Transcript Document

Copenhagen to Durban:
straight road via Cancun
D.Raghunandan
Delhi Science Forum &
All India Peoples Science Network
INECC Workshop, Bangalore, November 2011
Main challenge remains:
danger of runaway climate change
•IPCC/AR4 asserted unequivocal reality of
socio-genic climate change
•showed problem had reached crisis levels
•recommended targets for abatement
Rise in GHG Concentrations & Temp. (BAU)
Year
1750
2005
2030
2100
GHG (ppmv)
300
425
485
575
Temp.rise °C
-
1
2.0-2.8
4.0-5.0
Tipping Point
IPCC/AR4: Mitigation Recommendations
GHG concentrations must stabilize ≈ 450 ppmv
 action required NOW to allow for time lag
 drastic reductions in emission levels required:
 global emissions to start declining ≈ 2015
 …to <50% todays levels (≈49 Gt CO2-eq) by 2050
 Annex-I to cut to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020
 …and 90-95% below 1990 levels by 2050

NOTE: These are net “flow” based targets which do not
reflect historical accumulations. These flows finally end up
as accumulated “stocks” which actually determine climate
change. A Carbon Budgets approach as evolved through the
DSF-TISS Model would be more useful, even though annual
emissions may still be required to monitor compliance
COP 15 at Copenhagen
 huge expectations that COP15 would respond to
gravity of climate crisis belied (or betrayed?)
 no agreement for KP 2nd commitment period (2012- )
 shocking but not surprising
 almost back to Square 1 in terms of basic issues:
 no targets? US pushing for “pledge and review”
 pressure on Developing Countries to cut
emissions i.e. cut back on growth/development
 basic ethical-legal UNFCCC principle of Equity
and Common but Differentiated Responsibility
all but abandoned
Copenhagen/Cancun Pledges
• 2°C goal cannot be met
informal UNFCCC assessment (and other studies):
 3°C likely
 peaking will not happen by 2015
 Developing Country pledges are about 3x that
by Industrialized (A1) Countries’!
• “bottom up” approach will not work: everyone will
head to the bottom, following the US leader
• “top down” target-based approach necessary
because the upper limit (450 ppmv GHG conc. or
Max. Carbon Load) set by nature!
• $100b Fund is also up in the air: vague pledges,
includes multilateral funds, loans, pvt. Investment!
•
Copenhagen Accord: content



minefield of dangerous formulations
no specifics; generalities favouring ICs…
blurs distinction between ICs and DCs… (Obama:
“leave behind fault lines… that have prevented action for
years”; “all major economies must reduce their emissions”)
35
… and opens window
for abandoning KP
altogether
30

