An assessment of what went wrong in the lead up to Copenhagen, and whether the political situation is different in the lead up to the 2015 deadline. And what this means for Australia.

1. Julie-­‐Anne
Richards
Consultant
julieannerichards2008@gmail.com
+61
(0)420
308
625
@jar_climate
julie-­‐anne_richards
(skype)
hEp://confessionsofaclimategeek.blogspot.com.au/
The
Interna4onal
Climate
Nego4a4ons
…
Is
there
Hope?
…
and
what
does
it
mean
for
Australia?

2. • Durban
(2011)
agreed
to:
“launch
a
process
to
develop
a
protocol,
another
legal
instrument
or
an
agreed
outcome
with
legal
force
under
the
Conven4on
applicable
to
all
Par4es
…
no
later
than
2015”
• But
we
failed
at
this
task
in
2009
–
are
we
more
likely
to
succeed
in
2015?
Interna4onal
Climate
Nego4a4ons
…
is
there
hope?

3. 1. 2008-­‐09
no
shared
understanding
of
who
would
do
what
and
who
would
pay,
and
no
genuine
nego4a4ons.
2. Nego4a4on
process
was
incredibly
complicated
and
confused.
The
“nothing
is
agreed
un4l
it’s
all
agreed”
approach
and
lack
of
a
process
plan
meant
nothing
was
agreed.
3. The
poli4cs
worked
against
a
deal
being
made.
Is
anything
different
now?
What
went
wrong
in
2009?

4. Expecta4ons,
equity
and
cold,
hard
numbers
Lead
up
to
2009:
– Entered
Copenhagen
with
fundamentally
different
beliefs
about
who
would
be
taking
what
ac4on.
– Expecta4ons
on
scale
of
commitments
not
established.
– Failed
to
enter
real
nego4a4ons.
Eg:
the
EU
were
ready
to
go
to
30%,
and
Australia
to
15%,
but
*no-­‐one
asked*!
Lead
up
to
2015:
– Who
does
what
and
who
pays
star4ng
to
be
discussed
(Equity).
– A
different
understanding
of
who
should
take
what
ac4on
underlies
discussions.
– Broad
understanding
that
mi4ga4on
and
finance
numbers
must
be
on
table
early
(in
2014)
in
order
to
be
reviewed.
– Understanding
that
there
must
be
a
science
&
equity
framework
to
review
ini4al
commitments.
– NGOs
will
clearly
communicate
country
specific
numbers
to
set
expecta4ons
end
2013/early
2014
(I
hope).

5. Pathway
to
an
agreement
Lead
up
to
2009:
– All
decisions
pushed
to
a
final
package
(“nothing
is
agreed
un4l
everything
is
agreed”).
– Technical
+
structural
+
poli4cal
elements
all
being
nego4ated.
– Too
much
to
be
agreed
in
one
go
(200pp
nego4a4ng
text).
– No
clear
tasks
for
Leaders.
– The
Danes!!
Lead
up
to
2015:
– A
roadmap
has
been
agreed
(albeit
minimalist).
– More
suppor4ng
architecture
exists,
or
is
close:
• Green
Carbon
Fund
(GCF);
• Technology
Mechanism
–
Technology
Execu4ve
Commikee
(TEC)
established
and
Climate
Technology
Centre
and
Network
(CTCN).
– Role
for
Leaders
–
beker
understanding/planning.

6. The
poli4cs
2009:
• Unholy
alliance
of
US
and
BASICs
blocked
progress.
• EU
was
locked
out
of
final
nego4a4ons.
• LDCs,
AOSIS,
Africa
Group
–
not
effec4ve
enough.
Lead
up
to
2015:
• EU
realises
it
needs
allies.
Established
the
Durban
alliance
with
LDCs
and
AOSIS.
But
subsequently
this
alliance
has
withered.
• Cartagena
Dialogue
established
–
but
opposi4onal
forces
seem
strong.
• US
and
China
increasing
bilateral
work.
• China
has
compelling
domes4c
reasons
to
want
strong
ac4on.
• China
in
par4cular,
and
BASIC
more
generally,
seem
to
be
stepping
up
to
the
plate,
ie
taking
more
responsibility,
in
other
geopoli4cal
areas
(eg:
BASIC
bank).

7. The
poli4cs
• EU
– Realised
need
for
allies
–
Durban
alliance
with
LDCs
and
AOSIS
posi4ve
but
lapsed.
– EU
process
to
develop
2030
targets
for
ghge,
RE
and
EE
already
underway.
Expect
results
end
2013.
– Poland
will
con4nue
to
be
difficult.
Euro
crisis
will
con4nue
to
challenge.
• LDCs,
AOSIS,
Africa
Group
– LDCs
have
been
very
well
organised
and
a
powerful
force.
– AOSIS
were
driving
force
behind
geong
Loss
and
Damage
at
Doha.
– Africa
Group
well
organised.
Sth
Africa
(also
BASIC
country)
make
dynamic
interes4ng.
• China
– Domes4c
reasons
to
take
strong
ac4on.
– Growing
geopoli4cal
power.
Do
not
want
to
repeat
‘blame
game’
that
occurred
aqer
CPH.
• US
– Obama
might
have
found
his
climate
mojo
–
but
recent
package
will
only
meet
exis4ng
17%
below
2005
(4%
below
1990)
target.
More
requires
Congress/the
Republicans.
– Not
clear
the
US
will
ra4fy
anything.
• French
–
not
hard
to
be
beker
than
the
Danes.
• Russia
–
wild
card.
• La4n
American
countries
• Canada
[&
Australia]
–
new
Petro-­‐States?

8. Interna4onal
Climate
Nego4a4ons
…
is
there
hope?
Yes!
UNFCCC
nego4a4ons
are
in
a
much
beker
space
than
in
lead
up
to
Copenhagen.
But…
S4ll
key
ingredients
to
be
put
in
place.
and
…
S4ll
plenty
of
chance
for
things
to
go
wrong.

9. Ingredients
for
a
decent
2015
agreement:
In
the
nego4a4ons:
– Equity
(who
does
what
and
who
pays)
discussed
early
– Numbers
(mi4ga4on
and
finance)
on
table
in
2014
so
that
we
enter
real
nego4a4ons
– Public
finance
(incl
innova4ve
sources)
roadmap
– Understanding
that
wealthy
countries
must
do
FAR
more
– Agreement
to
a
“dynamic”
approach
–
ie
countries
move
to
higher
levels
of
ac4on
as
they
develop
– Understand
that
the
US
probably
won’t
ra4fy
anything
(non
party
mechanism
discussed
early)
– ?
Loss
&
damage,
as
a
‘backstop’
in
case
mi4ga4on
is
not
high
enough.

10. What
does
it
mean
for
Australia?
– Australia
needs
to
be
ready
to
put
decent
mi4ga4on
and
finance
commitments
on
the
table
in
2014.
– 5%
or
15%
will
not
be
anywhere
near
enough.

11. RCP3-­‐PD
RCP45
Source:
M.
Meinshausen,
2013
based
on
CMIP5.
• The
IPCC
AR5
might
conclude
that
RCP3-­‐PD
the
lowest
of
the
IPCC
climate
model
“representa4ve
concentra4on
pathways”
would
imply
a
likely
chance
to
stay
below
2°C.
– Lower
carbon
budget
when
including
non-­‐CO2
gases.
– Lower
carbon
budget
when
considering
higher
than
33%
likelihoods.
– Lower
carbon
budget
when
considering
lower
temperature
targets,
like
1.5.

12. &
&&
!"#$%&'(')*+'&,"--"./-'"/'0'1234)'-5&/0%".-'.6&%708'9":;'0'+4)'-5&/0%".'$/:"7':;&'+<=<->'?$:'%&@$"%&'A&&8&%'%&A$5:"./-'"/':;&'%&-:'.B'
:;&'+1
-:
'5&/:$%C2'
&
&
!"#$%&'D'E;&'&BB&5:'.B'0'A&70C'"/'+<+<'%&A$5:"./->'?$:'F&&8"/#'0'B"G&A'5$,$70:"6&'&,"--"./-'"/':;&'8&%".A'$8':.'+<3<'H;&/5&'0'B"G&A'
8%.?0?"7":C' .B' &G5&&A"/#' :&,8&%0:$%&' :0%#&:-I' "-' :.' "/5%&0-&' :;&' %&@$"%&A' %&A$5:"./' %0:&' $8' :.' +<3<' 0/A' A&&8&/' :;&' %&A$5:"./-'
Adequacy
and
feasibility
of
the
1.5oC
long-­‐term
global
limit.
CAN
Europe
&
Climate
Analy4cs.
July
2013.
hkp://www.climnet.org/resources/latest-­‐publica4ons/571-­‐adequacy-­‐and-­‐feasibility-­‐of-­‐the-­‐1-­‐5-­‐c-­‐long-­‐term-­‐global-­‐limit

13. 24 Point of No Return The massive climate threats we must avoid
section four
Climate change impacts
The impacts of various levels of global warming
Adequacy
and
feasibility
of
the
1.5oC
long-­‐term
global
limit.
CAN
Europe
&
Climate
Analy4cs.
July
2013.
hkp://www.climnet.org/resources/latest-­‐publica4ons/571-­‐adequacy-­‐and-­‐feasibility-­‐of-­‐the-­‐1-­‐5-­‐c-­‐long-­‐term-­‐global-­‐limit
Point
of
No
Return:
The
massive
carbon
threats
we
must
avoid.
Greenpeace.
January
2013.
hkp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/Coal/PointOfNoReturn.pd
Why
bother
staying
below
1.5oC?
1.5oC
• Serious
challenges
worldwide,
especially
in
LDCs,
SIDS
and
Africa
• Increased
water
stress
in
regions
already
drought
affected
today
• Coral
reef
ecosystems
extremely
adversely
impacted
by
ocean
acidifica4on
&
warming
&
sea
level
rise
• If
temps
drop
below
1.5oC
sea
level
rise
might
stabilise
below
1.5m
in
long
term,
~75cm
by
2100
(sea
level
rise
of
45cm
=
10%
of
Bangladesh
lost)
2oC
• Severe
&
widespread
droughts
in
next
30-­‐90yrs
including
southern
Europe,
Australia,
Africa,
Americas
• Nega4vely
affected
crop
yields
put
pressure
on
food
security
• Drought
disaster
frequency
in
major
crop
sowing
areas
expected
to
double
• 7-­‐27%
damages
sub-­‐Sahelian
crop
damages
• Substan4al
forest
retreat
in
Amazon
• Coral
reef
growth
impeded
• Greenland
ice
sheet
irreversible
melt
es4mated
at
1.6oC,
long
term
sea
level
rise
of
3m
by
2300.

14. 14

15. What
does
this
mean
for
Australia’s
targets?
The
2040
phase
out
date
is
JAR’s
wild
guess
I
understand
others
have
calculated
2035.
It
is,
broadly
speaking,
in
line
with
the
domes4c
reduc4ons
for
Australia
under
a
GDR
approach
(see
Dr
Ian
McGregor’s
calcula4on
of
same:
hkp://consulta4on.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/climate-­‐change-­‐authority1/submissions/33/akachment
Trajectories
are
JAR’s
rough
calcula4ons,
they
do
not
fully
take
into
account
the
‘carbon
budget’
(area
under
the
graph).
Source:
historical
emissions
&
emission
trajectory
to
2020
for
5%,
15%,
25%
pathways:
www.climatechange.gov.au.

