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.
Friday, 5 December 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
