Sadly, the New Zealand Government which officially pulled out of Kyoto over the weekend seems to be stuck in Middle Earth  – seemingly living in a hole in the ground when it comes to action on climate. By Australia signing onto the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand choosing not to, the land of Oz has once again out shined our Kiwi neighbours.

The continuation of Kyoto whilst not the silver bullet solution to tackling climate change does  provide the necessary legal and political bridge to the fair, ambitious and binding agreement that all countries have agreed to finalise, hopefully, by 2015.

Whilst, I’m pleased to see the Government reaffirm its commitment to increase its emissions reductions target to 25 per cent by 2020 (on 2000 levels) in the context of a global deal. Australia’s current target is 5 per cent by 2020. Australia as one of the highest per-person emitters will need to prepare itself for deeper cuts in the near future. Significantly, Australia’s independent Climate Change Authority will review and make recommendations on Australia’s emissions reduction targets in early 2014. Current targets, including Australia’s, fall a long way short of what is needed to limit warming to 2C – the threshold for a safe climate. Mid-term ambition will be issue at COP18 and in the negotiations around the Durban Platform for enhanced action. To date, indications are the ambition train is still waiting at the platform looking for someone to drive it at the UNFCCC.

I’m also worried at the deep uncertainty surrounding sources of climate finance for developing countries at COP18. In 2009, developed countries committed to raising US $100bn a year by 2020 to assist the developing world in adapting to climate change and implementing low carbon development strategies. Australia has played a strong role over the first three years, known as the Fast Start Finance period, providing a fair share towards the global goal of US $30bn between 2010 and 2012. But like most developed countries, it has made no firm, quantified commitments beyond the Fast Start period.

Less than clear skies. Creative Commons

So whilst my government outshone New Zealand last week, the skies looking towards Doha are far from clear…

Last year, the Gillard Government against fierce opposition took a positive step forward in legislating for a price on carbon and a $10 billion investment in clean energy. However, at the UN climate talks in Durban, Australia stood still or went backwards on many issues. Other big polluting countries, like the US and Canada, also dragged their heels like around the corridors of the United Nations. Despite this, agreement was reached for a new global deal covering all countries to start in 2020 and for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto is the bedrock of international cooperation on climate change.

At the first round of UN climate talks for 2012, pressure is mounting for Australia to not withdraw from Kyoto. European nations, small island states and least developed countries, often the most vulnerable to changing weather patterns, see the continuation of Kyoto as vital in efforts to reduce emissions. China and India also see Kyoto as important piece of the puzzle if they are to take on legally binding commitments by 2020. Australia exiting from Kyoto would in-turn slow momentum for a new global agreement. The decision could also impact the Government’s attempt for a seat of the UN Security Council.

Signing on to Kyoto also requires Australia to submit a target to reduce greenhouse gases. There is a risk that Australia could lock in a low target. However, our current 5% target by 2020 on 2000 levels is already well below what is required by science to limit warming to the below 2 degrees. The IPCC recommends rich countries reduce emissions by 25% – 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels. The government’s own policy outlines measures needed to go to the higher end of the 5% – 15% range and a possibility to move to 25%. Significantly, Freedom of Information papers obtained by The Climate Institute show that the conditions for moving to 15% have already been met. Signing on to Kyoto provides Australia with an opportunity to commit to stronger targets.

Once again, the Kyoto question looks set to define Australia’s international standing on climate change

Australia’s new Ambassador for Climate Change and lead negotiator at the UNFCCC, Dr Justin Lee was previously Australia’s High Commissioner for Bangladesh. With firsthand experience of working in a country, which is extremely vulnerable to climate change, Dr Lee will know the issues confronting the most vulnerable countries.

Photo: Rodney Dekker/OxfamAUS

With Australia needing to roll up its sleeves and join the coalition of the willing (EU, AOSIS and LDCs) in discussions around legal form and increasing mitigation, I hope that Dr Lee’s experiences of working in Bangladesh might help shape Australia’s position. At COP18 in Durban last year, Australia dragged it heals on many issues (the Green Climate Fund being one exception) joining long-time climate laggard US and Canada in blocking tangible progress.

During the past two weeks of negotiations, other countries have been consistently urging Australia to join up to Kyoto. In particular, small Island states in the Pacific and the least developed countries in Africa and Asia are waiting to see if Australia will stand by them and play its role in international climate action.

The time has come for Australia to get with the program and join with others in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol with strong greenhouse gas reduction goals.

With a new Ambassador, new relationships will need to be formed, with new relationships, new opportunities will arise.

And there’s a faint hint in the air that there might be a historic deal. An agreement on a 2nd commitment period and an agreement to negotiate a legally binding agreement starting in 2018.

The EU and India have just huddled work to see if they can come to a compromise over equity and CBDR.

If a deal does get done, it will be good PR for the multilateral process. However, big questions will remain over the ambition of countries to reduce emissions and keep warming to below 2 degrees.

Also, the Green Climate Fund whilst agreed to, will seemingly be an empty shell.

Time will tell…

Campaigners planning their next move as talks continue into another day

“We’re back!”

These famous words by the US negotiator a few years ago, shortly after the election of Obama, had a less than positive tone for me this morning walking into the International Conference Centre, venue of this year’s UN Climate Summit.

After four intercessionals (negotiating sessions between the UN climate summits) and eleven long days of negotiations here in Durban the global community still does not have a consensus. So we’re back, hopefully, for only one more day.

These meetings normally finish late on the last day and thus I came prepared last night with a toothbrush, fresh fruit and plenty of water. However, the UNFCCC advised people at around 12:30am last night that negotiations would resume in the morning. Despite this, negotiations kept going until 3am.

So why are we still here?

The Indaba (ministerial meeting for broad political issues) resumed around 6pm last night with small island states and LDCs saying the package was a “death sentence”. The US supported by Australia indicated support for a “legal instrument” instead of “legal framework”. The EU stated that they could not accept this legal outcome. And so the South African presidency returned with a more ambitious text for discussions that went until around 3am last night.

This morning there has been draft text around the LCA and Kyoto Protocol. The LCA text is very weak on the mitigation side, and a cop-out on shared vision, but it does foreshadow a work program on identifying long-term sources of finance. The inclusion of a plan around long-term sources is a flicker of light in otherwise dark hole.

The Kyoto Protocol text calls for a 5-year continuation period but does not have a provision in the amendments for countries to adjust the emission reductions targets after they are supposed to table them in May next year.

So far Australia’s actions have been less than satisfactory. They were one of the only countries to openly support and very very bad deal being botched together by the US and China. They tried very hard to spin it positively to NGOs.

Australia now needs to cross the fence and join the coalition of the willing. This coalition includes the EU, AOSIS and the LDCs who have a clear proposal to establish a plan for increasing ambition to keep the window open for the world to reach the below 2 degree target. The US and others are proposing to slam this window shut, which would have a devastating impact for the world’s poor…

I’m also blogging on our sister site, A Climate for Change (www.aclimateforchange.org). Read more of my work there….

It’s almost 3pm on the last day of the Durban climate talks.

We’ve just come out of a meeting with the Australian Government including Minister Combet and Ambassador Hand in which they suggested that a deal is the on the table between the EU, BASICS, USA and middle powers like Australia. Whilst the details are still murky and could change anytime, it appears that all major economies might be willing to agree to a mandate to negotiate a deal between 2012 – 2015 which would be legally binding in 2020. In relation to the Kyoto Protocol, they suggested a second commitment period with different parties at different times.

Minister Combet said that there is a ‘good prospect’ of a deal with all major economies under a globally legally binding deal. However, even is this the case, there must be a clear concrete path to meet the ‘giggatonne gap’ between what the world has pledged to do and what the world needs to do, in order to limit warming to meet the below 2 degree target. Currently we are heading for a catastrophic
3.5 degree warming.

Interestingly, Ambassador Hand has constantly stated the need to separate legal form and efforts to reduce emissions. She also highlighted the positive role played by Brazil in the getting the G77 to play a more progressive.

