The final day has certainly been the oddest in my time in Poznan. In any fundamental way we are no nearer getting a just climate agreement by the end of 2009 than last year in Bali.
As I write, we are still to have the final wrapping up sessions, but it has been clear for a while that developed countries have come here with no intention of advancing the talks. Australia, Canada, Japan and the US have made no offers on cutting emissions by 2020. And no rich country has meaningfully engaged on developing country proposals for finance and technology.
Meanwhile in Brussels, the EU has reached an agreement which drives a dagger through the heart of negotiations. They have agreed to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 on 1990 levels (40 per cent is needed), and around two-thirds of this can be met through offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU. And one mechanism in the package actually subsidises new coal power stations – the kind that will be ‘ready’ for carbon capture and storage rather than actually having any.
We enter 2009 without the leadership from Europe so urgently needed.
Inevitably the story of Poznan will be written-up as ‘Waiting for Obama’. But what a much better place we would be waiting in if Europe had lived up to its rhetoric of wanting to lead the world in tackling climate change.
Al Gore earlier used a climate change statistic that I am most scared by. Around 1.4 billion are dependent for more than half their water supplies on glaciers in the Himalayas. Those glaciers will be gone if we carry on our current path.
I am a stats person. I like the big picture they give. But ultimately it is stories that move us. I wish the thousands of delegates could meet not here in a sanitised conference centre where stories are so few, but on the shores of Legaspi City in the Philippines, where hundreds of people have to rebuild their homes every time a supertyphoon passes through.
They could stop talking and listen. Listen to those who have already had to move home because of the increased strength of typhoons. Listen to those who live on the beech and watch the sea-level risen. Listen to Virgilio Perdigon from the local university, who works so hard to help people adapt to climate change, but fears what the future could bring.
A tear falls down my cheek. Today has been a day of anger. 2009 has to be a year of hope.
Friday, 12 December 2008
Stop talking, take action!
Guest blog from Esther Neuhaus, Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and Development
The last day at the COP in Poznan is when Ministers have to hurry to take any decisions with respect to the outcomes of negotiations. This is usually the moment when pressure to take decisions increases. When no one really assumes leadership, then the bad and evil appear.
In this COP, Canada, Australia and Japan played this role, not encouraging any person wishing to contribute with a successful outcome of the discussions in Poznan and in Copenhagen. They opposed the targets of 25 to 40% of GHG emissions reductions for rich countries, simply ignoring the footnote in the Bali Plan of Action, which has to be transferred to the main agreement text.
If we do not reach half way here, then the efforts in 2009 have to be huge. Canada and Australia, together with New Zealand and the United States opposed the inclusion of indigenous rights in the text on reducing deforestation, provoking many negative reactions.
Last but not least, the President of the Conference, the Polish Minister for the Environment, declared that the event will be closed with a declaration of the President. Everything indicates that there will be no negotiating text at this COP and that the chair of the Meeting will get the mandate to produce a negotiating text in 2009, considering submissions by the parties which can be made until the end of April.
On Thursday Brazil officially launched during this COP its National Plan on Climate Change, a 129 page document which highlights the main strategies the country pretends to adopt during future years and decades to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The Brazilian Government is convinced that its plan is much better than the one of China and other countries, mainly because it was elaborated during a process of public consultation, which counted with the participation of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and the Development. The event was well prepared and organized and very well attended. At the same time the Government introduced the Amazon Fund, destined to help to reach the target of a 40 per cent fall in deforestation between 2006 and 2010, and a further 30 per cent cut in the subsequent 4-year-period. It is a private fund with public administration and a steering committee.
We recognize the initiative of a developing country to set any target to reduce deforestation, which accounts for 75 per cent of emissions in Brazil, but are also conscious that the Plan should not remain just a sheet of paper and that a strong governance and monitoring structure is needed to help implement the actions of the plan. At the same time proposals for Brazil to become a leader for carbon capture and storage technologies, as made by Lord Nicholas Stern who participated in the panel of this side event, have to be evaluated in a very critical way. The Clean Development Mechanism should be free of any nuclear and CCS projects, which should only be seen as complementary market mechanism, not substituting for strong public policies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.
Meanwhile, the climate is changing faster than the negotiations advance. The financial crisis should not be used as an excuse not to take actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as the Norwegian minister said at the Plenary session. The climate crises is far worse than the financial one. Developed and developing countries need to listen to each other, understand and build more confidence to take effective actions. Stop talking, take action.
The last day at the COP in Poznan is when Ministers have to hurry to take any decisions with respect to the outcomes of negotiations. This is usually the moment when pressure to take decisions increases. When no one really assumes leadership, then the bad and evil appear.
In this COP, Canada, Australia and Japan played this role, not encouraging any person wishing to contribute with a successful outcome of the discussions in Poznan and in Copenhagen. They opposed the targets of 25 to 40% of GHG emissions reductions for rich countries, simply ignoring the footnote in the Bali Plan of Action, which has to be transferred to the main agreement text.
If we do not reach half way here, then the efforts in 2009 have to be huge. Canada and Australia, together with New Zealand and the United States opposed the inclusion of indigenous rights in the text on reducing deforestation, provoking many negative reactions.
Last but not least, the President of the Conference, the Polish Minister for the Environment, declared that the event will be closed with a declaration of the President. Everything indicates that there will be no negotiating text at this COP and that the chair of the Meeting will get the mandate to produce a negotiating text in 2009, considering submissions by the parties which can be made until the end of April.
On Thursday Brazil officially launched during this COP its National Plan on Climate Change, a 129 page document which highlights the main strategies the country pretends to adopt during future years and decades to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The Brazilian Government is convinced that its plan is much better than the one of China and other countries, mainly because it was elaborated during a process of public consultation, which counted with the participation of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and the Development. The event was well prepared and organized and very well attended. At the same time the Government introduced the Amazon Fund, destined to help to reach the target of a 40 per cent fall in deforestation between 2006 and 2010, and a further 30 per cent cut in the subsequent 4-year-period. It is a private fund with public administration and a steering committee.
We recognize the initiative of a developing country to set any target to reduce deforestation, which accounts for 75 per cent of emissions in Brazil, but are also conscious that the Plan should not remain just a sheet of paper and that a strong governance and monitoring structure is needed to help implement the actions of the plan. At the same time proposals for Brazil to become a leader for carbon capture and storage technologies, as made by Lord Nicholas Stern who participated in the panel of this side event, have to be evaluated in a very critical way. The Clean Development Mechanism should be free of any nuclear and CCS projects, which should only be seen as complementary market mechanism, not substituting for strong public policies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.
Meanwhile, the climate is changing faster than the negotiations advance. The financial crisis should not be used as an excuse not to take actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as the Norwegian minister said at the Plenary session. The climate crises is far worse than the financial one. Developed and developing countries need to listen to each other, understand and build more confidence to take effective actions. Stop talking, take action.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
The pace of the game
Ed Miliband made his speech to other government ministers now gathered here in Poznan on Thursday afternoon.
I won’t surprise you by saying it contained lots of good rhetoric. This is a “Crossroads moment”. “We all need to raise our game.” It is time to “Up the pace.” Sometimes it was difficult to know which sport we were playing.
As a knowledgable campaigner, I hear you ask: “But what did he commit to?”
To say the cupboard was empty would suggest that there was a cupboard to start with.
Maybe that’s a bit unfair. He did state that the UK now has a law to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. A pat on the back to everyone who dragged the UK government - kicking and screaming - towards that 80 per cent target.
Yesterday I set out three things the UK needed to say (See ‘The 69th day’ below). This is how Ed faired:
1) Mr Miliband said that “A challenging target for 2020 will be adopted.” But not in Poznan? Not sure that’s really upping the pace in the way Usain Bolt would.
2) There was no reference to proposals by developing countries for finance and technology to support actions to curb emissions in developing countries. Ed maintained the EU’s silence on this, referring generally to the need for money. Earlier, the Netherlands did manage to refer to developing country proposals by name.
And despite talking about the UK’s challenging target, Mr Miliband failed to mention that these targets can be met through huge numbers of dodgy offset credits. Maybe the crossroads moment is from spinning around working out how an offset can meet UK targets and reduce developing country emissions, all at the same time.
3) There was no commitment on any new immediate money for adaptation in least developed countries. Raising the game in a “would love to pay for a round but my darling credit crunch card is a bit maxed out at the moment - sorry for trashing your house and forcing you out of your home though” kind of way.
Spleen venting accomplished, I’m off for a beer.
I won’t surprise you by saying it contained lots of good rhetoric. This is a “Crossroads moment”. “We all need to raise our game.” It is time to “Up the pace.” Sometimes it was difficult to know which sport we were playing.
As a knowledgable campaigner, I hear you ask: “But what did he commit to?”
To say the cupboard was empty would suggest that there was a cupboard to start with.
Maybe that’s a bit unfair. He did state that the UK now has a law to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. A pat on the back to everyone who dragged the UK government - kicking and screaming - towards that 80 per cent target.
Yesterday I set out three things the UK needed to say (See ‘The 69th day’ below). This is how Ed faired:
1) Mr Miliband said that “A challenging target for 2020 will be adopted.” But not in Poznan? Not sure that’s really upping the pace in the way Usain Bolt would.
2) There was no reference to proposals by developing countries for finance and technology to support actions to curb emissions in developing countries. Ed maintained the EU’s silence on this, referring generally to the need for money. Earlier, the Netherlands did manage to refer to developing country proposals by name.
And despite talking about the UK’s challenging target, Mr Miliband failed to mention that these targets can be met through huge numbers of dodgy offset credits. Maybe the crossroads moment is from spinning around working out how an offset can meet UK targets and reduce developing country emissions, all at the same time.
3) There was no commitment on any new immediate money for adaptation in least developed countries. Raising the game in a “would love to pay for a round but my darling credit crunch card is a bit maxed out at the moment - sorry for trashing your house and forcing you out of your home though” kind of way.
Spleen venting accomplished, I’m off for a beer.
Bangladesh in the negotiations
Guest blog from Farjana Akter, VOICE, Bangladesh
Climate changes have massively influenced the life of millions of people all over the world. In South Asia Bangladesh is the most affected country. Increased rainfall, droughts, changes in the monsoon pattern, recurring floods and warm winters are all obvious syndromes of climate change. In the past year terrible cyclone Sidr damaged 8.9 million peoples life in Bangladesh. Sea level rise over the last ten years has already eroded 65 per cent of the landmass of the islands of Kutubdia (250 square kilometers), Bhola (227 square kilometers) Sandwip (180 square kilometers) (NCCB).
In the negotiations Bangladesh has been trying to play a vital role as a disaster prone country. Bangladesh demanded to set-up an International Adaptation Centre in Dhaka under the UN framework. The main objective of the centre would be research on how to adapt to climate change.
Bangladesh has asked for a climate change fund, under the UNFCC, which must be in addition to the existing official development assistant commitments made by rich countries of 0.7 percent of gross national product. Bangladesh also demanded that contributions to the Fund must be mandatory not voluntary. Such funds are needed as compensation from rich countries for the climate damage they have caused.
The Bangladesh delegation also asked for developing a mechanism, with the help of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to create an index on the vulnerability of people in each country to climate change.
Bangladesh included the "international migration issue" on the agenda of one of the contact group discussions. They sought to get countries to agree that climate change victims will get the chance of international migration if their homes are destroyed by climate change.
Developing countries are less responsible for climate change but are suffering most from the adverse impacts. All countries must agree to an international cap on emissions. Developed countries have to commit to take the lead in making technology cheaper and transferring it to developing countries.
We have to wait a few more days to see the final outcome of the Poznan convention. Developed countries must show support for climate justice and a fair negotiation within the convention framework.
At Poznan, we call on Parties to ensure equity and justice for all the people in different countries who are already displaced from their homes and livelihoods due to climate change.
Climate changes have massively influenced the life of millions of people all over the world. In South Asia Bangladesh is the most affected country. Increased rainfall, droughts, changes in the monsoon pattern, recurring floods and warm winters are all obvious syndromes of climate change. In the past year terrible cyclone Sidr damaged 8.9 million peoples life in Bangladesh. Sea level rise over the last ten years has already eroded 65 per cent of the landmass of the islands of Kutubdia (250 square kilometers), Bhola (227 square kilometers) Sandwip (180 square kilometers) (NCCB).
In the negotiations Bangladesh has been trying to play a vital role as a disaster prone country. Bangladesh demanded to set-up an International Adaptation Centre in Dhaka under the UN framework. The main objective of the centre would be research on how to adapt to climate change.
Bangladesh has asked for a climate change fund, under the UNFCC, which must be in addition to the existing official development assistant commitments made by rich countries of 0.7 percent of gross national product. Bangladesh also demanded that contributions to the Fund must be mandatory not voluntary. Such funds are needed as compensation from rich countries for the climate damage they have caused.
The Bangladesh delegation also asked for developing a mechanism, with the help of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to create an index on the vulnerability of people in each country to climate change.
Bangladesh included the "international migration issue" on the agenda of one of the contact group discussions. They sought to get countries to agree that climate change victims will get the chance of international migration if their homes are destroyed by climate change.
Developing countries are less responsible for climate change but are suffering most from the adverse impacts. All countries must agree to an international cap on emissions. Developed countries have to commit to take the lead in making technology cheaper and transferring it to developing countries.
We have to wait a few more days to see the final outcome of the Poznan convention. Developed countries must show support for climate justice and a fair negotiation within the convention framework.
At Poznan, we call on Parties to ensure equity and justice for all the people in different countries who are already displaced from their homes and livelihoods due to climate change.
Guyana
An old acquaintance of WDM was speaking at the opening of the ministerial part of the talks on Thursday morning: Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana. In 2003, WDM and a group of penguins successfully campaigned for the supermarket chain Iceland to cancel £12 million of illegitimate debt ‘owed’ to them by Guyana. President Jagdeo personally thanked two WDM staff somewhere in Heathrow airport.
The heads of government of Poland, Sweden and Tuvalu are here as well. Apisai Ielemia, President of Tuvalu, said: “Recent scientific evidence suggests that we must move rapidly for the future existence of countries like Tuvalu. Our future is in your hands. We must not sink by the problems caused by the big and industrialised countries. It is our belief that Tuvalu as a nation has a right to exist forever.”
Bharrat Jagdeo stated that “as an international community our efforts are woefully inadequate to the challenge we face”. With a message straight to European heads of government meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday he said: “If Europe sends a signal they can commit to deep cuts in emissions only in prosperous times, what are developing countries supposed to think?”
The heads of government of Poland, Sweden and Tuvalu are here as well. Apisai Ielemia, President of Tuvalu, said: “Recent scientific evidence suggests that we must move rapidly for the future existence of countries like Tuvalu. Our future is in your hands. We must not sink by the problems caused by the big and industrialised countries. It is our belief that Tuvalu as a nation has a right to exist forever.”
Bharrat Jagdeo stated that “as an international community our efforts are woefully inadequate to the challenge we face”. With a message straight to European heads of government meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday he said: “If Europe sends a signal they can commit to deep cuts in emissions only in prosperous times, what are developing countries supposed to think?”
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
The 69th day
Members of the European Parliament held a press conference on Wednesday. They wanted to make clear that if the EU’s climate policy is weakened over the next couple of days it will be nothing to do with them.
Of course not. They are only elected representatives.
EU Heads of Government will be meeting on Thursday and Friday to agree the final package on reducing emissions within Europe up to 2020. At the moment it looks like between half and two-thirds of the target for reducing emissions by 2020 could be achieved through buying offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU.
MEPs want a limit on offsets, but governments are not listening. The UK has supported half of the EU’s reductions being made through offsets.
On Thursday environment ministers arrive in Poznan and the pace is expected to quicken. Ed Miliband will be here for the UK, fresh faced just 69 days into his new job of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
There are three things Ed could say in his speech on Thursday to inject a bit of life and leadership into Poznan, something which has so far been invisible from rich countries.
1) Accept the advice from his own Committee on Climate Change, given last Monday, that UK emissions need to fall by 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.
2) Say that the UK will offer money to support cuts in emissions in developing countries, in addition to cuts at home. The EU has failed to engage at all with developing countries on this issue in Poznan, saying it will be working on proposals in the first three months of 2009. An opportunity for Ed to take a lead.
3) More immediately, funds are needed in the next few years to help communities in poor countries cope with impacts of climate change already being experienced.
National plans in 38 least developed countries have identified ₤1 billion is needed over the next three years for concrete actions. Whilst tens of billions will be needed later on as the impacts of climate change get worse, the ₤1 billion is needed now.
Ed could come bearing a cheque with the UK’s contribution. Of course, it has to be additional to other aid funds, or its just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Of course not. They are only elected representatives.
EU Heads of Government will be meeting on Thursday and Friday to agree the final package on reducing emissions within Europe up to 2020. At the moment it looks like between half and two-thirds of the target for reducing emissions by 2020 could be achieved through buying offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU.
MEPs want a limit on offsets, but governments are not listening. The UK has supported half of the EU’s reductions being made through offsets.
On Thursday environment ministers arrive in Poznan and the pace is expected to quicken. Ed Miliband will be here for the UK, fresh faced just 69 days into his new job of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
There are three things Ed could say in his speech on Thursday to inject a bit of life and leadership into Poznan, something which has so far been invisible from rich countries.
1) Accept the advice from his own Committee on Climate Change, given last Monday, that UK emissions need to fall by 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.
2) Say that the UK will offer money to support cuts in emissions in developing countries, in addition to cuts at home. The EU has failed to engage at all with developing countries on this issue in Poznan, saying it will be working on proposals in the first three months of 2009. An opportunity for Ed to take a lead.
3) More immediately, funds are needed in the next few years to help communities in poor countries cope with impacts of climate change already being experienced.
National plans in 38 least developed countries have identified ₤1 billion is needed over the next three years for concrete actions. Whilst tens of billions will be needed later on as the impacts of climate change get worse, the ₤1 billion is needed now.
Ed could come bearing a cheque with the UK’s contribution. Of course, it has to be additional to other aid funds, or its just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Climate insurance for a dead man
Guest blog from Farjana Akter, VOICE, BangladeshThe adverse impacts of climate change are already threatening communities around the world. Over the last century the level of carbon dioxide has increased by 25 per cent. Developed countries are mainly liable for the climate crisis. And this problem is devastating environment and biodiversity, damaging people’s life and livelihoods around the globe. Climate change victims are increasing in number every day. It is alarming that there is no obligation for states to recognize the international and external displacement of people due to climate change and other environmental issues.
A study shows that 95 per cent of deaths from natural disasters in the last 25 years occurred in developing countries. And $100 billion has been lost every year due to these natural disasters. The communities of the developing countries are trying to cope with disasters. And the governments of developing countries are generating money for adaptation and mitigation programmes within their countries.
In the UNFCCC there is a vital discussion going on about adaptation and protection of vulnerable countries and people. The contact group on enhanced action on adaptation and associated means of implementation meeting was held yesterday. They were pushing the agenda of an insurance mechanism. The proposed insurance mechanism work to facilitate vulnerability reduction and adaptation. It means affected communities who die because of climate change will get insurance money! This insurance mechanism for vulnerable people is crazy - when people die, they lose their life. What will he/she do with the money!
First we need to think about reducing the risk of climate change – cutting emissions.
The other question is ‘who is going to pay for insurance’? There are many good proposals coming out from the discussion of the contact group. Most of the delegates emphasized an international disaster and management plan which would be integrated with national plans. The most vulnerable country in South Asia, Bangladesh, has had for ten years an Action Plan on Risk Reduction Management. Resource sharing, capacity building and food security reduce the disaster risk in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh asked for help establishing an early warning system about climate information so that they can reduce the risk of disaster in the community.
The meeting also discussed the need to address specific sectors. To manage disaster risk a rehabilitation center for developing countries needs to be established to help vulnerable people rather than insurance.
There is a need for North-South and South-South cooperation. South Africa emphasized the integrity and long term approach for risk management. Whereas Colombia urged for community based adaptation for risk management. Australia said national and domestic action as well international action was needed for adaption.
As the frequency and scope of major natural catastrophe losses continue to increase, there is a growing need to reduce the disaster risks associated with climate change. The market is pushing for insurance – but there are alternative ways developed countries can play their part in enabling disaster-prone countries to successfully manage the new climate risks.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Visible
I brought quite a few books with me to Poznan in an attempt to stay sane. At the moment I am reading ‘Neverwhere’ by Neil Gaiman. Lent to me by Pete - WDM’s web maestro - it tells of a world where the marginalised fall through the cracks in London, and live beneath the streets of the city.The marginalised of ‘London below’ are invisible to those living in ‘London above’. Unless directly confronted by them.
In a report released a couple of weeks ago (Carbon Evictions), WDM outlined how under current plans to tackle climate change, the UK will be responsible for forcing 10 million people to leave their homes due to climate change, through higher sea-level, stronger storms and more drought.
At a seminar on Monday night, Koko Warner from the United Nations University presented research about those already being displaced by climate and other environmental changes. The research shows that those forced to leave their homes because of climate change are and will be on average younger, older, poorer and ‘more-female’ than current refugees. They will be the most marginalised.
In negotiations on Tuesday several rich countries have sought to marginalise further many people across the world. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand insisted that references to protecting the ‘rights’ of indigenous and forest peoples be removed from any agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation.
The caucus of indigenous groups here in Poznan organised a spontaneous protest in response. The chants of ‘No rights’ blasted through the negotiations. The UN sent in security to shut the protest down. Hopefully the direct confrontation will have made the rights of indigenous and forest peoples more visible to the negotiations of the powers that be.
Monday, 8 December 2008
Allergies
What were you doing on Saturday evening? Watching X-factor? A relaxing meal after being on a climate protest? Drinking a beer and bemoaning Leeds’ defeat to Tranmere?
Fortunately or unfortunately I was participating in none of these, but instead joined the International Emissions Trading Association for an event on the future of the Clean Development Mechanism.
Henry Derwent, President and CEO of the business lobby group IETA, chaired the meeting. Until last year Henry led the UK government delegation in climate negotiations, but obviously the UK’s support for carbon offsetting has had nothing to do with Henry being rewarded with his job at IETA.
There was wide-spread agreement in the room that there is a big problem that many CDM projects are not “additional”- they have done nothing to decrease emissions. Simon Marr from the European Commission said that 40 per cent of CDM projects are not additional to what would have happened without CDM funding.
Not that this should get in the way of emissions trading. One business delegate present said “I am reviled by the thought that because of issues around additionality we should abandon the CDM. By engaging with additionality issues we have increased transaction costs which has added to the burdens of business.”
Andrei Marcou from IETA told us that “The CDM has largely been successful” and that those opposed to the CDM “have an allergy to it”.
I have an exotic allergy to sheep and goats cheese. I am not sure of the comparison with the CDM, as reading about dodgy offset projects has not previously brought me out in huge swellings and rashes in the same way as a lump of feta will. However, by now I was getting exasperated if not asphyxiated.
None of the corporate speakers had made any reference to how the CDM and offsetting could help meet global targets for emissions reductions or limit the increase in global temperature to a certain level. There had been no consideration of climate change as a justice issue, or the negative impacts of climate change across the world.
I asked the panel to fill this gap: what is their vision of how we could keep global temperature increase to 2°C if rich countries continue to emit and reach their reduction targets through offsetting in poor countries?
The business people did not seem to understand the question. It was left to Simon Marr from the European Commission to declare that the need to cut emissions in the EU and support action in developing countries as well means that “offsetting has to stop”.
Hallelujah! Someone has seen the light!
But no. In conversation afterwards Simon did not regard the EU meeting half of its reduction targets through buying CDM credits as offsetting.
I may not be allergic to the CDM, but as my eyes puff up and the rashes develop on my arm, an illogical argument joins mediterranean cheeses on my list of things to avoid consuming.
Fortunately or unfortunately I was participating in none of these, but instead joined the International Emissions Trading Association for an event on the future of the Clean Development Mechanism.
Henry Derwent, President and CEO of the business lobby group IETA, chaired the meeting. Until last year Henry led the UK government delegation in climate negotiations, but obviously the UK’s support for carbon offsetting has had nothing to do with Henry being rewarded with his job at IETA.There was wide-spread agreement in the room that there is a big problem that many CDM projects are not “additional”- they have done nothing to decrease emissions. Simon Marr from the European Commission said that 40 per cent of CDM projects are not additional to what would have happened without CDM funding.
Not that this should get in the way of emissions trading. One business delegate present said “I am reviled by the thought that because of issues around additionality we should abandon the CDM. By engaging with additionality issues we have increased transaction costs which has added to the burdens of business.”
Andrei Marcou from IETA told us that “The CDM has largely been successful” and that those opposed to the CDM “have an allergy to it”.
I have an exotic allergy to sheep and goats cheese. I am not sure of the comparison with the CDM, as reading about dodgy offset projects has not previously brought me out in huge swellings and rashes in the same way as a lump of feta will. However, by now I was getting exasperated if not asphyxiated.
None of the corporate speakers had made any reference to how the CDM and offsetting could help meet global targets for emissions reductions or limit the increase in global temperature to a certain level. There had been no consideration of climate change as a justice issue, or the negative impacts of climate change across the world.
I asked the panel to fill this gap: what is their vision of how we could keep global temperature increase to 2°C if rich countries continue to emit and reach their reduction targets through offsetting in poor countries?
The business people did not seem to understand the question. It was left to Simon Marr from the European Commission to declare that the need to cut emissions in the EU and support action in developing countries as well means that “offsetting has to stop”.
Hallelujah! Someone has seen the light!
But no. In conversation afterwards Simon did not regard the EU meeting half of its reduction targets through buying CDM credits as offsetting.
I may not be allergic to the CDM, but as my eyes puff up and the rashes develop on my arm, an illogical argument joins mediterranean cheeses on my list of things to avoid consuming.
Saturday, 6 December 2008
Demonstration time
Saturday has been by far the best day in Poland so far. It was time to demonstrate.Over 1,000 people marched through the streets of Poznan to the convention centre demanding urgent action now to prevent disastrous climate changes.
With my “Stop Kingsnorth” T-shirt I joined a group of people in Climate Justice Now! – a coalition of organizations from across the world, including WDM. With Benny from India, Juana from Cambodia and Ricardo from El Salvador we demanded “Climate Justice Now” and proclaimed “People, united, will never be defeated.”
But as the cold set in to our fingers and toes, eloquence hit a new low with the chant of “CDM… Boo”.
I knew that back in London friends and colleagues would also be marching, and felt a sense of that global action we need to tackle the climate crisis.
Returning to the conference centre, a journalist from Reuters asked me about the march. “Should someone have come to speak to you?”
Of course they should.
A delegate from the EU should have justified how we are going to tackle climate change if the EU meets over half its targets for reducing emissions through dodgy offset projects.
A delegate from the UK should have told us how we can tackle climate change whilst building new coal power stations and new runways.
It would have been refreshing for any country to tell us one thing they have done this week to move the world towards a just way of tackling climate change.
From the first week here it is clear that officials and ministers are not going to take the lead in getting us out of the climate crisis we are in. But then again, that’s always been our job, not theirs.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Woody ways
A fortune teller said to me: “Tell me of the forests in your country and I will tell you your future.” I used my B in GCSE history to reply that all the forests in my country were chopped down to build ships to fight wars with the French.
There has been a notable upsurge in campaigning actions within the conference centre. Just before I was accosted by the fortune teller a large brown box was found claiming to be the EU’s package for leadership on climate change. All that could be found inside was more coal.
Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change. Deforestation is being eyed-up as a major contributor to the carbon credit market.
Proposals have been made that countries should be paid to reduce their rate of deforestation (selling carbon credits to rich country polluters could be a major source of the money). But to calculate any reduction in deforestation requires an estimate of what would have happened if the money were not given.
There are some countries with forests that are being rapidly chopped down. There are some countries with forests that actually have little chopping going on. The second set of countries might be well-placed to get chopping, so they can get the money in the future.
The fortune tellers were offering a prediction service to delegates wanting insight on the forest-futures* market.
Meanwhile indigenous groups say that all projects to tackle deforestation should get the prior informed consent of those who call forests their home.
Which to use: the appeal of home or the appeal of the market?
*Forest-futures is a trademark of Forest Trading Inc. The term 'forests' should be taken to mean all plantations of chlorophyll filled matter whether monocultures of eucalyptus, palm or jatropha or even poly-cultures of varied naturally occurring wooded and bushy elements.
There has been a notable upsurge in campaigning actions within the conference centre. Just before I was accosted by the fortune teller a large brown box was found claiming to be the EU’s package for leadership on climate change. All that could be found inside was more coal.
Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change. Deforestation is being eyed-up as a major contributor to the carbon credit market.
Proposals have been made that countries should be paid to reduce their rate of deforestation (selling carbon credits to rich country polluters could be a major source of the money). But to calculate any reduction in deforestation requires an estimate of what would have happened if the money were not given.
There are some countries with forests that are being rapidly chopped down. There are some countries with forests that actually have little chopping going on. The second set of countries might be well-placed to get chopping, so they can get the money in the future.
The fortune tellers were offering a prediction service to delegates wanting insight on the forest-futures* market.
Meanwhile indigenous groups say that all projects to tackle deforestation should get the prior informed consent of those who call forests their home.
Which to use: the appeal of home or the appeal of the market?
*Forest-futures is a trademark of Forest Trading Inc. The term 'forests' should be taken to mean all plantations of chlorophyll filled matter whether monocultures of eucalyptus, palm or jatropha or even poly-cultures of varied naturally occurring wooded and bushy elements.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Madness upon madness
Another battle was being fought on Thursday over the future of offsetting.
There is a proposal that carbon capture and storage should be included in the Clean Development Mechanism – the scheme through which rich countries 'offset' their emissions.
If it happened, this would mean a coal power station in the UK, which lets all its emissions go into the atmosphere, could pay for a coal power station in a developing country to capture and store its carbon dioxide emissions.
India and Jamaica pointed out that carbon capture and storage does not yet exist on any large power station anywhere in the world.
Grenada mentioned that captured carbon dioxide can be used to get more oil out of the ground, only increasing emissions.
Brazil said that carbon capture and storage leaves a huge liability of carbon dioxide under the Earth, which governments will need to be responsible for, but it is private companies who will benefit from the offset money.
Thinking that rich countries can tackle climate change by maintaining their addiction to fossil fuels, whilst offsetting their emissions, is crazy. It would be madness upon madness to allow a technology which has not yet been shown to work into the offsetting scheme.
So who was supporting it?
Saudi Arabia, Australia and the EU all patronizingly argued that it would be “good for developing countries”.
Developing countries said no thanks.
PS. A coal power station in Madhya Pradesh, India, is to be partly funded by selling carbon offsets. No carbon capture involved, just a more efficient station than older power plants that have previously been built in India.
From 2011, European polluters will be able to pay the Indian power station £40 million a year so that they can keep emitting. The EU will claim it has thereby reduced emissions by 3 million tonnes a year.
I wonder if Eon will be first in the queue to offset Kingsnorth coal power station with a… coal power station?
***Update*** On Wednesday 10 November, the negotiations agreed that no decision could be made on whether or not to include CCS in the CDM. Negotiations will continue at the next jamboree.
The human face
Large conferences are sanitized. Hundreds of people rush in suits from meeting-to-meeting with their wireless laptops and PDAs, speaking in acronyms.
On Wednesday night a panel of indigenous people sought to de-sanitize the conference halls in Poznan.
Margaret Lokuwa told us of the plight of pastoralist farmers from north-east Uganda who are losing their herds due to persistent droughts: “I really don’t know what will happen in the next 15-20 years. Maybe the pastoralists will become extinct?”
Johnson Cerda, from the Kichua people in Ecuador, spoke of how his people are dependent on Lake Limoncocha for their livelihoods. But the water level of the lake is falling and the water is getting warmer, leading to less fish.
And Jennifer Rubez from the Borneo part of Malaysia said that the rainy season is no longer predictable, floods are more severe and many communities have seen their crops and houses destroyed in recent years. Those who are suffering recurrent flooding are now being forced out of their homes to become “climate refugees”.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. All spoke of ways in which indigenous communities are trying to use their local knowledge to adapt to climate changes, such as alternative crops and rotation patterns. Underlying everything they said was an appeal to justice. Vicky Taull-Corpez from the Philippines concluded that:
“We indigenous people’s have made the greatest contribution to mitigating climate change. We have kept fossil fuels in the ground and we have maintained the forests.”
What have we done in return?
On Wednesday night a panel of indigenous people sought to de-sanitize the conference halls in Poznan.
Margaret Lokuwa told us of the plight of pastoralist farmers from north-east Uganda who are losing their herds due to persistent droughts: “I really don’t know what will happen in the next 15-20 years. Maybe the pastoralists will become extinct?”
