The Failure of Copenhagen What next for global energy and climate negotiations? Iain Murray MA(Oxon) MBA DIC Birmingham Co...
What Does Copenhagen’s Failure Mean? <ul><li>What was Copenhagen meant to achieve? </li></ul><ul><li>What did it achieve? ...
What Was Copenhagen About? <ul><li>August 31, 2008. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: “We know what needs to b...
Then the spin changed… <ul><li>Following some contentious pre-meetings, the science of expectations management intervened....
The Copenhagen Accord <ul><li>Until very last minute looked like no agreement would be reached </li></ul><ul><li>President...
What Does the Accord Say? <ul><li>Boilerplate on need to tackle warming problem </li></ul><ul><li>Endorses continuation of...
What  Doesn’t  It Say? <ul><li>Binding targets are gone – each “Annex I” party to submit its own plan </li></ul><ul><li>No...
Status of Copenhagen Accord <ul><li>Over 110 countries are now &quot;associated&quot; with the accord but it has not been ...
How Did We Get to This Point? <ul><li>Negotiations implicitly recognize the cost of reducing emissions </li></ul><ul><li>E...
Benefits of Affordable Energy <ul><li>“ Energy is an indispensable ingredient of material prosperity. . . . Where and when...
The Economic Realities of Emissions Reduction <ul><li>Replacing high-emissions fuel sources with low-emissions fuel source...
Changes in Net GHG Emissions 1  2000-2006 from 17 Major Economies 1  Includes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrou...
The Truth About Kyoto
How Expensive is the Gore Plan?
Energy Goals Demanded by European Approach are Unrealistic <ul><li>Massive effort is required to cut emissions </li></ul><...
Massive Effort Needed to Meet Emissions Goals Source: Clarke, L.  et al.  2006.  Climate Change Mitigation: An Analysis of...
How Big is One Gigaton* of CO 2 ? *Gigaton = 10 9  Metric Tons Install 1,000 sequestration sites like Norway’s Sleipner pr...
2050 Reference Emissions 2050 Annex I Reference Emissions (18.2 Gt) Annex I Countries  Non-Annex I Countries 2050 Non-Anne...
Reality  of EU’s Failed Experiment <ul><li>Did  not  reduce emissions (slight growth 2000-2006) however still led to: </li...
What Does This All Mean? <ul><li>Reducing emissions is extremely expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Even reducing emissions sligh...
The Developing World’s View <ul><li>Emissions are tied to growth </li></ul><ul><li>Growth is necessary for development </l...
CO 2  Emissions (Gt CO 2 /yr) Important Transitions in Emitting Countries Over the Coming Decades: CO 2  Emissions 1  by R...
Business-as-Usual CO 2  Emission Projections by Region Data derived from  Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Cl...
2050 Reference Emissions Annex I Countries  Non-Annex I Countries Annex I Emissions at 20% 2000 Emissions Annex I Emission...
Scale of Biomass Land Area Land Use Scenario  ≈ 550 ppmv Source:  Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate Ch...
This Explains DW’s Position <ul><li>“ Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh told Clinton that ‘there is simply no case...
Reality of an Energy-Starved World
The Undercover Economist Speaks <ul><li>“ If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which ...
Reality of Future Negotiations <ul><li>DW will not accept limitations on its energy use </li></ul><ul><li>EU-biased Kyoto ...
What is Obama’s Position? <ul><li>Internal memo left on European hotel computer </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Reinforce the perc...
Developing World’s Position <ul><li>Will not accept binding emissions reductions targets for itself </li></ul><ul><li>Dema...
EU’s Position <ul><li>Dominated by Sarkozy </li></ul><ul><li>Sarkozy and Berlusconi issued joint letter </li></ul><ul><li>...
What Shape Will Future Negotiations Take? <ul><li>Depends heavily on future of emissions reduction paradigm </li></ul><ul>...
Have We Entered a Post-European Era in International Diplomacy? <ul><li>All indications are that EU has lost its dominant ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bcfr April 20 2010

556
-1

Published on

My presentation to the Birmingham Committee on Foreign Relations, outlining the difficulties with current climate negotiations.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
556
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bcfr April 20 2010

  1. 1. The Failure of Copenhagen What next for global energy and climate negotiations? Iain Murray MA(Oxon) MBA DIC Birmingham Committee on Foreign Relations April 20, 2010
  2. 2. What Does Copenhagen’s Failure Mean? <ul><li>What was Copenhagen meant to achieve? </li></ul><ul><li>What did it achieve? </li></ul><ul><li>How did we get there? </li></ul><ul><li>What are people saying now? </li></ul><ul><li>Where does this leave us? </li></ul>
  3. 3. What Was Copenhagen About? <ul><li>August 31, 2008. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: “We know what needs to be done. We now look to Poznan and Copenhagen negotiations to deliver a response that is commensurate with the climate change crisis that is upon us.” </li></ul><ul><li>September 11, 2008. Ban Ki-moon: “We have only 18 months until Copenhagen. The clock is ticking.” </li></ul><ul><li>January 28, 2009. Al Gore: “This treaty must be negotiated this year.” </li></ul><ul><li>February 16, 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri: “It is crucial that in Copenhagen in December 2009 governments from across the world reach agreement on tackling the challenge of climate change on a collective basis.” </li></ul>
  4. 4. Then the spin changed… <ul><li>Following some contentious pre-meetings, the science of expectations management intervened. </li></ul><ul><li>The line became that “The meeting at Copenhagen this year is just a step on the road to an international treaty on emissions reduction.” </li></ul>
  5. 5. The Copenhagen Accord <ul><li>Until very last minute looked like no agreement would be reached </li></ul><ul><li>President Obama was snubbed on several occasions throughout the last day by China </li></ul><ul><li>Last minute meeting between US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa </li></ul><ul><li>Produced the Copenhagen Accord </li></ul>
  6. 6. What Does the Accord Say? <ul><li>Boilerplate on need to tackle warming problem </li></ul><ul><li>Endorses continuation of Kyoto approach for mitigation </li></ul><ul><li>Stresses role of adaptation and agrees to $130 billion funding </li></ul><ul><li>Commits developing world to slower growth in emissions </li></ul>
  7. 7. What Doesn’t It Say? <ul><li>Binding targets are gone – each “Annex I” party to submit its own plan </li></ul><ul><li>No reductions for developing world parties </li></ul><ul><li>No international cap-and-trade market (yet) </li></ul><ul><li>None of Europe’s demands met </li></ul>
  8. 8. Status of Copenhagen Accord <ul><li>Over 110 countries are now &quot;associated&quot; with the accord but it has not been adopted by the 192-nation UN climate convention. </li></ul><ul><li>The US has denied aid to some countries that do not support the accord (Bolivia, Ecuador). </li></ul><ul><li>“ All or nothing” approach alienated China, India and Brazil in Bonn. </li></ul>
  9. 9. How Did We Get to This Point? <ul><li>Negotiations implicitly recognize the cost of reducing emissions </li></ul><ul><li>EU approach has self-evidently failed </li></ul><ul><li>Developing world will not drop its demands to develop </li></ul><ul><li>Even slight reductions in growth will have to be paid for by the most concerned </li></ul>
  10. 10. Benefits of Affordable Energy <ul><li>“ Energy is an indispensable ingredient of material prosperity. . . . Where and when energy is in short supply or too expensive, people suffer from lack of direct energy services (such as cooking, heating, lighting, and transport) and from inflation, unemployment, and reduced economic output.” </li></ul><ul><li>- John Holdren (President Obama’s Science Advisor) </li></ul>
  11. 11. The Economic Realities of Emissions Reduction <ul><li>Replacing high-emissions fuel sources with low-emissions fuel sources is expensive </li></ul><ul><li>High prices mean less energy used </li></ul><ul><li>Gas demand fell 3% thanks to $4 gas </li></ul><ul><li>Burden falls mostly on the poor </li></ul>
  12. 12. Changes in Net GHG Emissions 1 2000-2006 from 17 Major Economies 1 Includes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, as well as emissions and removals of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from land-use, land-use change and forestry activities. ** No UNFCCC data available for time period; 2001 through 2005 IEA data used. Sources: UNFCCC, 2008 National Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Formats and IEA Online Energy Services.
  13. 13. The Truth About Kyoto
  14. 14. How Expensive is the Gore Plan?
  15. 15. Energy Goals Demanded by European Approach are Unrealistic <ul><li>Massive effort is required to cut emissions </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Approved’ environmental fuels cannot meet energy demands </li></ul><ul><li>Developing world is not going to comply, even if we completely eliminate emissions </li></ul>
  16. 16. Massive Effort Needed to Meet Emissions Goals Source: Clarke, L. et al. 2006. Climate Change Mitigation: An Analysis of Advanced Technology Scenarios . Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Cumulative global emissions reductions ranging from about 1,100 to 3,700 gigatons of CO 2 equivalent would be need over the course of the century to meet a range of atmospheric concentration goals (450 to 750 ppm). 1st GtC Avoided CO 2 Emissions (GtCO 2 /yr) Cumulative Emissions Cumulative Avoided Emissions Unconstrained Emissions Scenario CO 2 Stabilization Scenario ≈ 1,100 to 3,700 gigatons of cumulative CO 2 emission reductions will be needed to meet a range of stabilization scenarios (≈750 ppm to 450 ppm). Time 0
  17. 17. How Big is One Gigaton* of CO 2 ? *Gigaton = 10 9 Metric Tons Install 1,000 sequestration sites like Norway’s Sleipner project (1 MtCO2/year)—Only 3 sequestration projects of this scale exist today. Geologic Sequestration Build 273 “zero-emission” 500 MW coal-fired power plants—Equivalent to about 7% of current global installed coal-fired generating capacity of 2 million MW. Coal-Fired Power Plants Convert a barren area of about 4,800,000 km 2 —Equivalent to about 20 times the size of the United Kingdom. Biomass Fuels from Plantations Install capacity to produce 273 times the current global solar PV generation instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS. Solar Photovoltaics Actions that Provide One Gigaton CO 2 / Year of Mitigation or Offsets Technology Convert a barren area of about 900,000 km 2 —Equivalent to more that the size of Germany and France combined. CO 2 Storage in New Forest Install capacity to produce 14 times the current global wind generation capacity (about 74 GW) instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS—Equivalent to more than 1 million 1 MW wind turbines. Wind Energy Deploy 273 million new cars at 40 miles per gallon (mpg) instead of 20 mpg (or at 14 km/L instead of 7 km/L). Efficiency Build 136 new nuclear power plants of 1 GW each instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS—Equivalent to about one third of existing worldwide nuclear capacity of 375 GW. Nuclear
  18. 18. 2050 Reference Emissions 2050 Annex I Reference Emissions (18.2 Gt) Annex I Countries Non-Annex I Countries 2050 Non-Annex I Reference Emissions (32.4 Gt) Annex I Emissions at 20% 2000 Emissions Annex I Emissions at 50% 2000 Emissions -100% ( -18.2 Gt ) -84% ( -15.2 Gt ) -59% ( -10.7 Gt ) -62% ( -20.1 Gt ) -71% ( -23.1 Gt ) -85% ( -27.6 Gt ) 1 Includes fossil and other industrial CO 2 . 2 50% of 2000 global GHG emissions equals 12.3 Gt. 3 Equals reduction from 2050 reference for that group ( i.e ., Annex I or Non-Annex I). Source: Climate Change Science Program . 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Model results). 2050 Annex I Emissions (0 Gt) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions (12.3Gt) 2050 Annex I Emissions (3.0 Gt) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions (9.3 Gt) 2050 Annex I Emissions (7.4 Gt) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions (4.9 Gt) Annex I Emissions at “0” 2000 2000 To Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global CO 2 Emissions by 2050, Need Significant Reductions from Developing Countries Annual Gigaton CO 2 and Percent Reductions from 2050 Reference 3 CO 2 , Emissions (Gt CO 2 /yr)
  19. 19. Reality of EU’s Failed Experiment <ul><li>Did not reduce emissions (slight growth 2000-2006) however still led to: </li></ul><ul><li>Leakage (e.g., steel jobs to the US, aluminum plant simply closed) </li></ul><ul><li>Idling/Gaming (e.g., ceramics, pharmaceuticals) </li></ul><ul><li>Price spikes and windfall profits for utilities </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced energy security, increased likelihood of rolling blackouts </li></ul><ul><li>So successful that they threaten a trade war if we don’t do it to ourselves, too. </li></ul>
  20. 20. What Does This All Mean? <ul><li>Reducing emissions is extremely expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Even reducing emissions slightly is very expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Attempts to ‘do something’ are generally all economic pain for no climate gain </li></ul>
  21. 21. The Developing World’s View <ul><li>Emissions are tied to growth </li></ul><ul><li>Growth is necessary for development </li></ul><ul><li>Emissions reductions have proved extremely expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Requiring emissions reductions of developing world is immoral </li></ul><ul><li>Developed world caused problem </li></ul>
  22. 22. CO 2 Emissions (Gt CO 2 /yr) Important Transitions in Emitting Countries Over the Coming Decades: CO 2 Emissions 1 by Region - 2000 & 2050 About 80 to 90% of the expected increase in GHG emissions between now and 2050 will come from developing countries, primarily China, India & SE Asia. 1 Includes Fossil and other industrial CO 2 . Source: Climate Change Science Program. 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Results). Non-Annex I Regions Annex I Regions
  23. 23. Business-as-Usual CO 2 Emission Projections by Region Data derived from Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate Change: Phase 2 Findings from an International Public-Private Sponsored Research Program , Battelle Memorial Institute, 2007.
  24. 24. 2050 Reference Emissions Annex I Countries Non-Annex I Countries Annex I Emissions at 20% 2000 Emissions Annex I Emissions at 50% 2000 Emissions -100% -84% -59% -62% -71% -85% 1 Measured as MMTCO 2 per million people, excluding LULUCF. 2 50% of 2000 global CO 2 emissions equals 12.3 Gt. 3 Equals reduction from 2050 reference for that group ( i.e ., Annex I or Non-Annex I). Source: Climate Change Science Program . 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Model results). Annex I Emissions at “0” To Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global CO 2 Emissions by 2050, Per Capita Emissions from Developing Countries Must Go Down Percent Reductions from 2050 Reference 3 2000 Annex I Reference Emissions/ Capita (12.7) 2000 Non-Annex I Reference Emissions/ Capita (4.4) 2050 Annex I Emissions/ Capita (0) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions/ Capita (1.7) 2050 Annex I Emissions/ Capita (2.1) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions/ Capita (1.3) 2050 Annex I Emissions/ Capita (5.2) 2050 Non-Annex I Emissions/ Capita (0.7) CO 2 , Emissions per Capita (MMTCO2 per million pop.) 2000 2000
  25. 25. Scale of Biomass Land Area Land Use Scenario ≈ 550 ppmv Source: Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate Change: Phase 2 Findings from an International Public-Private Sponsored Research Program , Battelle Memorial Institute, 2007. Land Use Scenario with 0.5% annual agricultural activity growth. By 2050, land use required for bioenergy crops may account for approximately 4 to 5% of total land use; by 2095 approximately 20%.
  26. 26. This Explains DW’s Position <ul><li>“ Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh told Clinton that ‘there is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.’ </li></ul><ul><li>“ During an hour-long private meeting with Clinton, Ramesh also accused the US of threatening to impose carbon tariffs on Indian exports if it failed to sign up to international emission redcuction targets.” </li></ul><ul><li>-- BusinessGreen, July 21, 2009 </li></ul>
  27. 27. Reality of an Energy-Starved World
  28. 28. The Undercover Economist Speaks <ul><li>“ If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.” </li></ul><ul><li>-- Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist , 2006 </li></ul>
  29. 29. Reality of Future Negotiations <ul><li>DW will not accept limitations on its energy use </li></ul><ul><li>EU-biased Kyoto structure has gone </li></ul><ul><li>EU is sidelined </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptation will increase in importance </li></ul><ul><li>Developed World will have to pay for Developing World mitigation </li></ul>
  30. 30. What is Obama’s Position? <ul><li>Internal memo left on European hotel computer </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.“ </li></ul><ul><li>“ Manage expectations,” bypass traditional media </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Create a clear understanding of the CA's [Copenhagen accord's] standing and the importance of operationalizing ALL elements.&quot; </li></ul>
  31. 31. Developing World’s Position <ul><li>Will not accept binding emissions reductions targets for itself </li></ul><ul><li>Demands further emissions reductions from developed world </li></ul><ul><li>Regards Copenhagen Accord as starting point and incomplete </li></ul>
  32. 32. EU’s Position <ul><li>Dominated by Sarkozy </li></ul><ul><li>Sarkozy and Berlusconi issued joint letter </li></ul><ul><li>“ A border-adjustment mechanism&quot; is &quot;an indispensable lever that the European Union must have the power to use if we want to preserve the environmental integrity of our efforts while ensuring the engagement of our principal partners“ </li></ul><ul><li>Trade war is the only leverage left </li></ul>
  33. 33. What Shape Will Future Negotiations Take? <ul><li>Depends heavily on future of emissions reduction paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>If paradigm is not rejected, likely to cause vicious cycle </li></ul><ul><li>If paradigm rejected, hope for achieving benefits based on adaptation and technology investment and transfer </li></ul>
  34. 34. Have We Entered a Post-European Era in International Diplomacy? <ul><li>All indications are that EU has lost its dominant role in climate negotiations </li></ul><ul><li>US and BRIC dominant </li></ul><ul><li>EU reduced to protectionism </li></ul><ul><li>Liberal internationalist view of the world must reflect this new reality </li></ul><ul><li>EU a failed experiment as a model of global governance – nation state as strong as ever </li></ul>

×