open to critiques of just playing politics.

Washington

Published in The Hill (January 19, 2010).

Does Senator Inhofe Have A Beef With the Pope Now?

Peter L. Gray — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:45:43 -0500

Could the recent decision by Pope Benedict XVI to call for a comprehensive agreement on climate change deepen the centuries-old rift between Catholics and Protestants? Yes, I'm kidding...but humor me.

In a January 11, 2010 address to foreign ambassadors to the Holy See, the Pope said he regretted that “economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment” prevented what he called “an ambitious agreement” at December's UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Benedict said political leaders should take action to stem climate change as part of a “solemn duty” to protect the Earth.

By contrast, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is fond of saying that the threat of global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Indeed, in his January 4, 2005 remarks to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Sen. Inhofe stated that for "environmental extremists and their elitist organizations" the notion of man-induced climate change is "article of religious faith." Moreover, these extremists consider those who challenge "the central tenets of climate change" to be guilty of "heresy of the most despicable kind."

If I'm not mistaken, Sen. Inhofe is a Presbyterian. So, connecting the dots leads me to conclude that Sen. Inhofe must now regard the Pope (and presumably the pontiff's "elitist organization" the Catholic Church) as no better than the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- just another environmental extremist, a "climate alarmist," as he likes to call them. But it would be wrong for Sen. Inhofe to dismiss the Pope's perspective on climate change as an "article of religious faith." As the Pope noted in his January 11, 2010 address, the "causes" of climate change are "evident to everyone."

Copenhagen Outcomes: Lots of Bark, But The Bite Needs Work

Jon D. Sohn — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:30:46 -0500

Heading into Copenhagen, I provided a “Fab 5” of necessary outcomes for COP-15 to be a success. The Copenhagen Accord took a number of pragmatic steps on finance, accountability and endorsing market-based approaches to tackling the challenge of global climate change. The Accord will likely play well in the US Senate with a view to getting more support for domestic action through cap-and-trade legislation as it brings China, India, Brazil and South Africa along in bending the curve of business-as-usual emissions. It also establishes accountability procedures for developing countries to report on those obligations through the Conference of the Parties. Additionally, the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, never popular in domestic politics, appears dubious at best. So these issues play well domestically.

However, in the trade-off for these pragmatic steps, the United Nations Conference of the Parties process was left in tatters. While most countries signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, it was done so with a disdain for the process and skepticism for the result. It will be difficult to regain the level of political momentum and multilateral engagement that was achieved in the lead up to Copenhagen through the UN. Science-based targets to reduce emissions backed by a legally binding UN treaty to fulfill all commitments were lost, for now, in that effort.

President Obama is taking a lot of heat for the outcome. Success for the Obama Administration now lies in proving it can actually deliver real action on 1. domestic mitigation, 2. international finance and 3. working positively with China and other emerging economies on real results, thus justifying their tough negotiating position in Copenhagen. Otherwise, the Copenhagen Accord will be seen as all bark and no bite as many critics are already claiming. Whether the bite is real depends on a mixture of Presidential leadership, domestic politics and international pressure.

Global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are in a fundamentally different place than they were before Copenhagen. Pledges to reduce or curb emissions are now a global endeavor, not one just for developed nations. At the end of the day, however, the Copenhagen Accord is a bunch of words on paper. Emerging governance structures and actions to ensure fulfillment of the Accord will determine real success. Perhaps, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations assessed the wake of Copenhagen best: "The climate-treaty process isn't going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere." The level of importance for the next COP in Mexico City remains to be seen.

Below the “Fab 5” goals are repeated with accompanying analysis of how they line up with language from the Copenhagen Accord.

1. Aggressive Emission Reduction Goals

Developed countries will need to agree upon on ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The IPCC suggests that this implies a mid-term goal for 25-40 percent GHG cuts by 2020 based on a 1990 level baseline and 80 percent by 2050. Collective action will need to be supplemented by individual national commitments such as those put forward by the United States and United Kingdom in recent days. Likewise, developing countries will need to agree to taking GHG mitigation actions that are appropriate in their national development contexts ranging from shifting to low carbon power strategies to reducing rates of deforestation. Some observers see a collective goal that recognizes the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed two degrees Celsius as a more politically feasible outcome than the target cuts noted above.

Copenhagen Accord: “We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity.”

