Climate Equity


Published on

11 years after the Kyoto Protocol was signed—only
to be consigned to irrelevance over the subsequent decade—nations would negotiate post-2012 action.
The realities of climate change are clearer than ever,
and the cost of action is mounting. Rich countries,
historically responsible for climate change, are
proposing new mechanisms to share the burden.
Leading developing countries such as India and
China need to negotiate hard as well and make
a big push for renewables


Centre for Science and Environment

Down To Earth

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Climate Equity

  1. 1. <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Between Bali and Copenhagen </li></ul><ul><li>Cliffhanger at Poznan – 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>CSE, New Delhi </li></ul>
  2. 2. The world is debating 2°C target <ul><li>If annual emissions remain at today’s level, greenhouse gas levels would be close to 550 ppm by 2050 </li></ul><ul><li>This means temperature increase of 3-5°C </li></ul><ul><li>The difference in temperature between the last ice age (3 million years ago) and now is 5°C </li></ul><ul><li>The 2°C target is feasible; but it will require unprecedented global cooperation. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Drastic reduction needed: For 450 ppm (2°C) reduce 80-90% by 2050
  4. 4. 3-truths: Climate change is a political and economic challenge <ul><li>Is related to economic growth . No one has built a low carbon economy (as yet) </li></ul><ul><li>Is about sharing growth between nations and between people. The rich must reduce so that the poor can grow. Create ecological space. </li></ul><ul><li>Is about cooperation . If the rich emitted yesterday, the emerging rich world will do today. Cooperation demands equity and fairness . It is a pre-requisite for an effective climate agreement. </li></ul>
  5. 6. Historical emissions - 1840-2006 : A tonne of CO2 emitted in 1840 same value as tonne of CO2 emitted in 2008 Since 1840, 7 out of every 10 tonnes of CO 2 have been emitted by the rich countries Historical emissions amount to about 1100 tonnes of CO 2 per capita for the UK and the US, compared with 66 tonnes for China and 23 tonnes for India
  6. 7. 2008: High on rhetoric. Low on action <ul><li>Kyoto agreed to small change – 5% cuts </li></ul><ul><li>Even that failed. US walked out. Emissions from Annex I countries increased by 2.3% between 2000-2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Pressure on China and India ….. </li></ul>
  7. 8. Is India the new villain? The per capita increase in emissions, between 1990-2005, in the US is three-fourths of India’s total per capita emissions in 2005. The current per capita emissions of the US is 20 times higher than India’s
  8. 9. Is India and China the new villain? <ul><li>Between 1980-2005, the total emissions of the US were almost double that of China and more than seven times that of India. </li></ul><ul><li>With just 15 per cent of the world population, rich countries account for 45 per cent of CO2 emissions </li></ul>
  9. 10. Decreased 1.3% only because of decrease of economies under transition. The CO2 emissions from industrialized countries excluding economies in transition have increased by 14.5% since 1990.
  10. 11. <ul><li>Only UK, Germany and Sweden have reduced. But beginning to increase again. </li></ul><ul><li>US increased by 18.1%. </li></ul><ul><li>These countries together increased their annual CO2 emissions by 1.5 billion tonnes between 1990-2006. </li></ul>
  11. 12. No energy transition made Little to reduce energy emissions
  12. 13. Big words and small change
  13. 14. The Agenda for Poznan <ul><li>Bali Action Plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AWG-LCA: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AWG-KP: Ad Hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol. </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. AWG-LCA: Shared vision <ul><li>1. Shared Vision : ‘a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, ----- in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ---’ </li></ul>
  15. 16. AWG-LCA: Shared vision <ul><li>Clear difference between developed and developing countries on who should reduce and what should be the reduction target post 2012. </li></ul><ul><li>Developed countries (Japan, EU, USA) want to regroup developing countries so that some can take commitments now – India, China, Brazil etc. – and some later. Developing countries reject this ‘Climate Salami’. </li></ul><ul><li>Developing countries want interim targets for emission reduction for the developed countries (25-40 per cent reduction by 2020 from 1990). Developed countries non-committal. Japan wants 2050 target, but has not defined baseline. </li></ul><ul><li>India’s position: More than 25-40 per cent reduction by 2020 from 1990 for the developed countries. ‘Equity must be central to the way forward’; ‘equitable sharing of carbon space’ as a fair and just burden sharing approach </li></ul>
  16. 17. AWG-LCA: Mitigation <ul><li>2. Mitigation: Countries must tackle the question of ‘enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change’ </li></ul><ul><li>Positions similar to ‘Shared vision’. </li></ul><ul><li>US wants to redefine the ‘common’ in ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the context of mitigation. Believes that as per convention every country has to take emission reduction targets – rejected by G77+ China. </li></ul><ul><li>EU wants developing countries ‘as a group’ to take on commitments; it also wants to ‘differentiate’ among the different developing countries, based on level of development, to assign different levels of mitigation targets. </li></ul><ul><li>G77+China: ‘Any further sub-categorization of developing countries runs against the Convention itself and is not in conformity with the consensus reached in the Bali Action Plan’. </li></ul>
