Copenhagen to Durban: straight road via Cancun

D.RaghunandanDelhi Science Forum &All India Peoples Science NetworkINECC Workshop, Bangalore, November 2011

Main challenge remains: danger of runaway climate

change

4.0-5.02.0-2.81-Temp.rise °C

575485425300GHG (ppmv)

2100203020051750Year

Rise in GHG Concentrations & Temp. (BAU)

Tipping Point

•IPCC/AR4 asserted unequivocal reality of socio-genic climate change

•showed problem had reached crisis levels

•recommended targets for abatement

IPCC/AR4: Mitigation Recommendations GHG concentrations must stabilize ≈ 450 ppmv action required NOW to allow for time lag drastic reductions in emission levels required:

global emissions to start declining ≈ 2015 …to <50% todays levels (≈49 Gt CO2-eq)

by 2050 Annex-I to cut to 40% below 1990 levels

by 2020 …and 90-95% below 1990 levels by

2050

NOTE: These are net “flow” based targets which do not reflect historical accumulations. These flows finally end up as accumulated “stocks” which actually determine climate change. A Carbon Budgets approach as evolved through the DSF-TISS Model would be more useful, even though annual emissions may still be required to monitor compliance

COP 15 at Copenhagen huge expectations that COP15 would

respond to gravity of climate crisis belied (or betrayed?)

no agreement for KP 2nd commitment period (2012- )

shocking but not surprising almost back to Square 1 in terms of basic

issues: no targets? US pushing for “pledge

and review” pressure on Developing Countries to

cut emissions i.e. cut back on growth/development

basic ethical-legal UNFCCC principle of Equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibility all but abandoned

Copenhagen/Cancun Pledges

• 2°C goal cannot be met• informal UNFCCC assessment (and other

studies): 3°C likely peaking will not happen by 2015 Developing Country pledges are about

3x that by Industrialized (A1) Countries’!

• “bottom up” approach will not work: everyone will head to the bottom, following the US leader

• “top down” target-based approach necessary because the upper limit (450 ppmv GHG conc. or Max. Carbon Load) set by nature!

• $100b Fund is also up in the air: vague pledges, includes multilateral funds, loans, pvt. Investment!

Copenhagen Accord: content minefield of dangerous formulations

no specifics; generalities favouring ICs… blurs distinction between ICs and DCs…

(Obama: “leave behind fault lines… that have prevented action for years”; “all major economies must reduce their emissions”)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

USA EU China India

pc emmission (tCO2e) pc GDP (1000 Euro)

… and opens window for abandoning KP altogether

Copenhagen to Durban: straight road via Cancun

• despite some positives in Cancun (esp. in tone and conformity with UNFCCC COP processes) in substance Cancun Agreements closely follow the terms of the disastrous Copenhagen Accord• Cancun LCA and KP texts lay the foundation for Durban and belie positive expectations • Kyoto Protocol, deeply wounded at Copenhagen, has been fatally undermined at Cancun, and will be difficult to revive in Durban

Cancun Agreements legitimize the single framework long pushed by US and are set to replace KP’s dual approach for ICs and DCs bottom-up pledge-and-review system initiated in Copenhagen Accord now formally part of COP grave threat given low level of ambition and because upper limit of GHG concentrations or Total Carbon Load as determined by science requires top-down emissions control “This outcome advances each of the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord: they anchor the Accord’s mitigation pledges… and the US will continue building on this progress” --- Hilary Clinton

Cancun Agreements

repeat Copenhagen Accord formulations almost verbatim emphasis on global targets, omission of crucial distinctions between ICs and DCscalls upon all parties to take actions to meet specious 2°C goal, first time under UNFCCC; lip service to “ambitious reductions” by ICs; also to CBDR, but not as a principle de facto CA provisions now almost de juredifficult to see this rolled back by Durban

Carbon Budget Approach Central idea: atmosphere has finite limited

carbon space beyond which possibly- irreversible climate change is inevitable

atmospheric carbon space is global commons: fair and equitable sharing is the issue

remaining available carbon space is global carbon budget: how to share the burden?

each nation has entitlement to a “fair share” of this carbon space/commons proportional to population

Carbon Budget (cont’d) main problem today is over-occupation of

atmospheric carbon space by Industrialised Countries (ICs)

therefore DCs are left with little carbon space required for development

ICs actually have negative entitlements but world is forced to live with some IC over-occupation

Carbon Budget (cont’d)

Global carbon budget = 1440 Gt CO2 (2000 – 2050) or 390 Gt C if all countries reduce emissions after 2040,

and fair share by 2050, global emissions trajectory is below danger levels for 2°C

2.37 °C*

1.65 °C*

Carbon Budget (cont’d)

1850 Basis

Total Entitlement between 1850-2050

(Based on 2009 Population and a 300 GtC Carbon Budget between 2010-2050)

Current Contribution to Carbon Stock (1850-2009)

Total Entitlements (2009 onwards)

GtC GtC GtC

Annex-I 117.99 245.34 -127.36China 123.69 33.09 90.60India 110.00 8.66 101.33

Rest of the World 280.32 44.90 235.42

Comparison of TISS-DSF Model with Copenhagen Pledges

Cancun Agreements: KP Text just 2 pages (LCA text 30 pp. with most of the substance!) taking note of Copenhagen pledges many qualifying statements, escape clauses notes IPCC/AR4 call for A1 reductions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020: but A1 pledges together less than bottom of range, further diluted by offsets and CDM; so >> 3°C!

Again, this can be viewed in terms of Remaining Carbon Budget as well.

Emissions Gap Report (UNEP: Dec. 2010)

total global emissions till 2020 ≤44 GtCO2e for 2°C

but CA pledges by 85 ICs & DCs ≈ 53Gt gap ≈ 9Gt; temp. rise 3-4°C if more ambitious and if no offsets, 5Gt gap,

still only 60% of requirement for 2°C; several other studies also say 3°C very

likely

Escape Clauses in Cancun KP Text all leniency scenarios feared by UNEP, and more, are present in Cancun KP emissions gap likely to be closer to 9 Gt CO2e A1 targets to include:

emissions trading CDMs carry-over of units: but now favouring some EU countries that have exceeded KP1 targets!

Cancun LCA Text

all substantive issues dealt here likely to be the single framework with KP bottom-up pledges annexed! REDD+, technology, Adaptation Framework, Green Climate Fund covered funds not as reparations but as tied aid, and commitment only to “goal of mobilising $100bn” fast-track fund transfer to include private and public, REDD+, offsets, project finances, multilateral funds, soft loans, all conditional upon “meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation by DCs”

Conclusion

Cancun has more or less stitched together major elements of a global deal for Durban some may be satisfied that there is at last some global agreement but this is likely to be a poor one from the viewpoints of both science and equity market mechanisms dominate and planet’s ecosystem/global commons fully commoditized UNFCCC process moulded to meet goals of US and Northern allies

Conclusion big challenge facing those engaging the

climate negotiations requirement is equitable sharing of the

global commons/ carbon space, UNFCCC principles, CBDR, science and GHG stabilization levels, sharp KP 2nd period cuts by A1…

…but trajectory from Copenhagen goes through Cancun… and on to Durban

how to square this circle?

Way Forward re-focus on KP-II, top-down targets and deep

cuts by A1, accountability for large DC targets

forge BRICSA/large DC + EU alliance taking along G77, LDCs and SIDS

remember KP was signed without the US!!! accept stop-gap in Durban, go for

meaningful KP-II in 2012

END!

Please visitwww.delhiscienceforum.net