by Eco Editor on August 6, 2010
Ludwig was disappointed the other night after being turned away from the EU reception. They had allocated assigned units for the evening, with only a few coveted entry permits for civil society and serious looking ‘expert review teams’ at the gates. Trading permits was OK but not borrowing from future parties, they said.
Why after all these years of happy partying did the EU suddenly turn its back on a friend? But then he got it! The EU has found a better use for its funds than free drinks and little dry bits of sandwiches for attendees. Taking the 30% target is a small additional investment compared to the 20% cut, but has big returns for jobs, health and energy bills. So then Ludwig didn’t feel so bad.
###
Ludwig is wondering what is in the Maritim water coolers at the moment. In the KP, Parties debated two identical options for Ministers to consider before losing track of what clauses they were reading. Then the Umbrella Group made demands in 1(b)(2) without anything in return on compliance in 1(b)1. D’oh! No wonder they’re finding life a bit difficult. Ludwig encourages all Parties to think about what they can offer in Tianjin, rather than just pouting like spoilt children.
by Eco Editor on August 6, 2010
A reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020 for the EU would represent a real incentive for innovation and action in the international context. It would be a genuine step to restrict the rise in global temperatures . . . stiffening the resolve of those already proposing ambitious action and encouraging those waiting in the wings. It would also make good business sense.
Now you may wonder – is ECO recycling articles from the Bonn session in June? Not at all! In fact, these exact words in support of increased EU climate ambition actually appeared in a Financial Times article on 15 July. Best of all, they were written by British, French and German environment ministers.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 6, 2010
While the target of limiting global warming to below 2° C above pre-industrial levels has been floating around for years, it was only after the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4) that a 2° target was finally widely acknowledged by governments.
But remember, AR4 emphasized that there would be problems at 2°, which is not a safe zone. And more recent science shows an increasing likelihood of intolerable impacts at 2° for many countries, regions and resources.
All this makes ECO wonder why extreme weather events over the past years and recent weeks, as well as advancing scientific assessments, have not led to serious concern and immediate action.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 6, 2010
ECO would like to remind delegates again that fast-start finance is not about calling apples what we used to call oranges. More than 130 countries have signed the Copenhagen Accord, which clearly states that fast start financing will be new and additional. But obviously the collective memory on this point has reset after Copenhagen.
Even if industrialized countries are good at coloring existing oranges as new and additional red apples, developing countries should peer more closely at the contents of the fruit basket and demand source-and-origin labeling and organic certification.
It is fully understandable that developing countries want proof of donors’ good faith through the rapid implementation of concrete actions in their countries. But even more than that, developing countries should be more insistent about clear specification of where the money comes from and the priorities driving donor choices in allocating these funds. Annex I countries may call countries with such demands “zealous” – but let’s remember that good decisions made on fast start finance will build the case for long term finance governance, integrity and transparency.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 6, 2010
At this session in Bonn, the negotiating process has seen some movement. We have advanced to line-by-line negotiations, which is exactly where things needed to be at the end of the week. Parties are meeting to draft text based on topical areas and [spin-off][drafting] groups have been formed where subjects need additional attention. However, while some of this movement is good and helps the text advance technically, ECO wonders how much willingness Parties have to really move the negotiations forward.
Sadly, the spirit of compromise has been sorely lacking here in Bonn. After months of reduction to a more manageable size, essential elements of the text have inflated again. For example, developing country mitigation exploded from 3 to 9 pages.
As more and more brackets go in, recalcitrant Parties are demanding things they know will never go forward. This has the usual effect of creating an ‘equal but opposite’ reaction, igniting conflict, slowing the negotiations down and diminishing the [chance] [opportunity] [likelihood] of a [positive] [required] [any] outcome at Cancún.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 5, 2010
Delegates drafting text on the governance arrangements for a new global climate fund are reminded of a simple fact: climate change impacts and solutions are not gender neutral. The new fund must have principles of gender equality at the core.
Whether considering human vulnerability to the effects of climate change, adaptation to those effects, or ways of reducing levels of greenhouse gases – women and men are going to be impacted differently.
For example, concerning adaptation, it is women who are responsible for 60% to 80% of the food produced in most developing countries, and they are often hardest hit as increased climate variability makes agriculture more unpredictable. But it is just as true that women are the key agents in building climate-resilient solutions and food security in a world of climate change. A new fund must ensure that adequate, new and additional adaptation finance reaches them.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 5, 2010
Something new and exciting is happening in the LULUCF discussion. People are starting to talk about why it matters and what it should accomplish.
We can thank the Chair of the AWG-KP for clearly identifying the proper purpose of the negotiations – to explore how the rules and mechanisms of LULUCF could strengthen the level of ambition of Annex I Parties, and also how the rules could constitute an incentive for positive domestic action. This should be a wake-up call to LULUCF negotiators who until now have focused their discussions on accommodating national circumstances rather than accounting for increased emissions from forest harvest.
The conclusions of the pre-sessional workshop on forest management accounting were helpful in emphasizing environmental integrity, transparency, the need for confidence in data, and the broader context of Annex I Party commitments when finalizing the rules.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 5, 2010
ECO supports the call from many developing country Parties for a new adaptation institution. Adaptation is still highly fragmented under the UNFCCC. While climate impacts are already being widely felt, there are large gaps in capacity and understanding how to adapt now and in the future at all levels, from community to national.
Of the three options in para 7 of Chapter II in the LCA text, ECO favours the establishment of an Adaptation Committee. The committee would be a coordinating body to consolidate the different adaptation fragments under the UNFCCC, including elaborating recommendations to the COP as they emerge.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 5, 2010
Earlier this week, parties confirmed the importance of civil society participation in these negotiations. For example, the US reminded why this is essential and has helped made substantive progress possible.
First, though designated as ‘observers’, civil society representatives actually do much more. Providing technical and practical experience and advocating for strong provisions and outcomes, participation contributes to making these talks fairer and more balanced between rich and poor, developed and developing, and tiny and huge delegations.
[click to continue…]
by Eco Editor on August 4, 2010
Astute readers of ECO over the past few days may have seen an irony emerge from some of the articles here. On the one hand, we’re seeing ‘Naked (un)Ambition’ from many parties here in Bonn, while on the other hand ‘the roof seems to be on fire’ everywhere else.
All over the world, calamities consistent with climate change are affecting both poor and rich countries, with consequences ranging from ruined crops and destroyed homes to injuries and death for thousands. In Pakistan, historic floods swamp the country, while Russia and India have both suffered from extreme heat waves in recent weeks. And Washington DC, where bold climate action seems the furthest away in the halls of Congress, has experienced one of its hottest summers in history.
[click to continue…]