  17. 18. AWG-LCA: Technology transfer <ul><li>3. Technology: ‘ Countries must negotiate the question of ‘enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation’ </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely contentious topic. </li></ul><ul><li>G77+China want an institutional arrangement under UNFCCC to facilitate technology transfer and development -- financed by the developed countries, as agreed in the convention and BAP. Developed countries reluctant to share technology via transfer. They want developing countries to create ‘an enabling atmosphere to attract private funds for technologies’. </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Right major issue. China and other developing countries want innovative IPR sharing arrangements, or compulsory licensing of patented technology; the US wants IPR enforcement and protection. </li></ul>
  18. 19. AWG-LCA: Adaptation <ul><li>4. Adaptation: Countries must deliberate upon ‘enhanced action on adaptation’ </li></ul><ul><li>The issue here is who should pay, how much and on what basis. Debate also on whether adaptation is part of ODA or separate. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal from Alliance of Small Island States and Switzerland to raise funds using the polluters pay principle. </li></ul><ul><li>G77 + China want the financing to be ‘predictable and stable, new and additional , adequate and timely’; India adds ‘automaticity’. Want separate adaptation funding mechanism under the convention. </li></ul><ul><li>EU says effective action on adaptation is the responsibility of every country; proposes a broad funding architecture that can leverage private and public financial flows. US says ODA and adaptation overlaps. </li></ul>
  19. 20. AWG-LCA: Sectoral approach <ul><li>5. Sectors: ‘Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, in order to enhance implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention’ </li></ul><ul><li>Pushed by Japan and supported by all developed countries -- attempt to push for global sectoral standards on emissions, which will then force developing countries to take on binding emission reduction in various sectors. </li></ul><ul><li>China’s statement reflects the mood of the developing countries: ‘the aim of cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions is to enhance cooperation between Parties for the purpose of promoting development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technologies, practices and processes. Any twist of this understanding leading to global sectoral standards, benchmarks or emission reduction targets is not acceptable’. </li></ul>
  20. 21. AWG-LCA: Finance <ul><li>6. Finance: Countries must consider ‘enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology co-operation’ </li></ul><ul><li>G77+ China demand a funding mechanism, financed by the developed countries, within the scope of the UNFCCC. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico has proposed a World Climate Change Fund, in which all countries could contribute to the fund in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. </li></ul><ul><li>EU differs, suggesting a ‘toolbox’ to deliver finances, that contains already existing channels of financing outside the treaty. </li></ul>
  21. 22. REDD (Reducing emissions deforestation and forest degradation in the developing countries) <ul><li>Part of the Bali Action Plan to arrive at Policy approaches and positive incentives to implement REDD. </li></ul><ul><li>Background: IPCC’s 4th assessment report estimated that global deforestation and degradation released 5.8 GtCO2 annually. This sector in the developing countries might contribute roughly 20 per cent of the world’s GHG emissions. </li></ul><ul><li>Many issues to be resolved; financing for REDD, a methodology to calculate emissions reductions and another to price forests. Also, whether emission reduction from REDD will be used to offset emissions in the developed countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Concerns that if REDD is used to offset emissions in the developed world, then it would flood the carbon market; depress carbon price; and slow the transition to clean energy. </li></ul>
  22. 23. Also on agenda <ul><li>Reinventing the Clean development mechanism (CDM) </li></ul><ul><li>How much emission reduction target will the developed world take post- 2012 – AWG-KP. </li></ul>
  23. 24. Our position for Poznan <ul><li>Agree on legally binding emission reduction targets for rich Annex-1 countries: 30-40% over 1990 levels by 2020 </li></ul><ul><li>No ‘Climate Salami’ </li></ul><ul><li>To agree on national mitigation action by developing countries, to be paid by developed countries through a rights-based mechanism. </li></ul><ul><li>Set up a global trading system based on equal per capita entitlement or agree on a carbon tax on the developed world, so that the fund can pay for national actions in the developing countries including REDD. </li></ul>
  24. 25. Politics for future <ul><li>Cannot freeze global inequity; </li></ul><ul><li>Cannot survive climate change – rich or poor; </li></ul><ul><li>Climate is not about the failure of the market; </li></ul><ul><li>It is about our failure to make the markets work for public and common good… </li></ul><ul><li>It is about politics.. </li></ul>
  25. 26. Otherwise road to ‘common’ hell