Ambitious greenhouse gas cuts not visible

Member Login

Syndicate

Written by Hira Jhamtani

Thursday, 17 December 2009 18:20

Copenhagen 15 Dec (Hira Jhamtani) -- Late afternoon of 15 December sees no light yet at the end of the tunnel in the conclusion of the second commitment period of developed country Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The first commitment period of 5.2% greenhouse gas emission reduction below 1990 levels expires in 2012 and a new set of commitment figures must be put on the table in Copenhagen.

The discussion has gone into informal mode, closed to observers. Delegates are heard in the corridors saying nothing has moved, and that developed countries could not increase their level of ambition for emission reduction. Indeed in a contact group late last night (14 December), New Zealand confessed that the negotiators have no mandate to increase the level of ambition, and that the political leaders are the ones who can do it. Another source said that during the ministerial informal meeting, when the facilitator asked how the level of ambition be increased, no developed country provided an answer.

Further emission cuts are one of the most important items that are stalling the talks at the Copenhagen climate conference. There are many issues surrounding the impasse in the negotiations of the emission reduction of developed countries.

First, governments of many developed countries have announced their emission cut pledges for 2020 but negotiators in Copenhagen have said these are not made in the context of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). They are made in the context of a "new, universal, comprehensive and effective international agreement on climate change", indicating that the KP will be terminated and replaced.

Secondly the pledges are far below what the science requires to stay below 2 or 1.5 degrees of temperature increase. In aggregate, based on the compilation of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the range of emission cut pledged is between 16 and 23% of the 1990 levels by 2020. These low figures come with conditionalities and are not clear as to how much of the cuts will be undertaken through domestic measures and the use of offsets (buying credits from developing countries). Developing countries have asked for transparency around these numbers and issues but no clarity has been forthcoming creating frustration that is increasingly voiced in the negotiation room.

Thirdly, Parties also have different views on the reference years and length of the subsequent commitment period. Many Parties wanted to continue to use 1990 as the base year (in the Kyoto Protocol) with flexibility for countries to use different reference years, but these would be adjusted to the base year. Some countries want multiple reference years to reflect national circumstances and to enable non-Kyoto Protocol Parties who are obliged to reduce emissions under the UNFCCC (i.e. the US that uses 2005 as base year) and developing country Parties to join the Kyoto Protocol or take comparable commitment.

Fourthly, is the clarity in the rules for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and the use of market based flexible mechanisms (Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism) to meet the reduction targets. An exercise was attempted to clarify these by asking Parties who put forward their pledges to also provide information on the impact of LULUCF rules and flexibility mechanisms on the reduction numbers. These have also not been clarified in full.

Fifthly, is the use of the Assigned Amount Units (AAU) carried over from the first commitment period. This is the amount of greenhouse gas emission allowed to each Party over the commitment period. If a Party has a surplus AAU at the end of the commitment period, there is a discussion for carrying over the next commitment period. These are bankable credits. If these are accounted for then there is a lot of "hot air" where Parties make emission reduction commitments but in reality emit more amounts of greenhouse gases.

Sixthly, is the issue of the United States which is an Annex I (developed countries and countries with economies in transition) Party under the UNFCCC, but is not party to the Kyoto Protocol that sets the emission reduction numbers and has a compliance system. Annex I Parties say that the Protocol covers only 30% of the global emission and therefore it is not sufficient. It must bring in the biggest emitter in the world in order to create a balance of obligations, say some developed country Parties to the Protocol. The US has said in one of the contact groups that it has no intention of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing countries are saying, however, that the bottom line, is the lack of willingness and political intent of developed countries to actually shoulder their obligations responsibly. According to several developing country negotiators, many developed countries are using the US as a scapegoat to race to the bottom. They are not willing to lead in the international effort to tackle climate change for which they bear historical responsibility.

The mood in the Copenhagen conference is now one of uncertainty and confusion as the normally open and transparent UN process of intergovernmental negotiations shifts into closed meetings and small groups and even bilateral meetings. And with no ambitious emission reduction numbers in sight from developed countries to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments.