Barcelona: A fork in the road in the road to Copenhagen

By On October 31, 2009 · 6 Comments
Will Ockenden | CreativeCommons

Will Ockenden | CreativeCommons

With only 5 negotiating days left before Copenhagen the world faces a monumental challenge at Barcelona. There are a range of potential roadblocks that could scuttle the chances for a strong outcome at Copenhagen, an outcome that the world desperately needs. I believe, however, that the challenges the negotiations face can be overcome with the necessary political will and leadership.

Its Phil here (whom Cara kindly introduced in her last blog), and I will be reporting to you from Barcelona over the week to come.

Barcelona is a fork in the road to Copenhagen. Positive movement in a number of the negotiating streams is absolutely necessary if we are to reach a fair and effective deal at Copenhagen. In one of her previous blogs Cara succinctly outlined the key road blocks that stand in the way of Copenhagen. In summary these are:

  • The volume of financing and how it will be raised and spent to assist developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change
  • Mitigation targets for developed countries are far lower than the 25% – 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, required to have a good chance at avoiding dangerous climate change
  • Will the Kyoto Protocol continue or will it be replaced by a new treaty?

We all know that Australia can do better and must do better in all these areas. Let me make just a few points to put this debate in focus.

Money matters.

In Australia the debate between the major parties on climate change legislation continues. Unfortunately so much of public airtime is taken up by how much we should subsidise polluting industry. Much to my chagrin the only serious conversation being had is around how much more we can give polluters rather than how much less (apparently several billion dollars is not enough).

Even before any emissions trading legislation gets passed, the Australian government already subsidises the coal, oil and gas industries to the tune of around 8 billion AUD per year. This figure is around double the entire overseas aid program and is in a different order of magnitude to what our government is proposing it will contribute to international climate change mitigation and adaptation financing mechanisms (I will save my rant about our government committing and ADDITIONAL 146 BILLION AUD to our defence force for a different post). Australia can afford to offer much much more at Barcelona.

25%?

I am not sure how many more times I can hear the government state and the media reiterate the figure 25%. I am sure you all know, but just to set things straight the Australian government is unconditionally offering a 4% mitigation target on 1990 levels by 2020 which equates to carbon dioxide equivalent atmospheric concentration of over 550 ppm. This would be a CATASTROPHIC outcome for the whole planet and its inhabitants. The Australian government has offered a very conditional (conditional upon other countries making commitments which they have not indicated they will) 24% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. The Government and the Garnaut report on climate change suggests, that in a global agreement this would relate roughly to 450ppm. On this figure, our good friend and eminent NASA scientist James Hanson says:

“A CO2 amount of order 450 ppm or larger, if long maintained, would push Earth toward the ice-free state. Although ocean and ice sheet inertia limit the rate of climate change, such a CO2 level likely would cause the passing of climate tipping points and initiate dynamic responses that could be out of humanity’s control.” Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? James Hansen et al.

Australia must at least make its 24% mitigation target UNCONDITIONAL and put on the table more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets of at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020.

Now… all these points have been made before, the same connections have been drawn and the same critiques made (and many better ones!). But something is different. Something has changed.

We are witnesses and participants to the most significant global movement, arguably, of all time! There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people just like us around the globe desperate to see strong action on climate change. Action that protects the earth’s ecosystems and upholds the rights of the poor. In our ever increasing capacity in Australia we must put MORE pressure on the Australian government to actively and cooperatively pursue a fair and just deal on climate change.

I encourage you to read my blogs from Barcelona, make comments, and encourage your community to get on board and participate in the movement that will save the world as we know it.

Peace,

Phil.

p.s. I will also be blogging on the Australian sister website ‘A Climate For Change‘

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious
  • Jenni

    Hey Phil, looking forward to hearing what happens at Barcelona and hoping against hope that we will see some real progress!

    On finance, it has been great to see that the EU has at least put a figure to what they think will be required in terms of international funding – shame that they did not also put down their commitments to it!

