Sn Climate Equity Sa Media Aug 09

Global warming in an unequal world : Facts, politics and way ahead
CSE
At the South Asia Media Briefing Workshop
Delhi, August 27-28

Climate change: Real
Climate change is real ; it is already dangerous; heading towards catastrophe
Climate change is urgent ; it needs us to act quickly and drastically
But how ? Climate change is linked to economic growth. Can we re-invent growth?

Is this climate change?
Un-seasonal rains in Kerala, in Tamil Nadu, in Karnataka, in Gujarat, in Rajasthan, frost in Himachal in 2008 or extremely variable rainfall in 2009 leading to drought across the country
Intense rain in Mumbai, July 2005. In 24 hours, 944 mm
The cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh, or Nargis in Myanmar or Alia in West Bengal

No. But also yes
Paradox of our times
Every individual event is not climate change
But the changing trend of changing weather and growing intensity of extreme events is about climate change
Difficult to predict
Difficult to assess because we do not have long-term data

Impacts of climate change
Extreme and variable weather events -- more cold waves, more heat..
More rain, but less rainy days -- more intense rain and sub-regional changes -- more floods and more droughts
More tropical cyclones, more hurricanes
More and faster melting of glaciers

What and why climate change?
“ Change in climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity and is addition to climate variability”
Natural greenhouse effect : gases act as a partial blanket for longwave radiation coming from the surface +
Enhanced greenhouse effect : increased greenhouse gases accumulate in atmosphere, increase concentration and forcing -- CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, chloroflurocarbons

Global temperature increased 0.7 ° C+0.7 ° C

The challenge: 2 ° C
If annual emissions remain at today’s level, greenhouse gas levels would be close to 550 ppm by 2050
This would mean temperature increase of 3-5°C
The difference in temperature between the last ice age (3 million years ago) and now is 5°C
2°C target need us to cap CO2e at 450 ppm. World already reaching 430 ppm -- still dangerous

Drastic reduction needed: For 450 ppm (2°C) reduce 85% by 2050

Problem: gases are linked to economic growth

Historical emissions : A tonne of CO2 emitted in 1850 same value as tonne of CO2 emitted in 2005

Climate injustice: per capita emissions in the world

Present scenario
1 US citizen =
107 Bangladeshis
134 Bhutanese
19 Indians
269 Nepalese
Unacceptable. Need to secure ecological space for growth

3-truths: Climate change political and economic challenge
Is related to economic growth . No one has built a low carbon economy (as yet)
Is about sharing growth between nations and between people. The rich must reduce so that the poor can grow. Create ecological space.
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.

2 degree challenge requires capping emissions

Carbon arithmetic Will have to share the emission budget How will this be done?

2009: Talk, no action
First climate conference in 1988; Convention signed in 1992
In 1997 world agreed in Kyoto to small change – 5% reduction by developed world
In 2009: Kyoto targets not met; industrial country emissions increasing; world at risk
Now pressure on China and India..
All want to buy -- ‘offset’ emissions -- not to change domestically: Why?

Annex 1 have not cut emissions. Hiding behind the decrease of Economies in Transition

Between 1990-2006
• CO2 emissions have increased in the industrialised world
• Only small gains in UK, Sweden and Germany
• But beginning to increase again
• Gas and reunification impact fading?

No energy transition made when the world needs transformation

Big words and small change

Negotiations: mean and messy
Bali-Poznan-Copenhagen
Politics of long-term (2050) verses interim target (2020)
Politics of the base-year : cut emissions but how much measured from which year?
And
Pressure on China, India and rest to take on emission reduction targets -- more advanced countries, differentiation…

Targets: numbers that matter
How much from where?
Australia: 5-15% by 2020 over 2000 level (5% means 18% increase over 1990 level)
Japan: 7% from 1990 level by 2020
US: 20% from 2005 level (stablise at 1990 level)
EU: 20-30% from 1990 level (advantage of EITs)

No more kindergarten approach
Framework for global agreement :
Industrialised countries to take deep cuts (40% by 2020) minimum.
Emerging rich and rest to participate, not by taking legally binding cuts but through a strategy to ‘ avoid ’ future emissions.
Not in our interest to first pollute, then clean up. Not in our interest to deforest our lands and then worry about water and livelihood security

But this needs supportive framework.. The South will do…
• … what the North has done ...first get rich; add to pollution; then invest in cleaning up
• The South will need to invest in efficiency, pollution control and new technologies before it gets rich. Before it can afford the change
This is why we need the just global framework

We can re-invent growth..
We can build “clean” coal power stations; invest in solar and renewables
Can build distributed power grid, based on renewable… microhydel
Can re-invent mobility: move to public transport
18% emissions from land use changes. Can protect forests; Can plant new forests

New renewables: still small part of world primary energy supply: less than 1% 39% of India’s primary energy comes from renewables – because of chulhas of poor

Energy: another win-win But has cost

Solar will cost. But doing nothing will cost us the earth
• Target: 20,000 mw of solar installed capacity in 2020; India has generation based incentive. Will pay for technology introduction. But this costs. Can only do demonstration plants -- target 50 mw. Not spend US$ 80-180 billion
• Indians can afford power: 5-8 cents/kwhr
• Solar will cost: 20-40 cents/kwhr
• Can only upscale if we use equity framework to pay the difference between existing options and new (more expensive) options

Re-invent mobility: can we succeed where the world has failed?

Efficiency is not the answer; sufficiency.. Can we restrain cars? In UK, cars became more efficient; emissions increased as people bought more; drove more

Different futures possible
Cars occupy 90 per cent of road space in cities.
But cars have not replaced the bus, the bicycle or walking.
Cars have only marginalised the bus .
60% use bus
20% use car+2-wheeler
20% cycle
Car takes 80% road space

Forest futures: win-win
Large areas under forests -- critical for water and livelihood security
Cutting forests contributes to emissions; Planting forests ‘soaks’ up emissions
Options:
Payment for standing forests
Payment to plant new forests
Benefit local economies -- Win-win

Requires re-thinking of role of forests in our economies
Forests not carbon sticks; habitats of people
Chipko -- people demanded rights to cut trees; critical for local survival
Need
Payment to compensate for protection; limited use
Payment to go to local communities
Payment for planting trees to be included

At Copenhagen
To agree on :
How much will developed world cut?
How will the transition in the developed world be paid for? What money and technology is needed for this?
How will people ‘adapt’ to climate change and what funds are needed?

Not acceptable

Otherwise road to ‘common’ hell

Sn Climate Equity Sa Media Aug 09

by equitywatch on Aug 27, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Sn Climate Equity Sa Media Aug 09 — Presentation Transcript