Responding to the Challenge of Climate ChangeFrom an international perspectivehange 101224
Asia Pacific Initiative (API) Climate, Energy and Food SecurityResponding to the Challenge of Climate Change From an international perspective 24 December, 2010 Hironori Hamanaka Professor, Keio University Graduate School of Media and Governance Chair, Board of DirectorsInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
OutlineCompelling scientific evidenceFrom Bali to Copenhagen to CancunBeyond Cancun A way forward: taking actions toward a transition to low‐carbon societies 2 Source Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Increasingly frequent extreme weather events Heat wave and forest fire in Russia, source National Geographic News, 12 August 2010 Flooding in southern Pakistan ( picture taken in 5 August 2010), source AFP
Retreating Himalayan GlaciersSource: Nagoya University
“Climate‐gate”: the results of independent reviews• The Independent Climate Change E‐mails Review (July 2010) – “We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”• IPCC press release in view of the findings from the review conducted by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (July 2010) – “The key conclusions of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report are accurate, correct and supported entirely by the leading science in the field.”• Findings of the InterAcademy Council (August 2010) – “IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the IPCC must continue to adapt to … changing conditions in order to continue serving well in the future.”
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.Source: Martin Manning, “Climate Change 2007: Observations and Drivers of Climate Change”
Global and continental temperature changeMost of the observed increase in global Source: IPCCaverage temperatures since the mid-20 th Fourthcentury is very likely due to the observed Assessmentincrease in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers, 2007 Models using only natural forcings Observations Models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings
Global anthropogenic GHG emissionsSource: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: SynthesisReport, Summary for Policy Makers, 2007
Emission allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration levels (relative to 1990 emissions)Source: IPCC AR4 WGIII Report, Chapter 13, p776.
Climate Change Politics• Divided world: developed vs. developing countries – Historical responsibility and equity – Universal participation needed for effective response “Common but differentiated responsibilities”• Challenge of altering “carbon‐intensive” practices intensive – Policies advocated by scientists and environmentalists often conflict with business interests. business interests – Impact of “green politics” in Europe, particularly in Germany – “No‐regret policy” vs. cost effective market mechanisms regret policy vs. environmental integrity
Kyoto Protocol (1997)• Legally binding targets for developed country Parties: Japan –6%, U.S. –7%, EU –8%, etc. 8%• GHGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs,SF6.• Base year: 1990 (Any developed country Party may use 1995 for HFCs, PFCs and SF6)• Commitment period: 2008 2012.• Use of GHG removals by LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry) activities.• Introduction of flexible mechanisms: Emissions trading, joint implementation (JI) and Emissions trading the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM
Chronology of climate politics afterthe Kyoto Protocol entered into force• Kyoto Protocol entered into force (2005)• MOP1 (Montreal, 2005) – Formally adopted the Marrakech Accords, setting Protocol implementation in motion. Protocol implementation in motion• IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007)• Bali Action Plan (COP13, 2007) – Decided to launch a comprehensive process … in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at COP15 in Copenhagen. • Copenhagen Accord (COP15, 2009)• Cancun Agreement (COP16, 2010)
Bali Action Plan (2007)• Parties launched a comprehensive process to address: Parties launched – A shared vision for … a long‐term global goal for emission reductions, – Enhanced … action on mitigation of climate change: • Measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) … commitments or actions, … by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, • Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, development, financing and capacity‐building, in a MRV manner.
Bali Action Plan (continued)• Parties launched a comprehensive process: Parties launched – Enhanced action on mitigation (continued): REDD, etc. (continued): – Enhanced action on adaptation to climate change – Enhanced action on technology development and transfer – Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment• Parties have been conducting negotiations mainly through two negotiating tracks: – AWG‐LCA – AWG‐KP
Negotiation process under the Bali Action PlanHow it differs from that on the Kyoto Protocol ?• Negotiation process on the Kyoto Protocol – Focused on the strengthening of the Annex I Parties’ commitments – Impact of the Protocol on the overall emission reduction is limited, since it covers less than 30% of global emissions• Negotiation process under the Bali Action Plan – Aims at enhancing actions by developing countries and by the US, in addition to enhanced actions by developed country Parties to the Protocol – Enhancing actions by developing countries is closely linked to support by developed countries 16
Politically agreed goal for climate protection• G8 leaders at L’Aquila Summit (2009): – Recognized the broad scientific view that global average temperature ought not to exceed 2 , – Reiterated their willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, emissions by 2050 – Supported a goal of developed countries reducing GHG emissions in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050. 80% or more by 2050• The Copenhagen Accord (COP15, Copenhagen, 2009): – Recognized that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 .