Johnson Cerda, from the Kichua people in Ecuador, spoke of how his people are dependent on Lake Limoncocha for their livelihoods. But the water level of the lake is falling and the water is getting warmer, leading to less fish.
And Jennifer Rubez from the Borneo part of Malaysia said that the rainy season is no longer predictable, floods are more severe and many communities have seen their crops and houses destroyed in recent years. Those who are suffering recurrent flooding are now being forced out of their homes to become “climate refugees”.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. All spoke of ways in which indigenous communities are trying to use their local knowledge to adapt to climate changes, such as alternative crops and rotation patterns. Underlying everything they said was an appeal to justice. Vicky Taull-Corpez from the Philippines concluded that:
“We indigenous people’s have made the greatest contribution to mitigating climate change. We have kept fossil fuels in the ground and we have maintained the forests.”
What have we done in return?
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Show me the money
Which organization has the most delegates in Poland? The US or UK government? Japan or China? WWF or Greenpeace? No, it’s the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).
IETA has 256 people walking the corridors in Poznan, including representatives from Eon, the company behind Kingsnorth power station. They are hosting 51 events, supported by sponsors such as BP, Shell and Clifford Chance.
Fossil fuel companies need emissions trading to allow them to keep emitting; finance companies need it to make money out of the trading of carbon credits.
The supply of carbon credits was under discussion on Wednesday morning in the review of the Clean Development Mechanism, the scheme which generates carbon credits in developing countries for sale as offset permits to rich countries and companies.
Research has shown that most carbon credits do not create reductions in emissions; the projects they are supposedly funding would have happened anyway. But companies have come here with an agenda that the Clean Development Mechanism should have even less regulation in the future.
Citing concerns that the supply of carbon credits could dry up, in this morning’s meeting the IETA, with their allies the World Bank, were pushing for the removal of “barriers to CDM growth”. Less regulation = more carbon credits, more money, more emissions. Tonight they will continue pushing this message in an exclusive private dinner with the officials who regulate the Clean Development Mechanism. (At the Delicja Restaurant - apparently "Poznań fine dining doesn’t get better than this")
Any adequate global deal to tackle climate change will require an end to carbon offsetting. But that means overcoming these powerful vested interests and corporate lobbying.
IETA has 256 people walking the corridors in Poznan, including representatives from Eon, the company behind Kingsnorth power station. They are hosting 51 events, supported by sponsors such as BP, Shell and Clifford Chance.
Fossil fuel companies need emissions trading to allow them to keep emitting; finance companies need it to make money out of the trading of carbon credits.
The supply of carbon credits was under discussion on Wednesday morning in the review of the Clean Development Mechanism, the scheme which generates carbon credits in developing countries for sale as offset permits to rich countries and companies.
Research has shown that most carbon credits do not create reductions in emissions; the projects they are supposedly funding would have happened anyway. But companies have come here with an agenda that the Clean Development Mechanism should have even less regulation in the future.
Citing concerns that the supply of carbon credits could dry up, in this morning’s meeting the IETA, with their allies the World Bank, were pushing for the removal of “barriers to CDM growth”. Less regulation = more carbon credits, more money, more emissions. Tonight they will continue pushing this message in an exclusive private dinner with the officials who regulate the Clean Development Mechanism. (At the Delicja Restaurant - apparently "Poznań fine dining doesn’t get better than this")
Any adequate global deal to tackle climate change will require an end to carbon offsetting. But that means overcoming these powerful vested interests and corporate lobbying.
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Bleary eyed
The delegate from Uganda announced: “These presentations are very good, normally I sleep through them.” I had been fighting (and winning…) the urge to fall asleep as well.
The train from Cologne arrived into Poznan on Tuesday morning. I blame any closing eyelids on the sleeper train rather than the Tuesday afternoon negotiations of a long term vision of how to tackle climate change.
The Brazilian delegation grabbed my attention when they said there should not be any offsetting by rich countries to meet reduction targets.
One of the key faultines of the debate is the need for money from rich countries to help poorer countries cut emissions. Brazil and India both spoke to reiterate that they would be willing to take action on emissions if there was funding and technology available from developed countries.
The EU likes to present itself as the global leader on tackling climate change. At the same time as these meetings in Poznan, EU member states are negotiating a ‘climate and energy’ package in Brussels which could set a target to reduce EU emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, as part of a global deal on tackling climate change.
The UK, supported by other European states, is pushing for half of this target to be met through buying carbon offsets from developing countries, rather than reducing emissions in the EU.
Presenting for the EU, the French delegate showed a graph with rich countries cutting by 30 per cent by 2020, and action by developing countries additional to these cuts. With half of its 30 per cent target to be met through offsetting, this is not what the EU currently intends to do.
Brazil was making clear that money for emission reductions in developing countries needs to be in addition to action in the EU and rich countries, not as a means to allow the rich to keep on polluting.
I suspect this could be the key issue of the negotiations. A final agreement only needs to be made next year in Copenhagen. But the EU needs to at least start engaging honestly with this debate.
League table so far:
Snowflakes: 0
Polish beers: 0
Dumplings: 0
The train from Cologne arrived into Poznan on Tuesday morning. I blame any closing eyelids on the sleeper train rather than the Tuesday afternoon negotiations of a long term vision of how to tackle climate change.
The Brazilian delegation grabbed my attention when they said there should not be any offsetting by rich countries to meet reduction targets.
One of the key faultines of the debate is the need for money from rich countries to help poorer countries cut emissions. Brazil and India both spoke to reiterate that they would be willing to take action on emissions if there was funding and technology available from developed countries.