Analysis: As predicted, the tougher decisions about collective commitments to reduce emissions by the above noted 2020 and 2050 targets were left for another day, in favor of a 2 degrees Celsius approach. It is difficult to reconcile the scientific reality with the necessary policy goals set in the Copenhagen Accord. There is now a February 2010 deadline for countries to sign up their individual commitments in an Annex to the Copenhagen Accord. For the first time, both developing and developed countries will put forward such commitments, yet there is doubt they will add up to either the IPCC figures or the 2 degrees goal.

2. Climate Finance Commitments

Countries need to agree upon climate finance mechanisms that will provide “fast start” funds of approximately $10-$12 to developing countries from 2010 to 2012. This is viewed as a down payment of good faith towards future actions by developing countries. The architecture for longer-term, predictable funding for climate adaptation and mitigation – including forestry and technology support will also need to be put into place. However, it is less feasible for specific dollar amounts, governance regimes and sources of funding to be agreed upon in Copenhagen with respect to longer-term climate finance.

Copenhagen Accord: “The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.”

“In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”

“We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.”

Analysis: The Accord went further than I anticipated in terms of setting a 2020 target for $100 billion annually, and came in on target in terms of the “fast start” funds. The challenge will be ensuring that these funds are truly “new and additional,” and words are followed by actions in the implementation of these measures. The Green Fund concept provides an overarching framework and governance structure but will need significant negotiation on the road to a binding legal treaty.

3. Accountability for Commitments

Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) national commitments and actions agreed at Copenhagen are a lynchpin of success. If a global agreement will be more than rhetoric, there simply needs to be a standardized methodology to “trust but verify” with a view to equitable burden sharing in the transformation to a global low carbon economy. Countries need to establish common international methodologies to track and report emissions and subsequent measures to reduce emissions.

Copenhagen Agreement: Developed countries: “Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.”

Developing countries: Mitigation actions will be subject to “provisions for international consultations and analysis.” Mitigation actions that seek international support will be “record in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support” and “subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.”

Analysis: The fundamental goal of moving towards a more transparent and accountable system for reporting and verifying emission reductions was achieved. The language brings both developed and developing countries along. Through a US political lens, getting China and other emerging economies to agree to this language will assist in efforts to persuade the Senate that all Parties will move towards reductions and thus lessen perceptions of competitive disadvantage.

4. Signals for a Global Carbon Market

Private capital needs to see signals that a process of linking nations in post-Kyoto Protocol market-mechanism efforts that reduce emissions will continue. In order for private capital to continue the evolution of a liquid, cost-effective mitigation market begun under the Clean Development Mechanism and Emissions Trading systems, political signals of this approach must be provided in Copenhagen. This will allow the evolution of so-called flexible mechanisms towards at scale reductions in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Copenhagen Agreement: “We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.”

Analysis: Market mechanisms to reduce emissions and contain costs remained alive through the Copenhagen Accord. However, the value of such mechanisms is only as good as the demand created by aggressive emission reduction targets and the rules that ensure environmental integrity of such approaches. Copenhagen did not advance these goals and such mechanisms will largely fall to national approaches and a future legal treaty.

5. Political Agreement With a View to Legal Agreement

There is broad consensus that a political agreement is the likely outcome from Copenhagen but ultimately enforcement requires a legal agreement. Towards this goal, it is anticipated the countries will politically commit to finalizing a more legally binding agreement in 2010. In the US context, this approach allows the Obama Administration to sequence working collaboratively with the Senate on a final energy and climate legislative package prior to promising what cannot be delivered at the international level.

Copenhagen Agreement: “We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention’s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Analysis: There is no commitment to move towards a legally binding agreement in 2010, but rather just an assessment of the effectiveness of the Accord in 2015. While nothing prevents the Parties from moving towards a legal treaty by the next COP in Mexico City, it is by no means a certainty.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: What Can We Make of the Copenhagen Accord?

Climate Law Blogger — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:32:54 -0500

Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.

Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/21/09), discusses what we can make of the Copenhagen Accord.

To read the full entry, please click here.

This Just In From Copenhagen: Accord Reached By Key Parties!

Peter L. Gray and Frederick Anderson — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:48:40 -0500

Attached is the draft Copenhagen Accord, which was hammered out by the United States, China, India and South Africa, and made available less than two hours ago. The Conference of the Parties is still in session; reportedly 26 other nations are reviewing the draft and may join the Accord. Details regarding wider acceptance of this draft are sketchy at this point.

