G8 summit, MEF: No real climate agreement breakthroughs
Despite promises by European governments and the Obama administration to conclude a global climate agreement later this year, the odds of a major breakthrough in December at the Copenhagen climate conference appear to be shrinking. The official negotiating text for the envisioned Copenhagen agreement is hopelessly complex and riddled with brackets nations have inserted to express their objections to dozens of politically sensitive issues that professional negotiators – well trained in the art of saying “no” – are unlikely to resolve in six months. The best hope for a breakthrough prior to Copenhagen was the recently completed Major Economies Forum (MEF) and G8 Summit in Italy. Yet, neither the MEF nor the recent G8 produced real breakthroughs on mitigation targets, funding levels, or institutional arrangements. The best that leaders of the world’s major economies could do was “recognize” that scientists advise them to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and resolve to “resolve to spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen.”
Politics had much to do with this. President Obama tried hard not to get too far ahead of the U.S. Congress now that the latter is finally taking up climate legislation in a serious way. Germany holds a national election later in the year and a general election is also coming up in the United Kingdom. Both countries have been hit hard by the global economic downturn and have opposition parties that strive to out-green the ruling party. Understandably, their leaders are reluctant to appear soft on the United States when it comes to emissions mitigation, and they are not particularly eager to make new financial commitments to developing nations. No doubt domestic politics also influenced the leaders of China, India, and other emerging economies. But the primary reason for the stalemate at the MEF was that neither developed nor developing nations were prepared to be specific enough about compromises they would be willing to make on issues of concern to the other group to allow the other parties to move away from long-held positions. With U.S. mitigation goals still up in the air and the financing package offered by the developed world still more rhetorical than concrete and real, the elements of the global deal were simply not in place yet.
With the 2009 MEF behind us, the last, best hope for progress in Copenhagen may rest with the United States and Europe. Unless the United States and Europe find common ground on both emissions mitigation and financing for developing nations, China and other emerging economies are unlikely to make major compromises. By reaching agreement now on the blueprint for transatlantic climate cooperation, Europe and the United States could add new momentum to global climate talks. The blueprint for a strong transatlantic climate partnership, in short, needs these elements:
• European pressure on Congress to raise the United States’ ambitions on climate change, coupled with pragmatic, eventual acceptance of the best emissions target America can deliver. • A united effort to convince emerging economies to join developed nations in accepting verifiable international obligations to implement ambitious climate-friendly growth plans that include measurable, reportable, and verifiable mitigation actions. • A concrete and generous transatlantic offer of assistance to developing nations to help them pursue low-carbon growth and adapt to climate change, within the context of a decentralized system of bilateral agreements, existing multilateral institutions, and private sector-oriented market mechanisms.
(Note: This is adapted from an upcoming policy paper by GMF Fellow Nigel Purvis.)
July 9th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Nigel, there is no doubt that emission reduction could be much simpler!
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages – apart from lowering CO2 emissions:
Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, “best practice” results can be compared and shared.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand – together with extensive -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.
Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion
The Way Forward
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation
July 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Nigel:
Let me offer a perspective from ground zero here at the summit.
The statement issued Wednesday on climate change by the G8 countries includes two important new elements. The fact that President Obama and leaders from Canada, Japan, and Russia have joined the European Union in recognizing the necessity of holding global temperature increases below 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels is quite welcome, as is their collective commitment to cut their own emissions 80 percent by 2050. These are both important benchmarks in avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. The agreement by China, India, and other amjor developing countries to also accept the same language on the 2 degree C goal is also new, and important.
But you’re correct that by themselves, these developments will do little to break the deadlock between developed and developing countries on key issues in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit in December. The failure to make any progress towards resolving the deep split among the G8 countries on the emissions cuts needed by 2020 is especially troubling. There was also little movement by the G8 countries towards concrete commitments of financial and technology assistance needed by developing countries to cut their emissions and adapt to the mounting impacts of climate change. When it comes to fulfilling the promises made in Bali a year and a half ago, it’s fair to say the G8 countries have been missing in action. This lack of progress on 2020 targets and on financing is what major developing countries to refuse to agree to the goal of reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050 in the Major Economies Forum declaration issued Thursday.
But in the press briefing after the conclusion of the Major Economies Forum leaders’ summit, President Obama offered a real ray of hope, by announcing that these leaders from 17 countries have tasked their finance ministers to develop proposals on climate financing to bring to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh in September. This summit is the last time before Copenhagen that all of these leaders are currently scheduled to be in the same place at the same time. If this initiative results in serious action on financing issues by leaders at that meeting, it could be a real game-changer in the road up to Copenhagen
Obama’s announcement raises the stakes considerably for near-term progress on climate finance. Here are a few of the reasons why:
– The issue is now strongly on the September 24-25 G-20 summit agenda, which it wasn’t before yesterday;
– finance ministers will have to agree on serious proposals to put before the heads of state, and because it’s the G-20, not the G-8, the big developing countries will be full participants, not invited guests;
– the meeting is being chaired by President Obama (along with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown) at home in the US, which increases the incentives for the administration to get real movement on the issue (and to try to bring Congress along);
– the meeting happens just days before the German elections on September 27, which will incline Chancellor Merkel to support something meaningful;
– Japan could well have a new government by then which could be more favorable to stronger climate action than the current weak Aso regime, and in either case, Japan will be reluctant to stand apart from other industrialized country leaders, especially President Obama, on this issue;
– there will be mass civil society media and mobilization activities in the US and other key countries, around both the G-20 summit and the UN High-level heads of state climate meeting organized by Secretary General Ban Ki Moon two days before.
In short, the climate finance issue will be teed up in a very powerful way.
The 2020 targets issue is also key to a deal in Copenhagen, and there I agree with you that dialogue between the US and Europe is key. But in my view, the last-minute launch of an accelerated political process on the critical financing issue salvaged what otherwise would have been a very mixed outcome here in L’Aquila.
Alden