What Next – Climate Watch

The Convention on Biological Diversity -- A visual introduction

2013-05-16T23:48:00.000+02:00

Ever wondered what the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is all about? Here's a great-looking and informative info graphic done by the amazing young folks at Earth in Brackets. Click on the image.

The Climate Convention (UNFCCC) -- A visual introduction

2013-05-16T23:38:00.000+02:00

Another great infographic on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by Earth in Brackets. Click on the image.

The Committe on World Food Security -- A visual introduction

2013-05-16T23:37:00.000+02:00

A third info-graphic describing the Committee on World Food Security by Earth in Brackets. Click on the image.

Doha Assessment: Doha climate talks bury international action in the desert

2012-12-10T14:20:00.000+01:00

Devastating verdict on the outcomes of the Doha negotiations, jointly issued by Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, Action Aid, Oxfam, WWF, Christian Aid and trade union federation ITUC.

'Hot-air' release at Doha climate talks dispels tension

2012-12-10T11:55:00.000+01:00

By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, Doha, Qatar

Details have emerged of a deal to solve the "hot air" row undermining the EU in the UN climate change talks in Doha. The term refers to unused, tradeable carbon emission permits given to Eastern European nations. They are among a number of issues that threaten to stall progress at the talks, due to end on Friday evening.
Poland had been reluctant to give up its permits; the EU has now said the country can keep them, but has put strict limits on their sale. Each potential buyer - and there are only four - may buy no more than 2.5% of Poland's quota. The eligible countries have said they won't buy the permits anyway. The compromise still will not be enough to satisfy developing countries who want hot air permits scrapped altogether.

As the talks in Doha lurch listlessly towards their close, hot air is just one of the outstanding issues unresolved. The others involve finance and compensation for damages caused by climate change. It now looks likely that negotiations will run through the night, and maybe into Saturday.

In a frosty exchange, the Qatari president of the talks was asked by the EU representative to break up the plenary session to allow countries to sort out disputes in small groups. The talks' leader, Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, said: "I can sit here all year. You decide when to leave." As politicians delay, scientists continue to warn of ever-increasing greenhouse gases.

But this conference - the 18th Conference of the Parties, or COP18 - will not prevent any CO2 being released into the atmosphere - that will be left to future meetings. The Doha talks represent the hinge point between the existing UN system - the 15-year-old Kyoto protocol - and a future system to be settled by 2015. The Kyoto protocol binds a dwindling number of rich nations into cutting emissions and helping poor nations get clean energy and adapt to climate change. The new system, championed by the US and others, will oblige rich and poor to share the burden.

Hot-air rush

The transition has drawn all the world's nations into a negotiation of swirling diplomatic complexity.
Of the outstanding issues, finance is the most intractable. Rich nations promised at 2009's turbulent climate summit in Copenhagen - COP15 - to mobilise a fund of $100bn annually by 2020 to help developing nations cope with climate change. But there's precious little indication of how, or indeed if, this figure will be met. Some EU countries have offered interim funding but the US has been unwilling to commit. US campaigners here have said they are ashamed of their leaders, especially after President Obama appeared to re-kindle his enthusiasm for tackling climate change after re-election.

The finance issue overlaps another conference dispute over a proposed Loss and Damage Mechanism to compensate developing for damage from any future disasters caused by climatic events, although the C-word - compensation - is being avoided because of the implication of guilt.

'Get a grip'

Meanwhile, pressure is growing for a dramatic gesture from the host country, Qatar, which has the highest per-capita carbon emissions in the world.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed the conference on Tuesday at the invitation of the host country. NGOs had been led to believe that gas-rich Qatar would pledge to cut its emissions and help poor nations do the same. But in the end the announcement heralded plans for a Qatari institute for climate studies.

"This is welcome," UK climate minister Greg Barker told BBC News. "It's helpful to get new climate science from all sorts of different voices. But we are really looking for more leadership from Arab nations at this time."

The talks are a foment of rumour, and some say China has leaned on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to avoid financial pledges until the last minute, 2015, in order to stave off pressure for China to make contributions too. The Lebanese youth campaigner Wael Hmaidan, from Climate Action Network, told BBC News that young people in the region expected Qatar and other wealthy Arab nations to do much more.

"We know what climate change will do to the human situation on the planet - we need to show what we are going to do about this. "Arab nations haven't yet made decisions on this. The Qatari presidency really needs to get a grip of this process." The president of the conference, Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, told BBC News that he had tried in vain to create a joint Arab position on climate. "I want us to move together on climate change but I can't get consensus on this."
Lidy Nacpil, director of the Asia/Pacific branch of NGO network Jubilee South, called on delegates to reject the negotiating texts: "We are a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change," she said. Ms Nacpil is based in the Philippines which is currently experiencing devastation as a result of Typhoon Bopha.

"We cannot go back to our countries and tell them that we allowed this to happen, that we condemned our own future. We cannot go back to the Philippines, to our dead, to our homeless, to our outrage, and tell them that we accepted this." She puts the blame for failure on rich nations, especially Canada and Japan which refused to sign up to a new interim commitment for the Kyoto Protocol.

Asad Rehman, for Friends of the Earth International, also dismissed the European Union's offers as "an empty shell, an insult to our futures. There is literally no point in countries signing up to this sham of a deal, which will lock the planet in to many more years of inaction."

Climate Justice Advocates Slam Doha's Emerging 'Sham Of A Deal'

2012-12-10T11:51:00.000+01:00

By Jon Queally

http://www.countercurrents.org/queally081212.htm

08 December, 2012
CommonDreams.org

With terms like "sluggish" "tough-going" and "extremely sour" used to describe the tone and progress of the UN climate talks in Doha on Friday, the hope for an agreement that could actually meet the ever-escalating challenges of global warming caused by human pollution was seemingly at an all-time low.

Climate campaigners and civil society groups are convinced that the commitments being exchanged among the international delegates are not nearly enough, exposing the ongoing futility of trying to get rich nations to take responsibility for their outsized carbon footprints or increase their meager financial commitments to developing nations.

On what is supposed to be the final day of the COP18 climate talks—the latest round in what has become a perennially disappointing exercise for climate justice campaigners, scientists, and the countries most impacted by the fast-moving rate of climate change—many were voicing that their worst fears for the talks and the content of the draft agreements now circulating among the delegations are about to be realized.

"The tone of the negotiations is extremely sour now," said Greenpeace international director Kumi Naidoo Friday morning. He, along with others, voiced predictions that the talks—due to various problems with the draft texts being circulated—would likely continue into the weekend.

"It's an empty shell, an insult to our futures," said Asad Rehman, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International, referring to the specific text dealing with the extension of the Kyoto protocol. "There is literally no point in countries signing up to this sham of a deal, which will lock the planet in to many more years of inaction."

"What the world and its people need is more urgent action on cutting climate pollution, more help to those transforming their economies and more help to those already facing climate impacts. This text fails on every count," he said.

Saying the agreements being generated were just "blank pages" when it came to saving the planet, the international peasants movement represented by Via Campesina rejected "the false capitalist solutions" contained in the drafts, and argued they would "only worsen the climate and food crises."

"The inaction in the climate negotiations is a reflection of the corporate capture of governments by big business who want to continue exploiting nature to gain as much profit as possible," the group said in a statement. "While governments play silly games - debating blank pages and creating loopholes to escape responsibility - peasants and small farmers, who are among the most affected by the climate crisis, are the ones implementing real solutions on the ground to adapt to climate conditions and realize food sovereignty."

LIdy Nacpil, from the civil society group Jubilee South Asia Pacific, said the circulating texts—of which there are four—are "a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change."

"As civil society movements," she said, "we are saying that this is not acceptable."

Environment correspondent for Inter Press Service Stephen Leahy reported that the atmosphere in Doha was "tense and angry" leading up to the final day of negotiations.

Naidoo was placing much of the blame for the stagnant talks on the US delegation.

“The U.S. negotiating team should be replaced,” said Naidoo, saying the world power has "spent four years blocking" anything that would look like a fair and binding agreement.

“People are dying because of climate change. People are losing their homes, their livelihoods, their source of food. It is saddening to see rich country negotiators actively blocking progress in order to maintain the profits of their coal, oil and forestry industries,” Naidoo said at a press conference.

Todd Stern, the head of the US delegation at Doha, was called out by scientists and journalists on Thursday for vastly misrepresenting the facts when it came to describing the level of emissions cuts that the United States was proposing.

As The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg reports:

In his sole press conference at the meeting, Stern told reporters the US was on track to meet its commitment on cutting emissions by 2020, citing a report by the Resources for the Future thinktank.

The report said that incoming Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired power plants, along with other measures, could lead to a 16.3% cut in emissions by 2020.

"The US has done quite significant things in the president's first four years, in his first term," Stern said. "I saw just the other day actually a report by Resources for the Future which is a quite good kind of environmental economic thinktank in Washington that projects us to be on track for about a 16.5% reduction based on the policies that we have in place now."

That figure is not far off Barack Obama's admittedly modest target of 17% cut on emissions from 2005 levels, which he offered to the UN climate meeting at Copenhagen in 2009. The problem was, however, that Stern overlooked official US government reports indicating the US would be nowhere near a 16% cut by 2020. He also overlooked several different cautions included in the RFF report (pdf).

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who first drew reporters' attention to the gap, said the most accurate projections indicate America is well short of meeting even the modest commitment Obama made in 2009 for cutting the emissions that cause climate change.

To sum it up for many, this short video was released Thursday to offer a more concise explanation of what has taken place over the last two decades regarding international carbon "cutting" agreements:

http://www.countercurrents.org/queally081212.htm

How many Gigatons of Carbon Dioxide…?

2012-12-10T11:46:00.000+01:00

Check out this pedagogic inforgraphic showing illustrating the very small carbon budget that remains, and the implications of a warming climate.

Urgent letter to Connie Hedegaard from European youth and civil society

2012-12-07T11:53:00.000+01:00

http://pusheurope.eu/2012/12/07/doha-eu-letter/

Dear Commissioner Hedegaard,

We, European youth and civil society, are writing to you in these critical final hours of the UN climate talks in Doha to demand that the EU acts now and changes its position at the UNFCCC.

We have witnessed over the past two weeks the EU’s consistent refusal to live up to its responsibilities, and we condemn this lack of progress. The EU claims to be a climate leader but it is acting as a blocker.

Inaction for the next 8 years is not acceptable. A 20% reductions pledge under the Kyoto Protocol is simply a smokescreen; this target has already been met so we know that you are pledging zero. The EU has proved it has the capability to cut its emissions quickly and deeply and we need to take the lead on the world stage in cutting further emissions. Your 0% pledge COP-out will subject us to catastrophic climate change. The EU is supposed to protect us and youth around the world. You are not fulfilling your duty.

We welcome pledges for climate finance from certain member states and the EU under the Bali Action Plan but it falls far short of what is needed for mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries. It is especially inadequate if we consider the implications of a weak EU mitigation target. The EU in Doha blocked discussions on finance and refused to have an aggregate target or even the suggestion that climate finance must be scaled up each year. This is unacceptable. We call on the EU to provide scaled up aggregate climate finance and assurance that this will be new, additional, public funding – not a simple redirection of Official Development Aid as we have seen with the EU’s fast-start finance pledges.

Stop using Poland as an excuse for EU inaction. You must move beyond internal differences and take collective responsibility for the sake of current and future generations. By representing the economic interests of a select few, you are betraying us and our right to a clean and just future. By refusing to make meaningful progress under the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan – as agreed in the Durban Platform – you are betraying the poorest and most vulnerable communities across the world. We stand in solidarity with them and we reject your empty pledges.

There might have been a time when decision-makers could ignore us; that time is now over. We are not one person. We are not one country. We are uniting and mobilising. We are many and the message is spreading fast. There is growing discontent with the way the EU conducts itself on the international stage. The EU is supposed to speak on our behalf, but our voice is being stifled and it is clear that you are not representing us. The deal on the table is simply a suicide pact for the people of the Global South and we will actively resist your decision to condone such an injustice.

We will be watching you in these final hours of negotiations in Doha. We demand that you refuse to sign us up to an unjust deal. We demand that you act to drastically increase your finance and mitigation commitments. This is not negotiable. We will not back down.

The big environment and development organisations support strong condemnation letter by social movements

2012-12-06T14:14:00.000+01:00

In a rare joint press conference with Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, Action Aid, Oxfam, WWF and Christian Aid jointly supported the letter issued by social movements and other civil society organizations demarcating red lines for the negotiations, and declaring governments not keeping to these demands (or walking out) be condemned. Tthe chairs of the Africa group, the LDC and AOSIS also participated in the press conference calling for real action by the Annex 1 countries.

Strong internvention by Naderev M Saño, Philippines

2012-12-06T12:53:00.000+01:00

See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OpI-PD6weG8

Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
Closing meeting
PHL intervention
Delivered by Comm. Naderev M. Saño
Climate Change Commission

Madam Chair,

Thank you for giving me the floor. I wish to make a statement on behalf of my own country.

At the onset, let me fully support the statement made by Algeria on behalf of G77 and China.

I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, its 7,100 islands, and 100 million people. I also speak on behalf of the hundreds who have perished in the tragedy back home.

Let me thank you, Madame Chair, your Vice-Chair and your facilitators, for guiding us with the work that has resulted in progress on many of the key issues. I thank the secretariat as well for the support they have provided for our work in the AWG-KP. I wish to also thank Parties who have earnestly worked hard toward arriving at an ambitious successful outcome here in Doha. I do sincerely thank Parties and groups of Parties who have remained sincere, including those Annex I Parties who remain sincere in sustaining the KP regime.

Let me also take this opportunity to thank the many Parties, organizations from civil society, individuals, friends and colleagues, and youth organizations who have expressed solidarity for the Philippines in this very trying times for my country. I wish to specially thank the youth organizations who have profoundly touched our hearts for standing with us.

We are deeply concerned about where we stand now. Have we done enough? Have we managed to give justice to what the world demands of us? Have we honored the package we got out of Durban? Do we see a glass half full? A glass half empty? Or an empty glass altogether?

While we have seen substantial progress in the development of the text we have in front of us, this text remains reflective of a wide divergence among Parties, especially still fraught with options that fail to respond to the realities that we face. Developing countries have put forward concrete proposals, and have painstakingly worked on arriving at a common ground on many issues, including the ambition mechanism, carry-over of surplus AAUs, eligibility, provisional application, and numbers, in the earnest endeavor to make the 2nd commitment period a meaningful one, a 2nd commitment period that can provide the crucial basis for further enhancing global ambition.

We are likewise worried in terms of how we move progress in the work under the various negotiating fronts, most importantly on how we ensure that we pursue high level of ambition for the second commitment period of KP, and ensure means of implementation to enhance global ambition, both for mitigation and adaptation.

We are worried, also because of the context of what is happening in other tracks in relation to ambition and means of implementation, especially on finance, but to include all the important issues of adaptation, technology, capacity building.

This day marks a very crucial moment. We are 25 days away from the end of the 1st CP of KP. But we don’t really have 25 days. We have a few precious hours left. We are at a critical juncture. The next few hours represent a crucial opportunity for us to ensure that we are on the right trajectory to address the climate crisis. KP is the linchpin of success here in Doha, and the cornerstone of ambition, if not the whole multilateral regime. Failure is simply not acceptable.

We have made ourselves believe that a successful ambitious outcome in KP is within reach. Under your able guidance, and with the hard work of your Vice-Chair and your facilitators, this may be in sight. However, as we close this AWG, ambition continues to elude us.

An important backdrop for my delegation is the profound impacts of climate change that we are already confronting. As we sit here, every single hour, even as we vacillate and procrastinate here, the death toll is rising. There is massive and widespread devastation. Hundreds of thousands of people have been rendered without homes. And the ordeal is far from over, as Typhoon Bopha has regained some strength as it approaches another populated area in the western part of the Philippines. Madam Chair, we have never had a typhoon like Bopha, which has wreaked havoc in a part of the country that has never seen a storm like this in half a century. And heartbreaking tragedies like this is not unique to the Philippines, because the whole world, especially developing countries struggling to address poverty and achieve social and human development, confront these same realities.

Finally, Madam Chair, I speak on behalf of 100 million Filipinos, a quarter of a million of whom are eking out a living working here in Qatar. And I am making an urgent appeal, not as a negotiator, not as a leader of my delegation, but as a Filipino.

I appeal to the whole world, I appeal to leaders from all over the world, to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face. I appeal to ministers.

The outcome of our work is not about what our political masters want. It is about what is demanded of us by 7 billion people.

I appeal to all, please, no more delays, no more excuses. Please, let Doha be remembered as the place where we found the political will to turn things around. Please, let 2012 be remembered as the year the world found the courage to find the will to take responsibility for the future we want.

I ask of all of us here, if not us, then who ? If not now, then when ? If not here, then where ?

Thank you Madam Chair

CAMPAIGNERS SAY: “REJECT THE TEXTS!”

2012-12-05T15:09:00.000+01:00

Press release from social movements on the last day of the Doha COP18 negotiations concluding that the current negotiations texts are 'A million miles from where we need to be even to have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change" and that “Things have got so bad that the negotiations are impossible to rescue. We cannot accept what on the table. We call on countries to stand strong and reject the texts.”

Red Lines! A letter to ministers and negotiators in Doha

2012-12-05T14:04:00.000+01:00

This letter from social movements and civil society to ministers and negotiators of all countries present at Doha set out red lines for people and the planet, warning governments walking away from these positions be condemned. The letter was later supported also by six of the largest environment and development organizations in the world (Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, Action Aid, Oxfam, WWF and Christian Aid and trade union federation ITUC).

"Governments, rich and poor, must not agree to a “deal” that keeps the planet on track for 4°C and even higher levels of warming, condemning millions of our people to death, starvation, and forced migration."

"Governments cannot be distracted by a post-2020 agreement.We need climate action now for this critical decade.Any government that walks away from these positions will be condemned. They will be condemned by global civil society.They will be condemned by their people.They will be condemned by history.They will condemn us all to devastating and irreversible climate change, withlife on planet Earth at stake."

At Stake at Doha: A rules based international climte regime

2012-12-03T13:56:00.000+01:00

A civil society Climate justice brief highlighting what is at stake in the Doha climate negotiations – the deregulation of the international climate regime to a 'pledge-and-review' architecture.

"This effort to dismantle the climate architecture as it applies to rich industrialized nations, to avoid existing commitments and to shift the burden to developing countries threatens a “lost decade” of inaction setting the world on course for a 6°C temperature rise and catastrophic climate impacts."

Statement of Asia Social Movements on Climate Change at the Asia Social Movements Assembly

2012-11-28T10:54:00.000+01:00

Link to full text of statement here:
We have seen climate change related phenomena with intensity never seen before, like Hurricane Sandy, in many parts of the world in the past year.We no longer have the luxury of time as incidents of increasingly severe storms, floods, droughts, disruption of water cycles and other similar eventsare becoming the “new normal” for many countries. It is also becoming apparent that climate change is instigating more forced migration, and will createmore climate refugees. An estimated 200 million people could be displaced by climate change by 2050. In 2010 alone, it was estimated that more than30 million people were forcibly displaced by environmental and weather-related disasters across Asia and this number will continue to rise. Climatechange has also been wreaking havoc on crops and farmlands, worsening the already growing food crisis and pushing even more people into hunger.

And yet, despite the increasing devastation wreaked by climate change on farmlands, livelihoods, and homes, the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations are moving backwards instead of moving closer to a global agreement that will stabilize and cut greenhousegas emissions. The premise of the climate negotiations has always been based on the principle that developed countries need to live up to theirhistorical responsibility and yet from Cancun to Durban to Qatar, negotiations have instead focused on how developed countries can escape theirprevious commitments. Now, with the current proposals on the table, not only are developed countries going to be able escape commitments bywatering obligations down to voluntary pledges but they will also be able to create more carbon markets and loopholes in order to not take any action atall. Estimates from a study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have calculated that even without all the loopholes, these currentpledges will lead to an increase in the temperature of up to 5 degrees centigrade.

The inconvenient truth of carbon offsets

2012-04-10T11:24:00.000+02:00

by Kevin Anderson
Deputy Director
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of Manchester, UK

Nature, vol. 484, no. 7 (link to pdf)
5 April 2012

Planet Under Pressure was a major conference on the environment held in London last week. As a climate-change scientist, I was invited to organize a session at it and to present my group's research. I declined the offer, and here is why.

The organizers of the conference said that the event would be 'as close to carbon neutral as possible'. There are good ways to achieve this noble goal: virtual engagement such as video conferencing, advice on
lower-carbon travel options, and innovative registration tariffs to reward lower-carbon involvement. But, instead, the organizers chose a series of carbon-offset projects financed through a compulsory £35 (US$56) fee levied on all delegates.

This was unacceptable to me. Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global
emissions growth.

It is true that the projects funded through these and other offsets can help development. And a rise in emissions from industrializing nations is, in the short term, a good indicator of rising prosperity and should be
welcomed.

My objection to offsetting and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) -- the state-sanctioned version that operates under the Kyoto Protocol -- is directed at the claims that they reduce emissions to levels at or below
those that would have transpired had the activity being offset not occurred. That spurious argument neglects the various possible impacts of an offset and the repercussions of these for emissions in the longer term.

The science underpinning climate change makes clear that the temperature rise by around the end of this century will relate to the total emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases between 2000 and 2100. Consequently, when considering our impact, we have to look at the total sum of our emissions
released in that time; offset projects must be measured over that period. There is no point in reducing emissions by 1 tonne in the short run if the knock-on impact is 2 tonnes emitted in 2020 or even 1.5 tonnes in, say, 2050. The implications of this for the concept of offsetting and the CDM
are profound.

For example, if I fly to a climate conference, any claim to offset my emissions must, with a reasonable level of certainty and for a 100-year period, show that the flight emissions plus any emission consequences of
the offset projects ultimately sum to zero. It is the immutable impossibility of making such long-term assurances that fundamentally challenges the value of such a claim. Worse still, in a world with rising
economic prosperity (fuelled mainly by coal, oil and gas), there is a high probability that offsetting projects contributing to prosperity will increase emissions over and above those arising solely from the activity
being offset.

The promise of offsetting triggers a rebound away from meaningful mitigation and towards the development of further high-carbon infrastructures. The UK government's purchase of offsets through the CDM
and its simultaneous drive towards both additional airport capacity and the exploitation of UK shale-gas reserves are just two such examples. If offsetting is deemed to have equivalence with mitigation, the incentive to move to lower-carbon technologies, behaviours and practices is reduced
accordingly.

Offsetting, on all scales, weakens present-day drivers for change and reduces innovation towards a lower-carbon future. It militates against market signals to improve low-carbon travel and video-conference
technologies, while encouraging investment in capital-intensive airports and new aircraft, along with roads, ports and fossil-fuel power stations.

For an offset project to be genuinely low-carbon, it must guarantee that it does not stimulate further emissions over the subsequent century. Although standards and legislation around offsetting and the CDM sometimes
consider 'carbon leakage' in the projects' early years, it is impossible to quantify with any meaningful level of certainty over the timeframes that matter. To do so would presume powers of prediction that could have
foreseen the Internet and low-cost airlines following from Marconi's 1901 telegraph and the Wright brothers' 1903 maiden flight.

Assume I broke my (self-imposed) seven-year refusal to fly, paid my £35 offset and boarded a plane from Manchester to London for the conference. In doing so, I add to the already severe congestion at airports, causing delays and allowing politicians to argue for greater airport capacity, arguments only reinforced by the rise in passengers turning to offsets. To meet increasing demand, airlines are encouraged to order new aircraft, which they promise will be more efficient. Feeling pressure, a future government approves new runways, but the extra flights and emissions swamp efficiency gains from the cleaner engines.

Meanwhile, in an Indian village where my offset money has helped to fund a wind turbine, the villagers now have the (low-carbon) electricity to watch television, which provides advertisers of a petrol-fuelled moped with more viewers, and customers. A fuel depot follows, to meet the new demand, and encourages others to invest in old trucks to transport goods between villages. Within 30 years, the village and surroundings have new roads and many more petrol-fuelled mopeds, cars and trucks. Meanwhile, the emissions from my original flight are still having a warming impact, and will do for another 100 years or so.

Where is the offset in that?

http://www.nature.com/news/the-inconvenient-truth-of-carbon-offs ets-1.10373

The inconvenient truth

2012-02-01T10:18:00.000+01:00

The inconvenient truth
Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment, February 1, 2012

Many years ago, in a desperately poor village in Rajasthan, people decided to plant trees on the land adjoining their pond so that its catchment would be protected. But this land belonged to the revenue department and people were fined for trespass. The issue hit national headlines. The stink made the local administration uncomfortable. They then came up with a brilliant game plan—they allotted the land to a group of equally poor people. In this way the poor ended up fighting the poor. The local government got away with the deliberate murder of a water body.

I recall this tragic episode as I watch recent developments on climate change.
At the recent Durban climate change conference small island nations—from Maldives to Granada—believed, rightly so, that the world has not delivered on its promise to cut emissions and is jeopardising their future. But they do not have the power to fight the powerful. So, this coalition of climate victims turned against its partner developing countries, targeting India, for instance, for inaction. These nations pushed for India to take legal commitments to reduce emissions, dismissing its concerns of equity as inconsequential.

The divide is complete. Bangladeshi climate change researcher and old friend Saleemul Huq has written arguing the same position. According to him, the issue of equity—the setting of emission targets based on the contribution of each country to the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is an old fashioned idea. He says it will not work in the new world where the dichotomy of the rich and poor countries has been replaced by equal and big polluters like China, India, South Africa and Brazil (BASIC). These countries, he says, are equally responsible and must take steps to cut emissions. He wants the notion of historical emissions junked. For him, countries like Maldives and Bangladesh are victims. India is a polluter, a rich country whose government is hiding behind the poor to avoid cutting emissions.

But the fact is that Maldives’ per capita emission is higher than India’s. So, should Maldives take mandatory emission reductions? Is it a victim or a polluter? India also has a longer coastline than vulnerable Bangladesh. Is it a polluter? Or an equal victim?
Sivan Kartha, a climate change researcher with the Stockholm Environment Institute, tears into this argument that is dividing the poor world and taking the focus away from countries that need to be told to take action fast. He compares India and Africa, countering the charge that Africa is being destroyed because of rich India’s (full with millionaires like Mukesh Ambani) reluctance to take emission reductions. “Actually, 1.1 per cent of Africans have made it to the top global wealth decile against 0.9 per cent Indians. As against this, 21 per cent Americans are in the top global wealth decile. Then, India’s total emissions are only two-thirds of what Africa emits.” As against this, US emissions are four times more than India’s. In this way, while the poor fight over crumbs, the cake is eaten by the rich.

My colleagues at the Centre for Science and Environment analysed income distribution and emissions data to see if rich Indians emitted more than their counterparts in rich countries. The study found that the per capita emission of the richest 10 per cent of India’s population was the same or slightly less than the per capita emission of America’s poorest 10 per cent and it was less than one-tenth the per capita emission of America’s richest 10 per cent. In other words, the rich in India emitted less than even the poorest Americans. This is not to deny that Mukesh Ambani’s enormous house and electricity consumption — reportedly some Rs 75 lakh a month—is distasteful. But it does not take away from the fact that we cannot accept energy and emission apartheid in the world.
Simple plot. Sinister design. The poor have been divided to fight over who is more vulnerable. But one must realise that this divide is a deliberate creation. In 2009 at the Copenhagen conference of parties, two new categories of countries were devised. One, vulnerable countries — that would get fast track funds to adapt to climate change and two, emerging polluters – grouped under the BASIC banner. The bribe and divide was blatant and successful. It was openly said in the conference plenary that polluting countries like India, who wanted an agreement based on equity, were blocking funds that would flow to Bangladesh and Maldives. That penultimate night of the conference the poor fought the poor. The rich looked on. Since then the divide has grown. Emissions of the already rich countries have increased in the past few years. But nobody talks about this.

Its time we stopped this kindergarten fight. Let us be clear the world has to cut emissions drastically and fast. There must be limits on each country based on its per capita emission and taking into account its historical contribution. China is the biggest current emitter. But in cumulative terms—taking into account the stock in the atmosphere accumulated over the years—it contributes 11 per cent against US share of 26 per cent. It must also be brought under limits, as must India. But these limits will have to be based on the principle of equity so that these countries will also have the right to development, but not at the cost of our common future.

This is the most inconvenient of truths. But it is the truth.

Saleemul Huq 2012, Politics of Climate Change, Equity and justice in the global climate change debate, in The Daily Star, January 24, www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-detail.php?nid=219567
Sivan Karth 2012, India in Durban, email sent on December 10, 2012
CSE 2009, Richest Indians Emit Less than Poorest Americans, Factsheet published by Centre for Science and Environment, mimeo

Tariq Banuri on Rio +20

2012-01-17T12:12:00.000+01:00

Message of Tariq Banuri posted on the Rio+20 page.

The Rio+20 Co-Chairs have circulated the zero draft of the negotiation text. It is faithful to the substance and the tone of the discussions at the 2nd Intersessional, whose minutes have also been released. Civil society will need to engage actively with governments and the Bureau in order to push them into raising the level of ambition, which currently seems to be scraping bottom.

The text is 19 pages in length, divided roughly evenly between general and sectoral issues. The latter give it a “populist” tone, in the sense that it now has a little something for everybody even if not consequential–water, energy, climate, biodiversity, access and information, oceans, SIDS, women, and many others–and othis will surely please and disarm single-agenda advocates. However, it may also disappoint many of them because they will find the text to be declaratory and non-operational in nature.

The text can be reduced a lot because there is much repetition and redundancy–probably because of the desire to quote directly from the original submissions–as well as empty rhetoric.

Ignoring rhetoric, repetition, and reiteration, there are a few innovative elements in the text. These include the provisions on access to information (WRI’s contribution), sustainable development goals (SDGs), voluntary initiatives and partnerships, green GDP, and some of the proposals on oceans. These provide an opening for their advocates to propose tighter and more operational language.

One major surprise is that the weakness of the text on the themes and objectives of the conference. The sections on the green economy sound like an unnecessarily long and defensive explanation that the green economy will not be harmful for developing countries. The text on IFSD provides a few paragraphs of concrete action and even options (strengthening UNEP and CSD versus creating a specialized agency and an SD council respectively), but these are presented in rather cursory manner, and much more work will be needed in the next few months to give the proposals some substance. The text on the international financial institutions is particularly egregious.

Looking at the casual nature of this language, it is difficult to see how much progress can be made between now and June. The good money is on a Durban-type solution in which countries will confine themselves to setting out a roadmap for further negotiations, most likely till 2015.

The text suffers from several major weaknesses. First, just like the climate process, it has abandoned all efforts to match rhetoric with intent. There is chapter and verse on the things that are going wrong, but then a bit of hand waving, some exhortation to everyone to do the right thing (voluntary initiatives), some faith in the miraculous powers of casually articulated new concepts. Indeed, there is no indication of a recognition of the complex inter linkages between the different challenges highlighted here and there.

Second, there is no effort to link the proposals with progress made in other contexts, most notably the climate process. Financing, technology transfer, voluntary commitments (and their registry), and many other mundane issues have reached a degree of maturity in climate negotiations. The draft text is quite innocent of all this knowledge.

Third, the word equity does not appear in the text (though equitable does, but that is not the same thing). Enough said.

Finally, notwithstanding the high importance given to it by countries, energy has received very little attention–only 2 paragraphs, repeating the SG’s Advisory Group’s recommendation, with no indication of what precisely needs to be done.

We have a huge task in front of us to push our governments into converting this pap into something meaningful, consequential, and relevant.”

The politics of climate change and the global crisis

2012-01-15T23:00:00.000+01:00

Check out this new book by Praful Bidwai, who's been associated with the What Next initiative since the very beginning. The book came out just before the Durban meeting and discusses, among other things, climate change in both an international equity context as well as the Indian domestic equity context. Below a brief about the book from the Transnational Institute website.

"Irreversible, catastrophic climate change represents the greatest threat to human kind's survival today. Relentlessly rising greenhouse gas emissions are heating up the atmosphere. Planet Earth is hurtling towards disaster, with rapidly melting ice-caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, rainfall pattern changes, and a breakdown of fragile climate balances.

The earth can cope with maximum global warming of 1.5-2 degree C. But temperatures are set to rise way beyond this-unless greenhouse emissions are drastically reduced by 2020.Yet1 the world has failed to reach agreement on this. Industrialised countries, which are primarily responsible for climate change, balk at cutting their emissions. They continue to occupy climate space at the expense of the developing countries' climate-vulnerable poor people. Equally unfairly, their emissions-reduction pledges are lower than the poor countries’.

The climate crisis thus aggravates the global developmental crisis. It is also intimately linked through the prevalent iniquitous development model to grave economic, social and political crises in evidence globally.

This unique book has a dual focus: impacts of climate change, and the politics of the international climate negotiations; and second, lndia as an example of an 'emerging economy' major polluter, which can potentially both aid or obstruct the fight against climate change. It analyses the role of the new BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) grouping and the short-term calculations of other major players in the climate talks.

Yet, there are alternatives to this dismal situation, based on equity, resource conservation, curbs on luxury consumption, promotion of renewable energy and new patterns of production and consumption which sustain low-carbon development. What the global effort lacks is candid acknowledgement of the need for a qualitative change in the growth model and the will to bring it about through democratic popular participation.

Written lucidly, this volume is mandatory reading for social scientists, environmentalists, civil servants, social activists and environmentally conscious citizens."

Click here for direct link to order the book.

Post-Durban, India has its task cut out

2012-01-05T16:15:00.000+01:00

Interesting analysis and reflections on what happened in Durban and India's role.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2729539.ece

Major Clash of Paradigms in the Durban Climate Talks

2011-12-20T16:36:00.000+01:00

Here is a detailed account and analysis by Meena Raman of Third World Network of what happened in the dramatic end of the Durban COP17 negotiations, and implications for the future. The article was originally published in South Centre's South Bulletin (

Download a pdf-version of the whole issue here. Link to South Centre web page here.

Major Clash of Paradigms in the Durban Climate Talks
[South Bulletin 58 Article]

By Meena Raman

The main outcome of the two-week Durban climate change conference was the launching of a new round of negotiations known as the Durban Platform aimed at a new regime (whether a protocol or other legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and involving all countries.

The draft decision on this was provided at an informal plenary late on the night of Saturday 10 December long after the Conference was scheduled to end and when many Ministers and senior officials had already left Durban.

It was given to participants as part of a package of four decisions on a take-it-or-leave it basis with little time for the members to consider or discuss among themselves in an unusual and unprecedented set of procedures.

The decision on the Durban Platform and how it was reached will be debated for a long time to come. It was also unusual how a decision to launch such an important negotiation was made with very little terms of reference to frame the talks or the outcome that will come from it.

The details of the terms of reference are now scheduled to be worked out in the coming year. Given the circumstances in which the Durban Platform was launched, these talks on the framework to underpin the new regime can be expected to be tough and lengthy.

This is especially because different Parties have different paradigms on the substance and shape of a fair and effective climate change regime.

Many of the differences were papered over in the take-it-or-leave it decision-making mode of the final plenary meetings, and the objections of developing countries, especially to many parts of the report and decision from ad hoc working groups on long-term cooperative action under the Convention (AWGLCA) and Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP) were simply brushed aside by their Chairs (officials from the US and New Zealand respectively) and by the COP President herself.

However, the basic differences were most evident in the discussions on the reports of the working groups, and on the draft COP decision on Durban Platform during the plenary meetings on Saturday night and Sunday morning that preceded their adoption.

At the informal plenary discussion on the Durban Platform that launched the new round of talks, the highlight was a lengthy and eloquent plea by the Indian Environment Minister for equity to underpin any future regime, following a call by the European Union’s chief climate official to alter the draft decision to ensure that the outcome of the new talks would be legally binding.

It was a long, intense and dramatic ending at the Durban climate talks which concluded only around 7am on Sunday, 11 December, when it was scheduled to finish on the evening of Friday, 9 December.

Negotiations were particularly intense over the push mainly by developed countries, led by the European Union, for a launch of a new process to develop a legally binding instrument aimed at mitigation efforts by all Parties, but without the usual reference (so prominent in previous such resolutions) to the principles of equity or common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). According to diplomatic sources, the United States was especially adamant that there be no references to these principles in the decision.

The draft decision proposed to the plenary by the South African Foreign Minister Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, in her capacity as President of the 17th session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC was to “launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”.

This draft had been the outcome of a series of closed-door talks over the last few days and nights among 20 to 30 parties. The EU and other European countries and several developing countries including the Alliance of Small Island States were insistent on a legally binding regime (thus the terms protocol or other legal instrument) whereas India and China wanted to add the third option of “legal outcome”.

The third option was included in the final draft put by the COP17 Presidency to the plenary. Although an appeal was made to accept the texts of the four decisions as a whole, the EU’s chief climate official Ms. Connie Hedegaard asked for re-opening the Durban Platform decision to cancel the third option of “legal outcome.”

India’s Environment Minister, Ms. Jayanti Natarajan then made a strong plea for all options in terms of the legal form of the new process to remain on the table, including a “legal outcome” (instead of only a protocol or legal instrument as possible options) in the new process of talks, stressing the need for equity and the principle of CBDR to be the centre piece of the climate change debate.

In a strong and impassioned plea, the Indian Minister appealed to Parties not to push aside equity in the Durban outcome, as this would be the greatest tragedy. The Minister was not prepared to give a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods of the poor when she did not know what the document (from the new process) would contain.

India’s position was supported by several developing countries including China, Pakistan, Bolivia, Egypt, Philippines and El Salvador.

In the draft given to the final plenary, the new process of negotiations is to commence work in the first half of 2012 and is to be completed no later than 2015 in order for the adoption of a protocol, legal instrument or legal outcome under the Convention, applicable to all Parties, at the 21st session (in 2015) of the COP and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020. The option of "legal outcome" was the bone of contention. It was evantually changed to "agreed outcome with legal force" after a on-the-floor negotiation by key Parties during a half-hour break. This left many wondering what was the difference, if any, between "legal outcome" and "outcome with legal force."

What was most worrying for Ministers and senior officials from several developing countries, who were interviewed, was that the Durban climate talks were marked by an attempt by developed countries to push aside the principles of equity and CBDR, especially on the issue for launching the negotiations for a new regime. The US in particular was opposed to any reference in equity and CBDR in the decision to launch the new process.

At the plenary, following the plea by the Indian Minister to retain “legal outcome” option, the EU’s climate change Commissioner, Hedegaard proposed discussions with India on how to accommodate her concerns over the issue of equity.

The COP17 President Ms. Nkoana-Mashabane then proposed a suspension of the session (at around 3.30 am on Sunday morning) for an “informal huddle” between the EU and India to discuss this issue. This huddle soon saw many other Parties joining the discussions, including the United States, China, and Brazil.

According to one source who witnessed what took place, India was willing to take out the words "legal outcome" if the principles of "equity and CBDR" were incorporated in the document. According to the source, the EU was willing to accept this but US chief negotiator, Mr. Todd Stern opposed this and said that the equity and CBDR “will never fly” for the US and thus blocked an agreement between the EU and India.

Following further wrangling, in the final compromise, the words “legal outcome” was replaced with “agreed outcome with legal force”.

Despite the explicit absence of the words ‘equity’ and ‘CBDR’ in the text, several lawyers and senior negotiators were of the view that a protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention must be consistent with the existing principles and provisions of the Convention and therefore the principles of equity and CBDR can be implied to apply. However, this view can be expected to be challenged especially by the United States, when the negotiations start.

The EU’s strong push for a new mitigation treaty came as a quid pro quo for it to undertake a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol for emissions reductions. A decision was also adopted on the Kyoto Protocol on Sunday morning. It however fell short of confirming a second commitment period of the Protocol.

According to one expert observer, the language of the Kyoto Protocol decision was only of the nature of “taking note” of the "intention" of Parties to convert targets to real commitments “with a view” to adopting them at the next climate conference in December 2012. It thus remains to be seen if the commitments will be made, and if so what the numbers and substance will be.

In return, developed countries succeeded in securing a new process of climate talks on mitigation efforts by all Parties, without explicit reference to equity and CBDR.

The often heated exchange on the Durban Platform took place at a joint informal meeting of the COP17 and the 7th session of the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) which was convened by COP/CMP President Mashabane, late night on Saturday, 10 December, following the closing sessions of the AWGKP and AWGLCA.

Mashabane outlined the elements of what she called the “Durban package”, which were (i) the second commitment period (2CP) for emissions reductions by Annex 1 Parties under the KP; (ii) a decision on the work of the AWGLCA; (iii) a decision on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and (iv) an agreement on the Durban Platform for enhanced action.

Mashabane asked Parties to adopt each of the decisions without further debate and amendments when they are presented during the formal sessions of the COP and the CMP respectively, saying that Parties required “assurances from each other to agree to all the draft decisions”, clearly suggesting a “take-it or leave- it” approach. She said that this was needed to “make history and strengthen multilateralism”.

Several delegations expressed frustration that their concerns were not being heard when they were first raised during the closing sessions of the AWGKP and the AWGLCA prior to the joint-informal meeting of the COP and CMP.

The EU’s Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said the EU had a point of utmost concern on the Durban package. What was within reach was a legally binding deal or a prospect for such a deal. For the EU, there was need for a legally binding deal as voluntary means (in relation to emissions reductions) was not enough and international legislation was needed. She said the KP did manage to reduce emissions reductions. The EU wanted further progress through another protocol or legal instrument but was concerned about the words “legal outcome” ( in the Durban Platform which was suggested by India) as this puts in doubt whether Parties were ready to commit (to emission cuts). She said that the EU was ready to commit to a 2CP for another 5 years and was almost alone in the KP. It was not too much for it to ask that after the 2CP, all Parties (including the US and developing countries) would be legally bound to take emission cuts and called for a single legal instrument or protocol by 2018.

Colombia supported the call by the EU and wanted a legal instrument under the Convention by 2018. Switzerland also expressed similar views, saying that this was a new page in history.

India's Minister of Environment and Forests, Ms. Jayanti Natarajan in a passionate and strong response to the EU said equity was a centre piece in the debate on climate change not only for India but for the entire world. She said many Parties came to her in different tones and voices and told her that unless she dropped the option of a “legal outcome” (in relation to the Durban Platform) India would be blamed (for blocking the negotiations). She asked what the problem was in adding one more option.

The Indian Minister said that she will not be threatened by intimidation. Referring to calls for a legal instrument, she asked how she could give a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods of the poor (and not lifestyles of the rich), when she did not know what the document will contain. She asked where the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) was reflected and had no doubt that efforts were being made to shift the entire burden of climate change on countries that did not contribute to the problem.

Referring to the Durban Platform document, she said it was weak on CBDR as it refers to “launching a process to develop a protocol or another legal instrument or a legal outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties.” Natarajan emphasized that she represented 1.2 billion people and that India had a tiny per capita carbon footprint of 1.7 tons and its per capita GDP was also low.

She said that India must not be made a scapegoat of the multilateral process. Referring to the Durban Platform document, she said that it was a product of 6 days of talking and all ideas were put forward and what was captured in the document was the sense of the Chair.

She reminded Parties that India had placed the issue of ‘equity’ on the agenda of the COP but this was pushed somewhere else and was not in the main text (of the AWGLCA outcome document). She made a plea for the issue of equity not to be held hostage and said that it would be a grave tragedy if equity was put aside in Durban.

She appealed to Parties to allow the word “outcome” to remain in the Durban Platform document as a further option. She asked how this could be a crime or for India to be accused of collapsing the talks.

Mr. Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman/Vice-Minister of the National Development and Reform Commission of China in a very strong response, supported India. He said that the existing Convention and Protocol are legally binding but questioned if Parties were implementing them. The existing legal instruments spell out the principles of CBDR, respective capabilities and equity. To deal with climate change, all countries need to collaborate towards common goals, in accordance with respective capabilities, strengthen cooperation, and respond collectively. Till now, some countries have made promises, but have not fulfilled them. They have not taken real actions. We are developing countries. We need to develop. We need to protect the environment and to mitigate climate change and to eradicate poverty. Developed countries have to fulfill their promises, take concrete actions, and truly achieve the objectives in coping with climate change. We do not care what they are saying, but what we need is to see what is being done. Many developed countries have not fulfilled their promises. We have done what we are supposed to do, whereas, they have not done their part. What position are they in to judge us, he questioned.

Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States said that they wanted a 2CP with meaningful numbers under the KP but did not get that in Durban. Hence, the effort is to bring up the ambition level through the legal form. Referring to the options in the Durban Platform document, it said that it was difficult to accept the option of “legal outcome” as it appeared to be an option for climbing down the ladder in terms mitigation ambition by allowing countries to continue the track that brought climate change. If there was no legal instrument, Parties would be relegating vulnerable economies to death, with beautiful words such as access to development. It said that if “they develop we die”. It could not accept terms with no limits on emissions.

Bolivia in supporting India said there is need to think of commitments to emission reductions but also to address the right to development, right to food, right to eradicate poverty etc. The work of the new working group for the Durban Platform must address this. There is also the right to of countries to participate in the equitable access to the atmosphere which has been used by a small group of countries. In an apparent reference to the US, Bolivia said that it was a paradox that a country with a large share of the emissions is not in the KP. When a legal regime is being built, Parties must be careful as to how the atmospheric space is distributed as those who are rich do not want to cut emissions while they want others to do this. The notion of a legal instrument applying to all must take into account poverty and the right to development. Behind the issues of emissions, there is wealth, misery and poverty and vested interests.

The Philippines was concerned that the Convention and the KP were in danger of being a relic of the past. It expressed deep concern that after over 5 years of negotiations on the further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties had again come short of arriving at a ratifiable amendment to KP’s Annex B that would have ultimately gotten the Kyoto Protocol out of intensive care and back into life. It was deeply concerned that Parties had come short of this and had once again procrastinated. Parties were expected to send a strong political signal to the world in the form of adopting fully ratifiable amendments for the establishment of the 2nd Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol. It was heart-broken to see Parties divided and made a plea for not pitting one against another. We are against one real cruel enemy – and that is climate change.

Philippines was for environmental integrity as well as for sustainable and equitable growth. It stressed that equity is a fundamental concept whose reflection in our processes will ensure that we obtain a fair just outcome that achieves the objective of the Convention. It was open to a legally binding instrument, as we agree that a legal regime is important. But it should have been with the view to save the Kyoto Protocol and not have gotten KP out of intensive care.

Pakistan also said that it stood behind equity and CBDR. No matter how much the world has changed, CBDR is still applicable. It said that it was strange that there was no reflection in the document on equity and CBDR. It said that real consensus was when everyone was on board and that no single view should force others to submit. True multilateralism should have everyone on board.

El Salvador stressed the need to raise the level of ambition and address the finance gap, the mitigation gap and the equity gap. It hoped that the process launched in Durban took Parties to where it was needed to go.

Brazil said that climate change is a huge challenge as is fighting poverty and said that no country has done more to reduce emissions than Brazil. On a legally binding deal, it said Parties were on the verge of approving potentially what was more than the Berlin mandate (where the process towards the KP was launched) and the adoption of the 2CP under the KP. It was open to a new era of cooperation.

Egypt, in response to the EU on the need for clarity (in relation to mitigation), said there was need also for clarity on the issue of financial support with predictability, additionality and transparency. It said that developed country Parties who were calling for a new legally binding instrument did not show the same passion for the KP. It also stressed the importance of equity and CBDR. It said that the form of the legal outcome should follow the function. There was need for flexibility in the Durban Platform to allow for the form of agreement needed according to what agreements are reached.

Senegal supported Egypt and the need for CBDR. It said that the Durban package was weak.

Gambia, speaking for the LDCs reiterated the need for a legally binding instrument that must provide strong and binding enforce to address all the pillars of the Bali Action Plan.

Bangladesh supported the Durban package and a legally binding deal, in addition to the 2CP. Although the texts (in relation to the decisions) have been watered down, it was prepared to accept them.

Norway shared the view of India that equity is important but wanted a legal instrument in 2015 and did not support a mere “legal outcome”.

The US said it embraced the full Durban package, including the need for a new legal instrument.

The Democratic Republic of Congo for the African Group said that in Durban, the KP did not die; there were outcomes on adaptation, financing, technology transfer and capacity building and the operationalising of the institutions of the Convention. It regretted the lack of ambition and balance but could support the move for further progress on increasing the mitigation ambition so that Africa was secure.

Malaysia said that it was not clear on how the outcome from the AWG-LCA was going to be addressed when several Parties had expressed a serious lack of balance and need for further work before it could be adopted. It was looking for a good package that allowed the AWG-LCA sufficient time to restore the balance needed next year.

The COP President did not address Malaysia’s concerns.

The formal sessions of the CMP and the COP were then convened one after another. At the CMP, several concerns were raised over the outcome of work from the AWG-KP but these concerns were not addressed by Mashabane, who proceed to gavel the adoption of the outcomes.

At the closing sessions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA held before the COP/CMP joint informal session on Saturday, many Parties raised several concerns they had on the respective reports by the Chairs of the two working groups which reflected the outcomes of the work. In the case of the AWG-KP session, several developing countries wanted amendments to be made to the outcome document but none were entertained by the Chair, Mr. Adrian Macey from New Zealand, except for an amendment suggested by the EU on the duration of the 2CP from a 5 year period (2013-2017) to a 8 year period (2013-2020). Both these options are now on the table. The report and the outcome of the work of the AWG-KP was presented “under the authority and responsibility of the Chair”, which was unprecedented.

Likewise, in the case of the outcome of the work of the AWG-LCA, the Chair of the working group Mr. Daniel Reifsynder from the US ignored calls by several developing countries not to adopt the report and to allow for further work to be done next year on the outcome document to rectify the existing imbalances, especially when the document was only presented to Parties late morning on Saturday. The Chair did not agree with the proposal and proceeded to transmit the document to the COP President under his own responsibility although it did not receive consensus, which was also an unusual move.

During and after the meeting, negotiators of many developing countries expressed deep concern about the procedures for adopting decisions at COP17. The conference had been extended for almost two days, and Ministers and officials of many countries had already left. The closed-door meeting of about 30 parties left many others that were not invited in the dark.

The documents for the decisions in the final plenary meetings were distributed late, and some Parties complained they did not have the papers. There was no time for the Parties to study the papers. The Chairs of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA did not take into account the disagreements that most Parties registered on the draft decisions but decided to transmit their reports almost unchanged (the only changes were to accommodate the EU on Kyoto Protocol) to the COP and CMP. When the COP and CMP meetings were convened, there was little opportunity to re-open the reports and some attempts made by developing countries were ignored, while the only opportunity to re-open was provided to the EU over the “legal outcome” issue.

While COP17 and the CMP7 did not fall apart as many had predicted in the last day of the conference, the manner in which the decisions were achieved may be debated including for what it means for the future of decision-making in a UN multilateral setting for years to come.

Meena Raman is a Senior Advisor of the Third World Network.

Time out: Analysis of Durban and its outcome by Centre for Science and Environment

2011-12-20T10:58:00.000+01:00

What really happened in Durban? Check out this extensive coverage by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India, in their magazine Down to Earth, 31 December issue.
-----

The 17th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Durban in December 2011. Negotiations were heated and acrimonious, as the world desperately searched for new ways to avoid the toughest of questions -- how to drastically reduce emissions to keep the world somewhat within safe levels and how to do this while ensuring equity. With uneasy answers, the easy solution was to push the world to another round of messy negotiations for a new treaty, protocol or legal instrument or something like that. But one move of the developed world was to change the nature of the original treaty that differentiates between past polluters, responsible for the first action, and the rest. The aim at Durban was to erase equity as the basis of any global agreement to cut emissions. Ironically, the world chose the land of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela to set the scene to build a new apartheid in climate talks. Down To Earth and the Centre for Science and Environment bring you an analysis…

To continute read, download the 17-page pdf-version of the thorough feature story with graphs, boxes and explanations. Or click here to find the original story at the CSE website.

You may also want to read this prophetic reflection by Sunita Narain of CSE, only a few hours before the COP finally ended.

And -- here's a link to a Guardian article by Sunita Narain "The EU's climate evangelism has got us nowhere: Europe must stop trying to bend developing countries to agree to a legal deal in the hope that this will bring the US on board", published 9 December.

Who Will Control the Green Economy?

2011-12-19T13:16:00.000+01:00

News Release

15 December 2011
www.etcgroup.org

Who Will Control the Green Economy?
New report on Corporate Concentration in the Life Industries

From the UN Rio+20 preparatory meetings in New York, ETC Group today launches Who Will Control the Green Economy? The 60-page report connects the dots between the climate and oil crises, new technologies and corporate power. The report warns that the world’s largest companies are riding the coattails of the “Green Economy” while gearing up for their boldest coup to-date – not just by making strategic acquisitions and tapping new markets, but also by penetrating new industrial sectors.

DuPont, for example, already the world’s second largest seed company and sixth largest company in both pesticides and chemicals, is now a powerhouse in plant-based materials, energy and food ingredients. DuPont’s business plan is not unique. Other major players in seeds, pesticides, chemicals and food – including Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Unilever – are also making strategic investments in risky technologies and forming R&D collaborations in hopes of turning plant biomass into all kinds of high value products – and profit.

Since the turn of the millennium, the vision of a bio-based economy has been taking shape; with its promise to solve the problems of Peak Oil and climate change and to usher in an era of sustainable development, it quickly acquired a patina of ‘green.’ New technologies, primarily synthetic biology or extreme genetic engineering, enabled by advanced bioinformatics and genomics, are the bioeconomy’s engine while agricultural feedstock is its fuel.

While seductive, the new green techno-fixes are dangerous because they will spur even greater convergence and concentration of corporate power and unleash privately owned technologies into communities that have not been consulted about – or prepared for – their impacts. If the “Green Economy” is imposed without full intergovernmental debate and extensive involvement from peoples’ organizations and civil society, the Earth Summit to take place in Rio de Janeiro 20-22 June 2012 risks becoming the biggest Earth Grab in more than 500 years.

ETC Group’s Kathy Jo Wetter explains: “The goal is not to reject the green economy or technologies, but these are tools that must be guided by strong social policies. Agenda 21 called for technology assessment back in 1992 and the need for such a precautionary tool, that includes strict oversight of corporate concentration, is now more urgent than ever before.”

Alberto Gomez, of La Via Campesina, adds: “Corporate control over our food system threatens peasant farmers around the world. We already produce 70% of the world’s food, but our ability to do so in an agro-ecological way is being undermined by the kind of corporate control this report documents.”

Who Will Control the Green Economy? will be launched at the Rio+20 Intersessional meeting taking place in New York on December 15-16. Kathy Jo Wetter, one of the report’s researchers, will present the findings on Thursday, 15 December 2012, at 7 pm at a side-event on Agriculture at Rio+20, in Conference Room 6, North Lawn Building at the UN Headquarters. Alberto Gomez will also speak at this event.

Who will control the Green Economy? is available in English
(http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5296),
Spanish (http://www.etcgroup.org/es/node/5298) and will soon be available in French.

For more information or for interviews:
In New York:
Diana Bronson: cell 514 629 9236 or Diana@etcgroup.org

In Montreal:
Jim Thomas: cell 514 516 5759 or jim@etcgroup.org

What you will find in the
'Who Will Control the Green Economy?' Report – Dec 2011

• Naming The Green Economy's “One Percent” 'Who Will Control the Green Economy?' provides hard data on the largest and most powerful corporate players controlling 25 sectors of the 'real economy'. This is the only freely available report to assemble top 10 listings of companies (by market share) from 18 major economic sectors relevant to the Green Economy. These lists include the top 10 players in Water, Energy, Seeds, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food Retail and Processing, Chemicals, Fertilizer, Pesticides, Mining, Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, the Grain Trade and more. The report also identifies the leading players in a handful of new and emerging industrial sectors including Synthetic Biology, Big Data, Seaweed and Algae production and Livestock Genetics (pp.1-2).

• Corporate Concentration Unchecked
ETC Group has been monitoring corporate ownership trends for 30 years and the trendline is remaining steady: more monopoly everywhere. For example the top 10 multinational seed companies now control 73% of the world's commercial seed market, up from 37% in 1995 (p. 22). The worlds 10 biggest pesticide firms now control a whopping 90% of the global 44 billion dollar pesticide market (p.25). 10 companies control 76% of animal pharmaceutical sales (p.34). 10 animal feed companies control 52% of the global animal feed market (p.33), 10 chemical firms account for 40% of the chemical market (p.11), 10 forestry companies control 40% of the forestry market (p. 31), 10 mining companies control a third of the mining market (p. 29) and the top ten energy companies control a quarter of the energy market (p.10).

• Forget Windmills, Think Grain Mills
The 'Green Economy' may evoke iconic images of solar panels and wind turbines but this is not actually where corporate activity is focusing. While non-hydro and non-nuclear 'renewable' energy is only a thin sliver (1.8%) of global energy consumption - almost all of this consists of harvesting and burning biomass for energy and fuels and now chemicals. This report shows how the major corporate realignments in the new 'Green Economy' are happening around plant biomass (p.8-12, 18-21).

• New ‘Green’ Oligopolies
This report uncovers new corporate convergences across diverse industry sectors as large players position themselves to dominate the Green Economy. A case in point is the DuPont company - the world's 2nd largest seed company, 6th largest chemical company and 6th largest pesticide company which is now emerging as a major player in biotech, biofuels and bioplastics, synthetic biology, seaweeds, ingredients and enzymes while partnering with the worlds third largest energy company BP (pp. ii-iii).

• Food Dollars Trump Energy Dollars
Conventional wisdom says the size of the global energy market weighs in at $7 trillion and dwarfs every other economic sector. According to our research, however, the global grocery market ekes out ahead of energy – even when government subsidies paid to producers for energy and agriculture are taken into account (p.37).

• Synthetic Biology's Meteoric Rise
In the early 1990's the early commercialization of genetic engineering technologies drove massive reorganization of the seed, agrochemicals and pharmaceutical sectors and the emergence of 'life science' giants such as Monsanto and Novartis. Today the new technologies of Synthetic Biology are spurring another frenzy of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures around the biomass economy drawing large energy and chemical players such as Dow, DuPont, BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron and Total into new alliances with grain, forestry and seed giants such as Monsanto, Cargill, Bunge, Weyerhaeuser and ADM. At the heart of these new alliances are surprisingly new Synthetic Biology companies such as Life Technologies Inc, Amyris, Solazyme and Evolva – all rapidly being promoted to significant roles in the global food, energy, pharma and chemicals sectors (pp.8-12).

• Controlling the Blue Economy too.
Biomass found in oceans and aquatic ecosystems accounts for 71% of the planet’s surface area. That’s why energy and chemical corporations such as Du Pont, Statoil , DSM, Exxon, Mitsubishi, Monsanto , Chevron and shipping giant Stolt Nielsen are looking to the wild, wet frontier for new sugars and oils to fuel the bio-based economy, proposing the large-scale exploitation of algae, seaweed, fish and all the aquatic biomass found in lakes, rivers and coastal estuaries. (Pp. 18-21)

Equity: The next frontier in climate talks

2011-12-19T09:44:00.001+01:00

Down to Earth Editorial:
Equity: The next frontier in climate talks
by Sunita Narain

In 1992, when the world met to discuss an agreement on climate change, equity was a simple concept: sharing the global commons -- the atmosphere in this case -- equally among all. It did not provoke much anxiety, for there were no real claimants. However, this does not mean the concept was readily accepted. A small group of industrialized countries had burnt fossil fuels for 100 years and built up enormous wealth. This club had to decide what to do to cut emissions, and it claimed all countries were equally responsible for the problem. In 1991, just as the climate convention was being finalised, a report, released by an influential Washington think tank, broke the news that its analysis showed India, China and other developing countries were equally responsible for greenhouse gases. Anil Agarwal and I rebutted this and brought in the issue of equitable access to the global commons. We also showed, beyond doubt, that the industrialised countries were singularly responsible for the increased greenhouse gases.
In 1992, it was accepted
that the occupied atmospheric space would need to be vacated to make room for the emerging world to grow because emissions are an outcome of economic growth. This acceptance recognised the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in reducing emissions. A firewall was built to separate those countries that had to reduce emissions to make space for the rest of the world to grow. That year in Rio de Janeiro, the world was talking about drastic cuts of 20 per cent below the 1990 levels to provide for growth as well as climate security. Even in that age of innocence, the negotiations were difficult and nasty. The US argued its lifestyle was non-negotiable and refused to accept any agreement specifying deep reductions. In 1998, the Kyoto Protocol set the first legal target for these countries much below what the world knew it needed to do.
Two decades later, the idea of equity has become an even more inconvenient truth. By now there are more claimants for atmospheric space. Emerging countries have emerged. China, which in 1990, with over a quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for only 10 per cent of annual emissions, contributed 27 per cent by 2010. So, the fight over atmospheric space is now real. While the rich countries have not reduced emissions, the new growth countries have started emitting more. In 1990, the industrialised countries accounted for 70 per cent of the global annual emissions. In 2010, they accounted for 43 per cent but this is not because they have vacated space. The new growth countries—China in particular—have only occupied what was available. Emission reductions proposed 20 years ago have still not been committed or adhered to. In fact, in most already industrialised countries emissions have either stabilised or increased. In coal and extractive economies, like Canada and Australia, emissions have risen by 20 per cent and 46 per cent respectively.
The world has run out of atmospheric space and certainly of time. Will the rich, who contributed to emissions in the past and still take up an unfair share of this space based on their populations, reduce emissions? Or will the emerging countries be told to take over the burden? This is the big question, and an inconvenient one at that.
And mind you climate change is not the problem of the present but past contributions. The stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a long life. This means that any discussion on how the carbon cake will be divided, must take into account those gases emitted in the past and still present. So while China accounts for 27 per cent of the annual emissions, in cumulative terms (since 1950) it still accounts for only 11 per cent. Similarly, India contributes 6 per cent to the annual global emissions, but is only responsible for 3 per cent of the stock. The rich countries, with less than a quarter of the world’s population, are responsible for some 70 per cent of this historical burden. This stock of gases is responsible for an average global temperature rise of 0.8°C and another 0.8°C in future, which is inevitable. To keep temperature rise below 2°C, the world needs to cut emissions by 50-80 per cent below the 2000 levels by 2050. Now equity is no longer a moral idea, but a tough challenge. It is for this reason that global climate negotiations reached their nadir in Durban. It is for this reason that the US and its coalition are hell bent on erasing any mention of historical emissions from all texts. It is for this reason that the rich world is pointing to the emission growth in China and India, and dismissing their need for development as their obdurate right to pollute.
It is also an idea that is difficult to sell in a world distrustful of idealism and any talk of distributive justice. Even climate change negotiators do not really believe this form of climate-socialism can happen. They will tell you that the world is never going to give up space, that the world is too mean to give money or technology to poor nations for transition to low-carbon growth.
But this is because they forget that climate change is the market’s biggest failure. We cannot use the market for its repair. To avoid catastrophic changes it is essential to reach a collaborative agreement, which will be effective. And cooperation is not possible without fairness and equity. This is the pre-requisite. Take it because we must.
Original article at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/equity-next-frontier-climate-talks

