 For the first time since the ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 20 years ago, all countries have accepted the idea of a global and legally binding treaty that would limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. This agreement was reached after an intensive marathon of negotiations at the Durban climate conference. After the Copenhagen failure and the minimal Cancun agreement, the negotiations at Durban have made progress on three main points: the renewal of the Kyoto-protocol after 2012, a roadmap to establish a new binding treaty in 2020 and a mechanism to make the Green Climate Fund operational. But is this progress sufficient given the enormous climate change challenge? Or is it merely a diversion? |
In Durban progress was made on three main topics
Given slow international decision making, the Durban-top was the ultimate opportunity to put in place an agreement that could start on the first of January 2013. Mission accomplished, although the success is disturbed by the fact that Canada, Russia and Japan have decided not to participate in the second period of commitment to the Kyoto protocol. Furthermore Canada officially announced it no longer participates in the Kyoto-protocol. This means that together with the United States, that never accepted Kyoto, 4 developed countries don’t wish to commit themselves to the second period of commitment to the Kyoto protocol from 2013 to 2017. The remaining countries only represent a sixth of the global emissions of greenhouse gases. Furthermore no commitments to further reduce greenhouse gases emission are decided yet and it is unlikely that ambitious goals can be expected in the near future.
The renewal of the Kyoto-protocol includes also renewal of certain flexibility mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanisme (CDM). This mechanism encourages countries that have to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases to invest in emission-reducing projects in developing countries. In exchange, the investing countries gain emission rights that can be sold directly on the emission market, such as the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS). The Durban-agreement ensures the future of CDM’s after 2012. In this way development actors are reassured on their funding for projects in emerging countries, exactly those countries where most projects take place. Another major step forward is that projects related to Carbon Capture and storage probably become eligible for CDM-funding.
The prolongation of the Kyoto protocol gives a view on short term evolutions. For the middle and long term, an agreement in principle is written that lays the foundations for a new treaty that is expected to enter into force in 2020. The “success” of the Durban Conference lies in the equal treatment of all countries in this agreement in principle: all countries – developing, emerging or developed – will now have to participate in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission reductions. It is the first time the United States, China and India, respectively responsible for 18%, 23% and 6% of global CO2 emissions in 2008 [1] agree to lower their emissions. But for now, only a road map is in place with the objective to sign a new global treaty by the end of 2015. There is no guarantee that the commitments will be ambitious, or that they will be legally binding.
About the Green Climate Fund, the negotiators have managed to transform the ideas from Copenhagen and Cancun into a functional structure. The goal of this fund is to support projects that either attenuate or adapt society to global warming. The fund will be managed by an independent organization under the auspices of UNFCCC. The most difficult issue has however not been tackled yet: finding the funds! The objective is to find 100 billion dollars by 2020. Many questions still persist on the origin of this money: public or private, bilateral or multilateral, donations or loans? Funding through taxing international financial or fuel transactions are studies as well.
Post-Durban: new agenda (Source : Sia Conseil)
International decisions following geopolitical logic…
Convince countries to commit on the national level to face global challenges. This is the ambitious goal of the annual conferences on the climate. They are the subject of difficult negotiations that reflect international balance of power. Supported by less-developed and island countries, Europe is the key defender of the climate. It is proud of its carbon market EU-ETS. From a European political perspective, the Durban conference had high stakes. In times where the Euro-zone – and even the whole European Union – is reflecting on its own future, it was necessary to show that Europe is able to unite with one voice, in this way showing its voluntarism and its unity. Europe, weakened by the debt crisis, gains confidence from its leading role in the progress made in Durban. But at what price? Indeed it seems promising that the global emission reduction treaty is planned to be in place by 2020. However, on the short term, unlike the mayor economies, Europe commits politically and economically to fight a problem to which they contribute only 14% 1. Is this a good strategy?
The emerging economies – and more specifically India and China – appear to be the big winners at the conference. They keep receiving funds for sustainable development projects. In exchange they only commit to a road map to think about a global treaty that might be signed in 2015 for a possible entering into force by 2020. The developing countries are also happy that the Green Climate Fund will be under the auspices of the UNFCCC, and not the World Bank who appeared to be too biased. Finally one should not forget that if financing is found, the money will be spent largely on “made in China”-technologies such as wind and solar energy.