Staying under the 2 threshold will require a verystringent goal, and the longer the delay inimplementation, the steeper the trajectory required … And yet, there are large differences in per capita emissions among regions and countries …Source: Global Environment Outlook GEO4 environment for development,UNEP, 2007
Halving global GHG emissions and ensuring carbon space for development
Is it possible for developing countries to take pathways towards low‐carbon leapfrog‐development? It is important to avoid the risk of locking in more CO2-intensive energy technologies, and to capture an opportunity to leapfrog towards a low-carbon economy Source: Dr. Shuzo Nishioka, Dr. Mikiko Kainuma, NIES, 2008
Concerns over pledging targets and taking mitigation actions• Developed countries – How big the economic burden they would have to bear? – Are their efforts comparable to those of other major economies? Would they hurt their international competitiveness? competitiveness• Developing countries – How much impact pledged actions would have on their policies to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development? development – Whether and how the support pledged by developed countries would actually be delivered?
Copenhagen Accord (2009)• At COP15, most Parties supported the “Copenhagen Accord”, in that they: – Recognized that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 . – Annex I Parties commit to implement emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted by 31 January 2010. – Non‐Annex I Parties will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted by 31 January 2010, that will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) …
Copenhagen Accord(Continued)• Non‐Annex I Parties… the result of (domestic MRV) will be reported through their national communications every two years, with provisions for international consultations and analysis (ICA) under clearly defined guidelines. Mitigation actions seeking international support will be subject to international MRV.• The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012. Developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
Copenhagen Accord and Its Implementation• Copenhagen Accord , while not being formally adopted by the COP, and only taken note of, is a step forward to enable developing countries to take mitigation actions, and to ensure transparency of these actions, in addition to enhancing mitigation commitments by developed countries.• The Accord has been signed up by nearly 140 countries and more than 80 countries have submitted their mitigation targets/ actions.
Mitigation targets/ actionssubmitted by Parties Country Mitigation targets / actions Japan 25% reduction from 1990 level EU 20% reduction from 1990 level US 17% reduction from 2005 level China 40‐45% reduction of CO2/GDP from 2005 level Korea 30% reduction from BAU level Indonesia 26% reduction from BAU level India 20‐25% reduction of CO2/GDP from 2005 level Brazil 36.1‐38.9% reduction from BAU level
Major Challenges remained after Copenhagen• Building trust and confidence is essential: – To restore faith in multilateral process – To achieve an agreement on a new international climate regime that is inclusive, effective and equitable, and – To ensure stronger mitigation actions that will be necessary to fill the gap still remaining between targets and actions pledged by Parties and GHG emissions pathways that can limit the global temperature increase below 2 .
Cancun Agreement (2010)• COP16 adopted the Cancun Agreement and restored faith in multilateral process: – “Transparency and inclusive” process – The main Copenhagen outcomes have been formally brought under the UNFCCC• On mitigation, COP16: – Created a process for anchoring mitigation pledges by developed and developing countries, – Established a registry for NAMAs by developing countries and enhanced procedures on MRV/ICA• Other important outcomes include on REDD+, adaptation, finance, and technology.
Beyond Cancun• Big challenges to be tackled include: – Raising developed countries’ level of ambition of their targets, with a view to reducing their aggregate emissions in accordance with the range indicated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. – The legal form of the outcome to be adopted by COP17 in 2011 still remains open. Major options are the Kyoto Protocol (2nd commitment period) plus COP decision or plus new protocol. – The issue of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol remains unresolved.
A way forward• Scientific evidence indicates serious impact of climate change: – We need to avoid disastrous consequence.• Transition to low‐carbon societies requires a fundamental change addressing the very root cause of the problem.• We need to take decisive actions and to seek to gain the advantage of early movers.• Recognizing our carbon and other ecological footprint is one of the important first steps to take action …
Global ecological overshoot depleting the very resources on which human life and biodiversity depend…“Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.3 planets toprovide the resources we use and absorb our waste”Source: World Footprint Do we fit on the planet?, Global Footprint Network,http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
“Eco‐Home Diagnosis”• An interesting experimental programme being promoted by the Hyogo Prefectural Government in collaboration with IGES. 4 steps: 1. Recognize your position 2. Choose/ set your target 3. Know sources and quantities of CO2 emissions from your daily life at home 4. Develop customized actions at home to achieve your targetSource: http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=2482
Where is your family’s carbon emissions ranked? Carbon emissionsPower rates Gas rates Your family is ranked at Among 100 families.Your Average Your Averagefamily family Source: http://www.uchi-eco.com/index.php?mode=uchieco
Carbon emissions at home:from what sources and how much amount? Use of hot water Use of motor vehicle If you choose “modest eco-action”, you need to reduce your CO2 emissions by 17%. Other sources
Actions for reducing CO2 emissions CO2 Energy costChoose your actions for CO2 reduction reduction reduction Target Target Purchase efficient hot water supply system achieved! Reduce the use of motor vehicle by half
Thank you very much Hironori Hamanaka Professor, Keio University Graduate School of Media and Governance Chair of the Board of DirectorsInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies firstname.lastname@example.org