16. And
then
there’s
finance
…
– Finance
commitments:
• $2.4bn
per
year
by
2020
(Australia’s
share
of
$100bn
by
2020)
World
Vision
• One
expects
this
to
increase
beyond
2020:
In
developing
countries
mi2ga2on
could
cost
$140
to
$175
billion
a
year
over
the
next
20
years
(with
associated
financing
needs
of
$265
to
$565
billion);
over
the
period
2010
to
2050
adapta2on
investments
could
average
$30
to
$100
billion
a
year.
World
Bank
World
Vision:
hkp://www.worldvision.com.au/libraries/finance_report/finance_report_-­‐_climate_change.pdf
=
0.1%
of
Australia‘s
projected
GNI
at
2020
World
Bank,
World
Development
Report
2010,
Chapter
6
hkp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-­‐1226014527953/Chapter-­‐6.pdf

17. What
does
it
mean
for
Australia?
The
Australian
Government
needs
to
be
ready
to
put
this
level
of
commitment
on
the
table
by
September
2014:
– Mi4ga4on
targets
• 2025
-­‐42%
to
-­‐55%
• 2030
-­‐61%
to
-­‐70%
• Substan4al/Majority
domes4c
reduc4ons
– Finance
commitments:
• $2.4bn
per
year
by
2020
(Australia’s
share
of
$100bn)
How
do
we
change
the
poliTcal
situaTon
to
make
this
possible?
If
not
–
then
which
country
should
make
up
Australia’s
shorXall?
Finance
commitment
source:
hkp://www.worldvision.com.au/libraries/finance_report/finance_report_-­‐_climate_change.pdf
=
0.1%
projected
Gross
Na4onal
Income
(GNI)
at
2020.
Australia’s
aid
budget
2013
=
$5.7bn.

18. Quick
thoughts
on
ac4on
• Time
to
win
back
‘hearts
and
minds’
on
climate
change.
Con4nue
to
talk
about
the
technocra4c
and
specific
fixes
eg
targets,
carbon
pricing,
renewables,
within
a
framework
based
on
values
and
emo4on.
• Talk
about
the
seriousness
of
the
problem
whilst
offering
hope.
Accentuate
the
posi4ve
whilst
recognising
the
risk.
• Ensure
the
solu4on
is
on
the
same
scale
as
the
problem.
The
problem
is
global
and
affects
everyone.
The
solu4on
has
to
be
global,
with
fair
na4onal
levels
of
ac4on,
and
links
to
local
and
personal
ac4on.
A
complete
solu4on
package.
• Na4onal
targets
needs
to
be
incorporated
into
messaging
and
campaigns
really,
really
soon.
• A
global
agreement
is
important,
but
we
need
ac4on
on
this
scale
anyway.
Locking
in
local
ambi4on
is
the
best
way
to
get
a
global
agreement.
• Success
on
this
scale
will
need
civil
society
collabora4on.

19. Addi4onal
opportuni4es
/
challenges
• G20
– Summit
(HoG)
–
15-­‐16
November
2014,
Brisbane
– Australia
G20
President
next
year.
Coali4on
have
big
plans
for
the
G20.
And
no
doubt
Rudd
will
want
to
be
seen
to
be
doing
something
*important*.
– Climate
Finance
opportuni4es:
• Fossil
fuel
subsidies
• Interna4onal
coal
levy
–
por4on
of
which
goes
to
GCF
• Pacific
Islands
Forum
3-­‐6
September
2013
– Marshall
Islands
wants
climate
change
declara4on
hkp://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-­‐07-­‐29/an-­‐
marshall-­‐islands-­‐calls-­‐on-­‐australia-­‐to-­‐tackle-­‐climate-­‐
change/4851434

20.
Thanks!
Julie-­‐Anne
Richards
Consultant
julieannerichards2008@gmail.com
+61
(0)420
308
625
@jar_climate
julie-­‐anne_richards
(skype)
hkp://confessionsofaclimategeek.blogspot.com.au/