The EU likes to present itself as the global leader on tackling climate change. At the same time as these meetings in Poznan, EU member states are negotiating a ‘climate and energy’ package in Brussels which could set a target to reduce EU emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, as part of a global deal on tackling climate change.
The UK, supported by other European states, is pushing for half of this target to be met through buying carbon offsets from developing countries, rather than reducing emissions in the EU.
Presenting for the EU, the French delegate showed a graph with rich countries cutting by 30 per cent by 2020, and action by developing countries additional to these cuts. With half of its 30 per cent target to be met through offsetting, this is not what the EU currently intends to do.
Brazil was making clear that money for emission reductions in developing countries needs to be in addition to action in the EU and rich countries, not as a means to allow the rich to keep on polluting.
I suspect this could be the key issue of the negotiations. A final agreement only needs to be made next year in Copenhagen. But the EU needs to at least start engaging honestly with this debate.
League table so far:
Snowflakes: 0
Polish beers: 0
Dumplings: 0
On board the Thalys to Cologne
This is the third time in my life that I’ve been on the Brussels-Cologne train. Previous journey’s on this route have allowed time to be spent drinking a morning beer in Brussels town square or visiting the museum of chocolate in Cologne. Today is different. Today has been work.
The morning started in Westminster at the launch of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change advice to the government on how to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has advised the government that UK emissions need to be reduced by more than 40 per cent by 2020 (on 1990 levels), and that all coal power stations will need to close in the early 2020s unless they capture and store the CO2 they produce.
Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, was there too saying that he “shares the vision” of the committee of a “radical decarbonisation of the UK economy”.
Then I dashed across London, onto the Eurostar, flicked through the committee’s report and am now writing this on route to Germany. More work done than if I’d been in the office having to answer colleagues questions about how Leeds lost to Histon in the FA Cup.
I doubt Ed Miliband’s rhetoric about radical decarbonisation will have much impact in Poznan. Developing countries have heard such promises before and seen little action.
If all UK coal power stations will need to shut down in the early 2020s unless they capture and store their CO2 , there is no point allowing new coal power stations without CCS to be built now. An announcement from Ed Miliband in the next week ruling out new coal power stations – that would be something which would resonate all the way to Poznan.
The morning started in Westminster at the launch of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change advice to the government on how to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has advised the government that UK emissions need to be reduced by more than 40 per cent by 2020 (on 1990 levels), and that all coal power stations will need to close in the early 2020s unless they capture and store the CO2 they produce.
Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, was there too saying that he “shares the vision” of the committee of a “radical decarbonisation of the UK economy”.
Then I dashed across London, onto the Eurostar, flicked through the committee’s report and am now writing this on route to Germany. More work done than if I’d been in the office having to answer colleagues questions about how Leeds lost to Histon in the FA Cup.
I doubt Ed Miliband’s rhetoric about radical decarbonisation will have much impact in Poznan. Developing countries have heard such promises before and seen little action.
If all UK coal power stations will need to shut down in the early 2020s unless they capture and store their CO2 , there is no point allowing new coal power stations without CCS to be built now. An announcement from Ed Miliband in the next week ruling out new coal power stations – that would be something which would resonate all the way to Poznan.
Monday, 1 December 2008
Friday, 28 November 2008
Sixteen years
Governments from around the world are gathering in Poznań, Poland, as part of negotiations on an international agreement for tackling climate change.
They meet at a time when the world is in financial turmoil and old assumptions about how the world should work are being challenged.
They meet after a new US President has been elected but is not yet in power.
And they meet as climate change continues to impact communities around the world, from the Philippines to Peru, Australia to the Arctic, the Maldives to Malawi.
Just one year is left until an agreement needs to be reached in Copenhagen in December 2009. For hundreds of millions of the poorest people around the world, this is their last chance.
Back in 1992, 164 countries, including the US, UK and other EU member states, signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change, stating, “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect and this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind”.
They also said “developed country parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”.
I was in primary school when the UN agreement was reached. I remember learning about the greenhouse effect, the impact of burning coal, oil and gas, and the warming the world could see.
Sixteen years later the UK’s contribution to climate change is just 6 per cent less than in 1992. Europe’s carbon emissions have risen by 10 per cent, the US’s by nearly 20 per cent.
So far we have failed. But we do not have to keep on failing. I am off to Poznan to see what needs to be done now and in the next year. And to see what hope there is for climate justice for hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.
They meet at a time when the world is in financial turmoil and old assumptions about how the world should work are being challenged.
They meet after a new US President has been elected but is not yet in power.
And they meet as climate change continues to impact communities around the world, from the Philippines to Peru, Australia to the Arctic, the Maldives to Malawi.
Just one year is left until an agreement needs to be reached in Copenhagen in December 2009. For hundreds of millions of the poorest people around the world, this is their last chance.
Back in 1992, 164 countries, including the US, UK and other EU member states, signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change, stating, “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect and this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind”.
They also said “developed country parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”.
I was in primary school when the UN agreement was reached. I remember learning about the greenhouse effect, the impact of burning coal, oil and gas, and the warming the world could see.
Sixteen years later the UK’s contribution to climate change is just 6 per cent less than in 1992. Europe’s carbon emissions have risen by 10 per cent, the US’s by nearly 20 per cent.
So far we have failed. But we do not have to keep on failing. I am off to Poznan to see what needs to be done now and in the next year. And to see what hope there is for climate justice for hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Poznan climate conference
This year Tim Jones from the World Development Movement will be blogging from the United Nations Climate Conference which is being held in Poznan, Poland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
