• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Unesco Iheguptacopenhagen 091219133218 Phpapp02
 

Unesco Iheguptacopenhagen 091219133218 Phpapp02

on

  • 512 views

cumbre de copenhagen

cumbre de copenhagen

Statistics

Views

Total Views
512
Views on SlideShare
505
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 7

http://www.todopps.info 7

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Unesco Iheguptacopenhagen 091219133218 Phpapp02 Unesco Iheguptacopenhagen 091219133218 Phpapp02 Presentation Transcript

    • Institute for Environmental Studies; UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education Consensus in Copenhagen: Breaking the Institutional bottleneck By Professor Joyeeta Gupta
    • The Developments so far Period The paradigm Key outcomes 1: Before 1990 Framing the problem 1979: First World Climate Conference 1988: Toronto Conference; Establishment of IPCC 1989: High level political conferences 1990: Second World Climate Conference; First Assessment Report of IPCC 2: 1991-1996 Leadership articulated 1992: Climate Change Convention 1995: COP-1 -- Berlin Mandate; AIJ 1996: Second Assessment Report of IPCC 3: 1997-2001 Conditional leadership 1997: COP-3 -- The Kyoto Protocol 2000: Third Assessment Report of IPCC 2001: COP-7 -- The Marrakech Accords 2001: US withdraws from Kyoto 4: 2002-2007 Leadership competition … ....: US initiates many agreements 2005: Kyoto enters into force 2007: COP-13-- Bali Roadmap 5: Post 2008 Developing countries taking lead? 2008: Global recession starts 2009: COP-15 -- Copenhagen agreement?
    • Problem: leadership? US EU S Leadership paradigm N S Conditional leadership Leadership sans US EU S CEITS US JSCaNZ US Leadership competition Development N S Pollution Inverted U curve may be a zig-zag curve
    • Climate change: Classical North-South issue
      • In emission levels between average Northern and average Southern country especially in the past
      • The bulk of the impacts until 2020-2050 are caused by past emissions of the developed world;
      • If emission levels are to be kept within safe levels – the world budget for the 21 st century is over by 2032.
      • Impacts more severe in the South – both location wise; and because vulnerability is the greatest.
    • The climate convention
      • T
      National Com- munication (12) COP (7) Secretariat (8) SBSTA (9) SBI (10) Financial mechanism (11, 21) Amendment (15), Annexes (16), Protocols (17) Resolution of Questions (13) Dispute Settlement (14) Right to vote (18) Other issues (19-26) Entry into force (23) Commitments (4) Research & Observation (5) Education & public awareness (6) Preamble Objective (2) Principles (3) Annex I Annex II Definitions (1) The Climate Convention, 92
    • The Kyoto Protocol, 97 Protocol Preamble Policies and measures -2 QUELRC -3 Joint fulfilment -4 Joint Imple- mentation -6 CDM -12 Financial mechanism -11 Emission trading -17 Communi- cation -7 Implement existing obligations -10 Review of information -8 Review of Protocol -9 Non-comp liance - 18 Dispute settlement - 19 Other issues including entry into force 20-28 Multilateral consultative process -16 COP-13 Secretariat - 14 Subsidiary bodies - 15 Definitions -1 Methods -5 Organisational framework
    • Parties to the Kyoto Protocol X -7% = O
      • Emissions
      • Time
      -7% = -30%
    • Copenhagen (COP 15; COP/MOP 5): The process
      • Process flowing from the Climate Convention
        • Includes US
        • Excludes all the agreements made at Kyoto
      • Process flowing from the Kyoto Protocol
        • Excludes US
        • Follows up on the Kyoto agreements
      • Process flowing from the Danish intervention
        • Ignores the integrity of the negotiating process
        • Tries to bypass and shortcut
        • Focuses on US interests
      • New ABASIC (Africa, Brazil, South Africa, India, China) proposal in the wings
    • Copenhagen: The substance
      • Long term target
      • Targets for developed countries
      • NAMAs: Nationally appropriate mitigation actions
      • REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and land degradation
      • Financial mechanism
    • Long-term target
      • Objective promoted by scientists/ NGOs
      • - 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050
      • 350 ppm CO2 eq.
      • Peaking by 2015
      • UN secretariat hopes for:
      • 50% below 1990 levels by 2050
      • Peaking global emissions by 2025
    • Targets for developed countries
      • EU: - 20% in 2020
      • Norway: - 40% in 2020
      • Japan: - 25% in 2020
      • US: - 4% in 2020 (-17% in 2020/2005)
      • Pledges amount to 8-12% below 1990 levels
      • The problem: Conditional!!
        • Offset potential
        • Other loopholes
    • Impact of loopholes on 1990 Annex 1 emissions in 2020 Source: ECO, 10 Dec Inclusion of loopholes means 4% reduction from 1990 levels
    • NAMAs for developing countries
      • Brazil: 38-42% reduction in 2020
      • India: 25% energy efficiency target in 2020
      • Indonesia: 26% energy efficiency target in 2020
      • South Korea: 21-30%
      • China: 40-45% energy efficiency target
      • First time willingness to take on commitments
      • Not absolute, but relative;
      • Governance system weak – so implementation questionable!
      • Risk of double counting
    • REDD
      • Forestry – about 20% of GHGs
      • How to reduce deforestation
      • Faith in market mechanisms!!
      • Goal for discussion:
        • Half deforestation rate by 2020
        • Halt forest loss by 2030
        • Resources needed – 35 billion $ annually
    • Financial mechanisms
      • Evolution of language – from compensation to subsidy
      • Assistance for adaptation (seen as local issue!!!)
      • Assistance for mitigation
      • Shift from climate assistance to mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation!
    • Arguments against using ODA: Political sensitivities EU offer 2.4 billion per year, recycles ODA Development cooperation Climate assistance 1.0% of GNI 0.7% of GNI Time Mainstreaming Actual climate assistance Expectations/ needs Actual assistance
    • Arguments against: Resources needed Current ODA Additional ODA needed for MDGs ODA needed for Agenda 21 Aid for climate change Total USD billion 100 60-135 125 40-250 315-611 Comment <0.4% of donor GNI Clemens et al. 2007 Ch. 33, Agenda 21 Lit. OverlapsAssumptions
    • This lecture is premature: Everything happens last minute! Source–The Economist, reprinted from Joe Romm (http://www.climateprogress.org ) 23-11-2009