The major issues that have caused controversy among the delegates have been addressed, such as: a commitment by the developed world countries to provide financing to the developing world countries to assist with mitigation and adaptation, amounting to $30 billion between 2010 and 2012, rising to $100 billion by 2020; prevention of deforestation and market mechanisms to enhance forest programs; a recognition of the importance of keeping the rise in temperature to less than 2 degrees; and a commitment to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to below 50 percent of 1990 level, with Annex I parties committing to reduce their emissions individually or jointly by 80 percent. Finally, implementation of the Accord shall be reviewed in 2016 to determine if the long-term goal of a less than 2 degree rise in temperature should be reduced to 1.5 degrees.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: It's Down to the Final Hours

Climate Law Blogger — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:54:06 -0500

Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.

Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/18/09), titled It's Down to the Final Hours, discusses the encouraging signals from China and what the final day will bring.

To read the full entry, please click here.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: What is US Industry to Make of Copenhagen?

Climate Law Blogger — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:13:48 -0500

Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.

Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/17/09), titled What is US Industry to Make of Copenhagen?, discusses what industry is to make of the proceedings and whether the conference and any agreement it produces will shape things to come in the United States.

To read the full entry, please click here.

COP-15 Day 11: Snow, Money, Gore and More!!!

Jon D. Sohn — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:56:02 -0500

It seems as though the moods of optimism and pessimism with respect to reaching a deal in Copenhagen change by the hour. Last evening, there was supreme doubt a deal could get done with many observers beginning to retrench to old positions of blaming US intransigence. The US, familiar to the villain role in climate proceedings, was viewed as having a weak target with little assurance it can deliver on anything back in the Senate, yet strong demands of developing countries particularly of China and little finance to provide poorer countries as promised in the Bali Action Plan.

Yet when I awoke before dawn, a fresh blanket of snow had covered the streets of Copenhagen and a new sense of optimism was in the air. I had an early morning breakfast with a senior member of the US delegation who promised big news in just a few hours. When I emerged from speaking on a panel at a side event on climate finance, the “big news” had emerged. Upon her arrival at the Bella Center, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US now supports a $100 billion annual climate finance fund for developing countries by 2020. This proposal mirrors one previously put forward by the UK Prime Minister Brown and then endorsed in a breakthrough moment by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia on behalf of the African Union yesterday as reported in this blog yesterday. The spin today is that this new proposal from the US, which is subject to reaching the broader political agreement, reflects a new level of good faith in the negotiations. Climate finance is a lynchpin of these negotiations.

With Bella Center access now denied to most due to security, there are more people on the streets and impromptu meetings around town today. I trudged through the snow to the old Imperial Theatre and was lucky to get into a packed audience of mostly Danish citizens to see none other than Al Gore. The Vice President was fresh from the negotiation halls to both promote his new book “Our Choice” and to reflect on the importance of the Copenhagen negotiations. The crowd was electric and Gore delivered a substantive and passionate overview of the climate challenge.

Vice President Gore provided the following insight on the key issues for resolution:

Significant progress in last 3-4 hours in the negotiations.
US-Africa-EU convergence on the $100 billion annual fund by 2020 is a big breakthrough.
Resolution on the role of Kyoto Protocol going forward remains a sticking point.
Agreement by China and other developing countries to submit to international accountability measures on their intensity target commitments and national mitigation action plans remains another sticking point.
Reducing forest emissions will need to be part of the final agreement.
Notably he did not mention US emission reduction targets as a key sticking point.
Whatever outcome here in Copenhagen, the next step will be quick momentum towards a binding treaty.
The US domestic goal should be to deliver legislation out of the Senate and on President Obama’s desk by Earth Day 2010 (April 22^nd)
The timing of COP-16 in Mexico next fall and mid-terms in November is a formula for diminished expectations. Gore would like to see the Mexico meeting moved up to next July in Mexico, the week after the football World Cup in South Africa.

So we are heading towards the final 24 hours. There are swings in expectations by the hour and still much bracketed text. The US bottom-line demand is clearly transparency and accountability from China on their commitments. The question is will China and others trust President Obama to deliver his own reduction targets from the Senate, enough to sign on the dotted line. It is a tough sell in both directions.

Peter Gray Discusses Copenhagen & US Climate Change Legislation on Fox Business Network

Climate Law Blogger — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:49:53 -0500

During a December 15 interview with Fox Business Network, Peter Gray discusses what has been happening in Copenhagen and how the talks there could change the way companies do business in the US.

To watch the interview, please visit: http://video.mww.com/ftpupload/FTPinbox/15/FoxBiz-Gray-12-15-09.wmv.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: Copenhagen Stormed by the States, Provinces, Cities, and Regions

Climate Law Blogger — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:09:00 -0500

Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.

Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/16/09), titled Copenhagen Stormed by the States, Provinces, Cities, and Regions, discusses how state, provincial, municipal, county, and regional governments are taking the lead to meet climate challenges.

To read the full entry, please click here.

COP-15 Day 10: Copenhagen - Moving from Rhetoric to Reality?

Jon D. Sohn — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:20:00 -0500

As heads of state begin to arrive, the mood remains quite anxious in Copenhagen. Significant amounts of negotiating text still remain in brackets and unresolved. Clearly political level help is necessary. Information suggests that in fact high level talks began in the past few days from respective capitals. There will be little time for informal negotiations once all key heads of state arrive, so ministerial negotiations will need to continue in parallel as it is unrealistic to expect all nuances of climate policy text to be taken care of at the highest level. Heads of state will only be asked to address the bigger picture issues: targets & timetables for reductions, finance and a timeline for achieving a legally binding agreement.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish President in charge of the UN meeting, resigned as a procedural matter today and will be replaced by Danish Prime Lars Loekke Rasmussen who will be responsible for shepherding heads of state towards a political agreement. There is confusion on the way forward as once again a higher level political text is emerging from the Danes with a lack of clarity on how it links the working group negotiations text. It was a similar move by the Danes last week with the now infamous "Danish Leaked Text" that halted negotiations for a full day. The G77 and China are vocal today with their displeasure on any delinking of negotiating text processes from a political agreement text. But time is short and there is no threat to suspend negotiations as of this moment.

Environmental non-governmental organizations under the umbrella of the Climate Action Network believe three key things must occur for the high level portion of the COP to succeed:

The US is too focused on legal wrangling. Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama must take the negotiations out of this defensive stance.
China needs to step up, and become part of the international response not just provide a pledge to do things domestically.
The EU needs to increase its level of ambition, going to 30 percent reductions below 1990 levels in the medium-term and put forward a long-term financing proposals.

In plenary today, heads of state have begun to make a series of speeches to set the stage for final negotiations. While most have stayed with generalities, the most constructive engagement came on the issue of finance from the Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Union. Zenawi set a positive tone stating “we are not here to take moral high ground but to negotiate.” For many observers this represents an important change in tone that could help repair the North-South divide that has poisoned the Copenhagen negotiations at times. Likewise the White House confirmed President Obama spoke with Zenawi just a few days ago. Prime Minister Zenawi presented a concrete way forward on the contentious issue of climate finance for developing countries:

A fast action fund of at least $10 billion 2010-2012, placed in a trust fund composed of an equal number of donors and recipients. 40 percent earmarked for Africa. The African earmarks should be managed by the African Development Bank and the fund should launch no later than mid-2010.
Longer-term financing should start by 2013 and reach $100 billion annually by 2020 and include creative mechanisms to raise funds including Special Drawing Rights from the International Monetary Fund.

Zenawi said that Africa’s scaled back expectations are designed to achieve reliable funding and a seat at the table in the final days of negotiation. Yet he also warned that this more flexible position should not be confused with desperation as “Africa will not accept a political agreement that is empty words.” Whether one agrees with the positions put forward by the Prime Minister or not, they do represent a sign of practicality, compromise and specificity that will be required to get a deal done.

Peter Gray Discusses the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Bloomberg Radio

Climate Law Blogger — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:04:32 -0500

During the December 15 edition of The Hayes Advantage on Bloomberg Radio, Peter Gray discusses the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen as well as the chances of passage of a climate change bill.

To listen to the interview, please visit: http://video.mww.com/ftpupload/FTPinbox/15/Gray-Bloomberg.mp3.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: Fast Action and Fast Start in a Slow Copenhagen Process

Climate Law Blogger — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:14:32 -0500

Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.

Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/15/09), titled Fast Action and Fast Start in a Slow Copenhagen Process, reviews the scientific and political case for the Fast Action Agenda.

To read the full entry, please click here.

COP-15 Day 9: Political Horses are Coming to Water

Jon D. Sohn — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:27:38 -0500

The UN climate negotiations are getting more tense by the day. Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer, reflecting on his work today, noted that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” in reference to the Heads of State who will be arriving over the next 48 hours with a view to a political agreement being reached.