    In terms of targets, I wish our government would follow Japan’s leadership and announce a 25% target – and as you say hold out the possibility of 40% target which is needed to reach the 350ppm level – a level that no leader can any longer be in doubt is fiercely desired by the world’s people.

  • Philip Ireland

    Thanks for your comment Jenny!

    We just go to the convention center and there is a real buzz, lets hope that translates to action.

    The EU funding announcment was a great step forward….. however, Oxfam gave us a briefing this morning and have concerns that the EU plans to use pre-made aid commitments (to reach 0.7 GDP) for climate change financing. Climate financing needs to be in addition to current AND pledged aid commitments.

    Japan’s shift in position is really encouraging! Lets hope (and activly persue :) Australia increasing our commentment.

    I look forward to hearing from you again.

    Phil

  • Hannah

    Hi Phil..thanks for your recent blog!
    It’s all a little bit depressing actually.. although like you said, something has changed and it feels like there’s some hope! It’s exciting to be a part of such a global movement whose demands I hope will be listened to and acted upon at Barcelona and of course Copenhagen…
    I look forward to reading your next blog once the meetings have started. Have fun!

  • Big Joe

    Thanks Phil, I really resonate with what you’re saying. The Australian government should really get its act together and lead instead of follow.
    Keep up the good work Phil!

  • Cara

    thanks for the intro into the next 5 days Phil!
    Looking forward to hearing from you what the Australian delegation are focusing on. It’s very worrying that the rift between developed and developing countries seems to be growing, trust is clearly lacking and is a huge issue.
    Keep up your great work!
    Cara

  • alex

    Hey Phil,

    I wish I could be as optimistic as you!

    1. I just wanted to say that your post states that 25-40% reduction of emissions by developed countries is required to stop climate change. This is not a fair representation of the science. The 25-40% range has arisen as as an option (Box 13.7) in Chapter 13 of the Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. The range is drawn from a series of “allocation studies” (the majority of which were undertaken by one or other of the authors of the same Box) that distribute the burden of mitigating climate change between developed countries based on assumptions of the authors of and the underlying methodologies they chose to apply. It is not the reduction required to reach the 450ppm/2 degree stabilization target or any stabilization target – it is merely one possible level of obligation for developed countries. If it is coupled with a 450ppm target then it places most of the mitigation burden on developing countries – those that are least responsible for climate change and least able to respond to climate change. As some developing countries are saying what we actually need is 49% reductions by 2017 and then starting toward negative reductions from 2020.

    100B in financing is required to address climate change

    2. You suggest that the EU financing proposal is positive – I can’t agree. In addition to the concerns flagged by Oxfam the total amount proposed $100B grossly misrepresents the latest research and must be based on partial and now outdated studies. Recent analysis by the UN suggests the amount may be closer to $500-600 billion and that’s for adaptation alone. The costs of unavoidable losses and damage from climate change may be significantly higher. Further the costs of taking mitigation action – developing and deploying carbon neutral technologies – will be at least the same as that again for the energy sector alone according to the IEA. This means the amount is out by an order of magnitude.

    In addition the EU is only proposing to meet a tiny part of this cost – the rest is to come from carbon markets and developing countries themselves. A recent study by the European Climate Foundation shows that the volatility of carbon markets means that financial flows from these sources cannot be relied upon to meet substantial adaptation costs. Deustche Bank has recently agreed – rating very poorly countries that were relying on market mechanisms to stimulate action on climate chage: “because they rely on more volatile market-based incentives…. aspirational and carbon markets will only deliver price signals in the long term” http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59P3JY20091026. Finally, on an international level we should also remember that developed countries are legally required to provide new and additional finance for adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries – a shift to carbon markets shirks this resopnsiblity because markets, as the financial crisis has shown, can collapse and no-one will be held liable.

    These two things mean that I don’t think we’re getting much progress here!

More in Australia (145 of 189 articles)