25
20
15
10
5
0
USA
EU
pc emmission (tCO2e)
China
India
pc GDP (1000 Euro)
Copenhagen to Durban:
straight road via Cancun
despite some positives in Cancun (esp. in tone
and conformity with UNFCCC COP processes)
in substance Cancun Agreements closely follow
the terms of the disastrous Copenhagen Accord
•
• Cancun LCA and KP texts lay the foundation
for Durban and belie positive expectations
• Kyoto Protocol, deeply wounded at
Copenhagen, has been fatally undermined at
Cancun, and will be difficult to revive in
Durban
 Cancun Agreements legitimize the single
framework long pushed by US and are set to
replace KP’s dual approach for ICs and DCs
 bottom-up pledge-and-review system initiated
in Copenhagen Accord now formally part of COP
 grave threat given low level of ambition and
because upper limit of GHG concentrations or
Total Carbon Load as determined by science
requires top-down emissions control
“This outcome advances each of the core elements of the
Copenhagen Accord: they anchor the Accord’s mitigation
pledges… and the US will continue building on this
progress” --- Hilary Clinton
Cancun Agreements
 repeat Copenhagen Accord formulations
almost verbatim
 emphasis on global targets, omission of
crucial distinctions between ICs and DCs
calls upon all parties to take actions to meet
specious 2°C goal, first time under UNFCCC;
 lip service to “ambitious reductions” by ICs;
also to CBDR, but not as a principle
de facto CA provisions now almost de jure
difficult to see this rolled back by Durban
Carbon Budget Approach
Central idea: atmosphere has finite limited
carbon space beyond which possiblyirreversible climate change is inevitable
 atmospheric carbon space is global commons:
fair and equitable sharing is the issue
remaining available carbon space is global
carbon budget: how to share the burden?
each nation has entitlement to a “fair share” of
this carbon space/commons proportional to
population
Carbon Budget (cont’d)
main problem today is over-occupation of
atmospheric carbon space by Industrialised
Countries (ICs)
 therefore DCs are left with little carbon space
required for development
 ICs actually have negative entitlements but
world is forced to live with some IC overoccupation
Carbon Budget (cont’d)
Global carbon budget = 1440 Gt CO2
(2000 – 2050)
or 390 Gt C
 if all countries reduce emissions after 2040,
and fair share by 2050, global emissions
trajectory is below danger levels for 2°C
2.37 °C*
1.65 °C*
Carbon Budget (cont’d)
Total Entitlement
between 1850-2050
(Based on 2009
Population and a 300
GtC Carbon Budget
between 2010-2050)
Current
Contribution to
Carbon Stock
(1850-2009)
Total Entitlements
(2009 onwards)
GtC
GtC
GtC
Annex-I
117.99
245.34
-127.36
China
123.69
33.09
90.60
India
110.00
8.66
101.33
Rest of the
World
280.32
44.90
235.42
1850 Basis
Comparison of TISS-DSF Model with Copenhagen Pledges
Cancun Agreements: KP Text
 just 2 pages (LCA text 30 pp. with most of the
substance!) taking note of Copenhagen pledges
 many qualifying statements, escape clauses
 notes IPCC/AR4 call for A1 reductions by 2540% below 1990 levels by 2020: but A1 pledges
together less than bottom of range, further
diluted by offsets and CDM; so >> 3°C!
Again, this can be viewed in terms of Remaining Carbon
Budget as well.
Emissions Gap Report (UNEP: Dec. 2010)
 total global emissions till 2020 ≤44 GtCO2e
for 2°C
 but CA pledges by 85 ICs & DCs ≈ 53Gt
 gap ≈ 9Gt; temp. rise 3-4°C
 if more ambitious and if no offsets, 5Gt gap,
still only 60% of requirement for 2°C;
 several other studies also say 3°C very likely
Escape Clauses in Cancun KP Text
 all leniency scenarios feared by UNEP, and
more, are present in Cancun KP
 emissions gap likely to be closer to 9 Gt CO2e
 A1 targets to include:
 emissions trading
 CDMs
 carry-over of units: but now favouring some
EU countries that have exceeded KP1 targets!
Cancun LCA Text
 all substantive issues dealt here
 likely to be the single framework with KP
bottom-up pledges annexed!
 REDD+, technology, Adaptation Framework,
Green Climate Fund covered
 funds not as reparations but as tied aid, and
commitment only to “goal of mobilising $100bn”
 fast-track fund transfer to include private and
public, REDD+, offsets, project finances,
multilateral funds, soft loans, all conditional
upon “meaningful mitigation actions and
transparency on implementation by DCs”
Conclusion
 Cancun has more or less stitched together
major elements of a global deal for Durban
 some may be satisfied that there is at last
some global agreement
 but this is likely to be a poor one from the
viewpoints of both science and equity
 market mechanisms dominate and planet’s
ecosystem/global commons fully commoditized
 UNFCCC process moulded to meet goals of
US and Northern allies
Conclusion
big challenge facing those engaging the
climate negotiations
requirement is equitable sharing of the global
commons/ carbon space, UNFCCC principles,
CBDR, science and GHG stabilization levels,
sharp KP 2nd period cuts by A1…
 …but trajectory from Copenhagen goes
through Cancun… and on to Durban
 how to square this circle?
Way Forward
re-focus on KP-II, top-down targets and deep
cuts by A1, accountability for large DC
targets
forge BRICSA/large DC + EU alliance taking
along G77, LDCs and SIDS
 remember KP was signed without the US!!!
 accept stop-gap in Durban, go for meaningful
KP-II in 2012
END!
Please visit
www.delhiscienceforum.net