US Special Envoy Todd Stern spent a good portion of his day informally negotiating with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The US is in a continual position of defending President Obama’s mitigation targets of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 when IPCC data suggests deeper cuts (25-40 percent) and from a different baseline level (1990). US officials put on a full court press today putting out the word that there are “different pathways” to reach the same scientific goals and their targets are as ambitious as any brought to Copenhagen. When pressed on the issue of whether Obama’s announced negotiating position is indeed a final position, Stern stated that he is “not anticipating any further changes to mitigation reduction targets but there are other programs in the Congressional bills beyond the direct targets that would reduce emissions significantly further.” I spoke with a colleague at the World Resources Institute, (the former employer of Jonathan Pershing, a key negotiator for the State Department) on this matter who notes a study finding that additional potential emission reduction programs under the Waxman-Markey bill (from which the current 17 percent position originates) beyond the stated cap target could actually get the US 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. National Renewable Energy Portfolio standards are an example of an additional policy measure that can achieve further reductions.

China on the other hand, is under pressure to “put pen to paper” in the international compliance context. The China mitigation pledge is to reduce "carbon intensity" by 40-45 percent by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels. Carbon intensity, China's preferred measurement, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP. By and large that target appears to be a satisfying starting point for the US and others, although there is certainly pressure for more. More relevant to the informal negotiations today, the US wants some measure of international review and auditing processes and agreed upon methodologies for commitments by all countries. China and the US are not yet there on a political deal that encompasses a shared vision of monitoring, verification and reporting.

Thrown into the mix are the continued G77 demands on climate finance and setting a deadline for a legally binding agreement in 2010 to firm up the political deal anticipated here in Copenhagen. President Obama’s calls to some African leaders yesterday and their return to the negotiating table appear to signal that piece of the puzzle can come together at the end of the day. The negotiations are now focused on taking the various negotiation text pieces as far as possible with a deadline for working groups to report to the Plenary by tomorrow morning with results. At that point, the horses will begin trotting into town….and there is plenty of water (and now snow!) in Copenhagen. Stay tuned.

COP-15 Day 8: Chaos in Copenhagen

Jon D. Sohn — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:37:53 -0500

The Bella Center is hot, crowded and beyond its capacity. Lines are hours long to even enter the building. Security is tightening up. Around the city, Copenhagen is ground zero for climate change this week as there are countless business events, protests, and conferences all day and night.

Negotiations were suspended as G77 nations, led by African delegates in this instance, walked out. Their desire is a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and pushing developed countries for bigger carbon cuts and international climate finance. Speculation is that this action is about negotiation theatrics to raise the stakes in Week 2 and they will come back to the table soon. Informal negotiations took place over the weekend in an upscale warehouse district of Copenhagen that were reported to be positive, so the latest G77 action caught some delegates by surprise.

The Chair’s text was released to set the stage for the final week of negotiations. This proposed text is supposed to be the basis for negotiations this week.

The negotiations appear to be heading towards the following elements:

Political agreement, not a legal agreement. From a US perspective, this allows President Obama to continue to work for political support domestically, and not get too far out ahead of the Senate.
The new agreement would bring all countries into the fold (unlike Kyoto where several large emitters were left out). Developed countries will need to set mid-term targets for 2020. Larger developing countries will need to agree on deviations from business as usual in their own emissions.
A fast action fund for 2010 to 2012 in the 10 billion to 12 billion range for mitigation (technology and REDD) and adaptation. There is some discussion of a fund out to 2030 being agreed upon here but it remains to be seen where the US, EU and other key players are on that issue. The fund to 2020 or 2030 for $30-$40 billion is being advanced by Mexico and Norway.
A sticking point will be agreement upon a framework ensuring that commitments made by all sides are easily monitored, verified and reported. Again, in a US context, it will be difficult for the Administration to sell a deal to the Senate if it lacks mechanisms to force transparency on Chinese actions to reduce carbon.

ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: Optimistic as Second Week of Climate Talks Begin

Climate Law Blogger — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:20:58 -0500

Fred Anderson has been asked by The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report to write a daily column titled "Anderson’s Notebook" during the second week of the Copenhagen conference of the parties (COP-15 ). The column will provide perspectives on issues central to the negotiations. "Anderson’s Notebook" will be featured as part of BNA’s special expanded coverage at http://climate.bna.com/Copenhagen, which is being made free to site visitors worldwide.

Today, Anderson's first notebook entry, Optimistic as Second Week of Climate Talks Begin, reviews the first week of COP-15 and discusses the state of the talks and the prospects for a successful outcome.

Anderson is attending the Copenhagen conference as a member of the California Action Reserve Delegation, which includes US private sector and government officials.

To read the full entry, please click here.

Climategate: Tempest in a Teapot -- or a Tea Bagger Special?

Peter L. Gray — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:49:08 -0500

It has taken decades of effort, the investment of tens of millions in research dollars, and the dedication of some of the brightest minds around the globe to collect, sift through and analyze the scientific evidence, which establishes a link between the change in the climate and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. But in an age driven by the 24-hour news cycle, declining standards of journalism and point-counterpoint segments in which the truth is “debated,” a single email stolen from the files of a little-known but highly respected group of climate researchers places all of that work in jeopardy.

It has been three weeks since we first learned that hackers stole over 1,000 emails from the files of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center (CRU). In the days immediately following the theft, global warming doubters raced to media outlets and began crowing that the emails demonstrate the existence of a global conspiracy among politically motivated climate scientists to push their agenda. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.” Even Sarah Palin got into the act, penning an editorial for the Washington Post in which she calls upon President Obama to reconsider attending the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties, given that “leading climate scientists deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming.”

Based on these sound bites from Palin, Inhofe and other climate change doubters, you probably assume that the massive trove of stolen emails must contain at least one smoking gun, one unambiguous email in which a climate change expert admits “we got it all wrong.” Au contraire.

Climate change doubters point to a 1999 email from CRU scientist Phil Jones in which he states the following regarding his attempt to reconcile data in his own study with data from a Penn State study by Michael Mann, published in Nature: “I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.” The “decline” Jones is referring to is that if one uses tree-ring density to estimate temperatures, the resulting data inexplicably show that temperatures have declined since the 1960s, when in fact we know from meteorological data that temperatures have increased. Climate change doubters take Jones’ poor word choices (“trick” and “hide”) out of context and claim that he was engaged in “cooking the science.” According to Michael Mann, however, the statistical “trick” referred to is replacing the tree ring-based temperature estimates with actual data on ambient air temperatures -- an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade.

Climate change doubters also point to an email exchange between CRU's Jones and Penn State’s Mann in which they vow to keep two anti-climate change papers out of an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and another email exchange in which they consider urging colleagues not to submit papers to a journal that publishes submissions from climate change skeptics. (Apparently, they contemplated boycotting the offending journal because it had published a study later determined to have been underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.) Certainly, such attempts at scientific censorship are unwise. That said, it hardly amounts to evidence of a global climate change conspiracy.

Indeed, nothing in the stolen emails undermines the evidence that the climate is changing and that the change is due in part to man-made GHG emissions. The evidence demonstrating that CO₂ levels have risen since the start of the industrial revolution and that man is the source of increasing CO₂ levels over that period can no longer be seriously disputed. The various impacts of that change in atmospheric CO₂ levels are well-documented and need not be repeated here. But as to the public’s belief in climate change and man’s contribution to that change -- that is waning. The polls make this clear: according to a recent poll, over half of Americans believe that there remains significant disagreement among scientists over global warming. Tellingly, 84% of Americans believe it is likely that some scientists have falsified data to support their theories on global warming. Clearly, the climate change doubters’ promotion of Climategate is having an effect -- one which may well doom the chances of passing climate change legislation in 2010. I sincerely hope that the media begins to expose the truth behind Climategate: it is a tempest in the teapot, exploited by tea baggers and those who stand to lose business, not evidence of a conspiracy or evidence that global warming isn’t occurring.

COP-15 Day 5: Intellectual Property and Developing Countries' Frustrations Take Center Stage

J. Randolph Evans — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:55:08 -0500

Today, there was some limited progress on a few implementation issues which are largely peripheral to the main obstacles to a consensus agreement. Most of the work was done behind closed doors by separate working groups.

In the morning session, intellectual property protection was a major focus as developing countries insisted on the free flow of new climate friendly technologies while R&D companies feared the conversion and cloning of their intellectual property. In addition, scientists discussed in various briefings the implications of deforestation.

India and China continue to oppose 'targets' for emissions reductions. Indeed, the Chief Negotiator for the G-77 walked out amid developing countries frustrations. At this point, one possibility openly discussed is a political agreement among most developed countries only. The divide between developed and developing countries continues to center on funding, defined emissions reductions targets, and the transfer of technologies. Unfortunately, even in closed door sessions, posturing dominates over any actual concessions. Indeed, there was so little consensus that even the stream of competing drafts dwindled to a trickle.

The Conference had a frenetic atmosphere as an avalanche of people converged on the Bella Center. Already, Conference organizers have started to consider new volume control measures as worries mount that the facility will reach capacity beginning early next week. Enhanced security amidst expected protests and the arrival of world leaders have complicated the capacity issue.