While nowadays China and India get three quarter of all CDM-funding, on the middle and long term a redistribution of CDM-funding towards oil-producing countries might be observed. This is because probably Carbon Capture and Storage projects will become for CDM-funding. These funds will encourage oil-producers to reinject CO2 in reserves to store carbon… and to improve oil recovery at the same time. Masdar, the city in the United Arab Emirates that completely relies on renewable energy, is already an interested candidate.
The international image of the United States is slightly improved after Durban, compared to previous climate conferences. About the global treaty, they have agreed before China and India. On the other hand, it is considered that Canada, Japan and Russia have taken steps back in the battle against climate change, leading to catastrophic damage to their image towards civil society, always following closely the events around climate conferences.
…but not responding to a scientific reality
Since 20 years, the UNFCCC-objectives have not been reviewed. The goal is still to keep global warming below 2°C. This choice was probably arbitrary in the beginning, but can now be reconfirmed after in-depth investigation of the consequences of global warming, done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Previsions of climate evolutions show that behind this limit, the effects are disastrous, with greater effects on the mainland than on the oceans. Less availability of water, extinction of 30% of all species, lower agricultural output, more natural disasters, population displacement and migration of pathogenic vectors are expected consequences of a global warming greater than 2°C.
According to IPCC, the moment where the greenhouse gas emission reaches its peak is determining for the expected temperature rise. The more time it takes to reach the peak, the bigger the emission reduction efforts are and the more severe efforts will to be in the coming decades and more than 60% larger than in 1990. The required efforts become so restrictive that they become impossible to implement and requirement extremely expensive measures. The requirements not to surpass 2°C global temperature rise are clear though: a greenhouse gases emissions peak – including short-living emissions – must be reached around 2015, after that by 2050 the emissions must be reduced by 50%-70% compared to 1990.
CO2-concentration evolution according to different scenarios (Source : IPCC)
Unfortunately, the decisions taken in Durban are not in line with scenario I from IPCC and thus don’t allow to limit global warming below 2°C. In fact, until 2020 the only protocol limiting greenhouse gases emissions is the Kyoto Protocol, and the countries participating in this protocol only represent 15% of the global emissions. It is clear that the emissions peak is not reached by 2015. Even worse, waiting until 2020 for participation of the largest emitters (China and USA), probably results in a emission peak in the next decade. This means scenario IV becomes more probable. Under the assumption that all countries are liable to very ambitious targets and contribute in considerable effort, a temperature rise of 3.5°C can be expected. This is not new, scientists have come to the same conclusion before. The IEA 2and the scientific journal Nature 3 have shown that it is already impossible to keep global warming below 2°C. Apart from not respecting the emission peak, those experts take into account other observations: in 2010 a record CO2 concentration of 400 ppm in the atmosphere was reached while the 2°C temperature rise scenario foresees a maximum concentration of 450 ppm. Furthermore it is extremely difficult to lower CO2 emissions in the next 20 years since 80% of all emissions come from amenities that are foreseen to be exploited for several years until they are depreciated. The Nature scenario is similar to the IPCC, although more pessimistic. In Nature the probability of staying below 2°C is estimated to be 66% if the emission peak is reached between 2010 and 2020. The emission objectives have to be reviewed a fortiori by 2015. Between now and then, the fifth report of the IPCC must come out with a first part on climate dynamics in 2013, followed by 2 parts on climate change impact and cost of the battle against climate change in 2014.
The Durban negotiations were a success in the sense that for the first time, all countries agreed on “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed solution with legal force” for greenhouse gases emission reduction. In reality, it is merely the beginning of a work group which mission is to further specify the agreement, hoping all countries sign it in 2015 so that it can start working in 2020. About the Kyoto Protocol, the regulation gap after 2012 is solved on the short term. But many questions remain unanswered, for example the financing of the Green Climate Fund. Furthermore scientists believe the decisions made are insufficient to hope to keep global warming below 2°C. The objective has to be reviewed upward with all its consequences. Today, Carbon Capture and Storage appears one of the most-promising long-term solutions. This is anyway the signal UNFCCC has given towards eligibility of those projects in the clean development mechanism. Coincidence has put the next climate conference in Quatar, a country that might be very interested in this idea.
Sia Conseil
Notes :
(1) Chiffres de 2008, d’après les statistiques des Nations Unies
(2) World Energy Outlook de 2011 : http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/es_french.pdf
(3) Référence de l’étude : http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/full/nclimate1258.html#/author-information
Sources :
Agence Internationale de l’Energie
Dépêches Reuters du 28 novembre 2009
Cartes des émissions du monde
sending...