Third World Network: News Updates from COP17 Durban

2011-12-16T16:19:00.000+01:00

TWN DURBAN NEWS UPDATES, COP 17 Durban, South Africa (28 NOVEMBER-09 DECEMBER 2011)

For detailed coverage of all the key discussions sessions and negotiations at COP17, Durban, the 28 (!) Third World Network News Updates are indispensable. Links to pdf versions in reversed chronological order below. For Third World Networks homepage with News Updates and Briefing papers from other negotiations sessions, go to: http://www.twnside.org.sg

Update No. 29: Movement of Technology Mechanism in Durban Outcome
by Elpidio V. Peria (21 Dec 11)

Update No. 28: Kyoto Protocol "second commitment period" remains uncertain
by Chee Yoke Ling (16 Dec 11)

Update No. 27: Decision on Green Climate Fund adopted
by Meena Raman (15 Dec 11)

Update No. 26: AWGLCA Chair transmits report for adoption despite strong protests
by Meena Raman (14 Dec 11)

Update No. 25: Major clash of paradigms in launch of new climate talks

by Meena Raman (13 Dec 11)

Update No. 24: Negotiations intensify on Durban final outcomes
by Meena Raman (09 Dec 11)

Update No. 23: “Various Approaches” text to go to ministers
by Payal Parekh (09 Dec 11)

Update No. 22: Kyoto Protocol work still unresolved
by Lim Li Lin (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 21: New market mechanism debated in “Various Approaches” text
by Payal Parekh & Trudi Zundel (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 20: Ministers to address difficult issues
by Meena Raman (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 19: Leaders outline expectations for Durban
by Meena Raman (07 Dec 11)

Update No. 18: Deep divide over Russian proposal to amend UNFCCC Article 4.2(f)
by Chee Yoke Ling (07 Dec 11)

Update No. 17: African Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change
(06 Dec 11)

Update No. 16: Divergent Views on “Various Approaches”
by Payal Parekh (06 Dec 11)

Update No. 15: Reactions to “amalgamation draft texts”
by Meena Raman (06 Dec 11)

Update No. 14: Second commitment period remains elusive
by Chee Yoke Ling & Xu Chengcheng (05 Dec 11)

Update No. 13: Durban battle on climate regime’s future
by Martin Khor (05 Dec 11)

Update No. 12: Statement by China on behalf of Brazil, South Africa, India and China at COP17
(02 Dec 11)

Update No. 11: Deep divide over legal form
by Meena Raman (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 10: US-EU disagreement over addressing mitigation gap
by Meena Raman (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 9: COP discusses Green Climate Fund and other issues
by Marjorie Williams (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 8: Clash of views on need for Durban mandate
by Meena Raman (01 Dec 11)

Update No. 7: Deep disagreements as Kyoto Protocol talks begin
by Lim Li Lin (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 6: SBI resumes work with full agenda
by Chee Yoke Ling (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 5: G77 and China calls for fair and equal treatment of issues
by Meena Raman (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 4: CBDR must guide work on international transport emissions, say several developing countries
by Chee Yoke Ling (29 Nov 11)

Update No. 3: Durban should not be burial ground of Kyoto Protocol- say G77/China
by Meena Raman (29 Nov 11)

Update No. 2: Durban to decide fate of Green Climate Fund
by Meena Raman (28 Nov 11)

Update No. 1: Critical issues facing Durban Climate Conference
by Meena Raman (28 Nov 11)

Sivan Kartha on the Durban outcomes: "Deeply worrying"

2011-12-15T23:30:00.000+01:00

We have a glass, and time will tell whether it is half-full, half-empty, or purely decorative. We will see whether the yet-to-be-negotiated "protocol, legal instrument, or agreed outcome with legal force" is actually be capable of ramping up global ambition.

And on that score, I'm deeply worried. Yes, Durban gave us (something like) the "legally binding" language that we wanted. But, as far as I can see, Durban also took us several LARGE steps backward in terms of "trust-building", which many of us have believed for a long time is inexpendable if a real global solution to the crisis is to be found. And this further undermining of trust makes it less likely that the dearly sought language on "legally binding" will actually lead to something meaningful.

Specifically, here's how I fear trust has been undermined:

1. The KP was obviously hugely important for developing countries, and as far as I can see, it has been unceremoniously executed. First, because the language in the AWG-KP decision is nothing but a slippery legalistic evasion. The KP2 has obviously not been adopted. Rather, all that happened is that AWG-KP "takes note" of the "intention" of Parties to convert their targets to QELROs, and "invites" them to submit information on these QELROs for "consideration" by the AWG-KP "with a view" to adoption. I count no less than five levels of legalistic remove from an actual adoption?!

Second, because of the refusal of Canada, Russia, and Japan to join a KP2. This refusal, as far as I can see, is entirely gratuitous, since (a) the weakness of the language just described above, (b) there is nothing to stop KP Parties from just reiterating the Copenhagen pledges based on their existing domestic laws, and (c) with the legally binding DPEA, Annex B countries got the quid pro quo they demanded of the non-Annex 1 countries anyway.

Third, the nail in the coffin is Canada's withdrawal from KP1, . which simultaneously makes a mockery of the very notion of "legally binding" in any event.

2. The Annex 1 countries have shown extremely bad faith in their negotiations on the loopholes. New Zealand and Australia have been offensively recalcitrant when it comes to keeping their favourite loopholes open. Russia, despite pulling out of KP2, has the gall to insist on preserving its AAUs. The EU, which we think of as the relatively principled ones when it comes to the loopholes (because they want to keep the carbon markets alive) also continues to insist on the surplus AAUs of its new EU member states. On LULUCF accounting, the worst option seems to be the one accepted. The "decision" on AAUs was to punt to next year, with weak language that merely "requests" the AWG-KP to "assess" the implications of the surplus AAUs and "recommend" actions and for "consideration" by the CMP. (And, I'm already getting nervous that the technical process of converting 2020 targets to KP2 QELROs will become a massive loophole-generating exercise.)

3. The battle over the GCF governance was exceeding divisive. This too was gratuitous, especially in the context of the GCF being what even Zenawi called "not even an empty shell". And meanwhile, attempts to provide further assurances on where the long-term finance will actually come from were obstructed.

4. Probably most importantly, as many others have observed, equity was sidelined in a way that I believe will haunt the negotiations from Durban onward. It's a shock that the decision establishing the AWG-DPEA does not mention equity in any form. No "on the basis of equity", no CBDR, no "equitable access to sustainable development", no nothing. (I'm keen to know about what actually happened in the Indabas and the final plenary huddles, and which forces kept equity out of the text. I've heard it was non-negotiable for the US.) As others have pointed out, the DPEA is still established "under the Convention", so the UNFCCC equity provisions still legally apply. But the "hearts and minds" struggle to ensure equitable burden-sharing will be all the more challenging now. And in the absence of equitable burden-sharing, (and the finance and tech it implies), I have a hard time seeing major developing country emitters stepping up and engaging in the ambitious mitigation we urgently need.

5. Not only was the standard equity language excluded, but other key developing country concerns were sidelined also. The DPEA has a clear focus on mitigation specifically: it "decides to launch a workplan on enhancing mitigation ambition" without reference to finance, tech, or adaptation. Given that the workplan has already been decided to focus on mitigation ambition specifically, I am not sure what it means that finance, tech, adaptation are mentioned elsewhere in the DPEA decision, though I assume this is an opening that developing countries will try hard to use as the terms of reference of the DPEA are defined early next year.
Now, certainly there was some incremental progress, of course. And all these above problems can be overcome, ground can be regained, trust can be rebuilt, and Parties can yet establish the basis for the cooperative global response that's needed. But, I feel less optimistic after Durban than before.

Is this an overly bleak interpretation? Are there hopeful signs I've missed? I'd be grateful if anyone could offer something to be more cheery about.
Sivan Kartha