It also unclear the position of AOSIS, the Africa Group and LDCs on this deal. And what’s even more unclear is how this weighs up against the progressive position tabled by EU, AOSIS and LDCs late last night and reaffirmed earlier this morning?

It seems that there might not be a complete consensus in the EU bloc around the end date for negotiations for a global deal. What we do know is that the EU movements in the last 24 hours have opened the door for potentially good outcome.

As with all negotiations, nothing is final until the ink dries.

In this case, the pen is still well and truly in the pencil case.

This year’s UN climate negotiations in Durban are now entering the final stages. Heads of State and Ministers are giving short sharp speeches. Ambassadors and senior diplomats are discussing bottom lines and compromises. Environment groups are following the twists and turns, planning their next moves.

Against the backdrop of the current food crisis in East Africa in which 13 million are facing hunger, it is hoped that governments will agree to slash emissions and unlock much needed finance to assist poor people, especially those involved in food production, deal with climate change.

With less than two days left, this is looking less and less likely, though the final outcome is far from known. The question on everyone’s lips, is whether this round of negotiations will deliver an outcome that ensures poor people in Africa avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

One of the possible outcomes is that the global community builds on existing legal agreements by keeping the Kyoto Protocol alive and setting out a roadmap to a new legally binding agreement.. A 2020 timeline has been pushed by the US and China however this is inadequate.

This outcome  is unlikely to lead to a concrete a concrete planto reduce the ‘emissions gap’ , the gap, between what the world has pledged to do and what it needs to do, in order to reach the below 2 degree target. As reported in my previous blog, the world is currently careering off the road to reach the below 2 degree target. The destination, without a change in course, looks like a catastrophic 3.5 degrees of warming. This would put further pressure on poor people, particularly those involved in food production.

Today 117 countries from the European Union, Least Developed Countries and Alliance of Small Island States announced a united position behind a legally binding agreement starting in 2015. Though it is too early to know the exact details it does place increased pressure on the US in particular and, China and India who have at times, been blocking progress here. If this coalition of ambition is able to draw China and India into their fold, then the US could be be isolated .

The Green Climate Fund is the other piece of the negotiation puzzle here in Durban. Currently an empty shell, it needs governments to commit to provide funds. Yesterday, Germany and Denmark pledged 40 and 14 million dollars respectively to the fund. However, the world has committed to raise 100 billion per year by 2020. As the world watches the European economic crisis unfold, calls for new ways to raise climate finance such as a levy on shipping emissions and financial transaction tax are making headway.

For the millions of people who are vulnerable to impacts of climate change in Africa, and around the world, tomorrow must deliver an outcome that sets out a concrete plan to reduce emissions and provide finance to assist people adapt and mitigate to the impacts of climate change.

Clancy Moore is blogging from the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa (November 28 – December 9) as part of Oxfam’s UN Climate Tracker project. You can follow his blogs here

Reverend Tafue Lusama knows a thing or two about the urgency to tackle climate change. Living in Tuvalu, he has seen the climate changing over the last twenty years. Rising sea levels, storm surges and ocean acidification have had devastating impacts of people’s culture, livelihoods and ability to grow food. A few months ago, Tafue and his family almost ran out of fresh water. Prolonged drought plunged the small island nation into a state of emergency. Schools shut down and bottled water had to be flown in from Australian and New Zealand.

At this year’s UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa, Tafue is representing his country, population eleven thousand. Having lived the experiences of changing weather patterns and extreme weather events, Tafue is calling for urgent action to tackle climate change.

With just over two days to go, there is a clear coalition of ambition forming here in Durban. The European Union, Least Developed Countries (comprising many African nations) and the Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS) are all calling for urgent action to increase ambition and put the brakes on runaway climate change. These countries also want to see the Kyoto Protocol continue with stronger environment safe guards and transparency and the elements of the Cancun agreements implemented.

Today the E.U. stated that they were committed to looking into increasing their emission reduction targets next year. Denmark, which takes control of the E.U. presidency next, has committed to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 as has Germany.

Contrasting this coalition of ambition, are other countries like the US, who is responsible for 18% of the world’s emissions, continue to block progress on attempts to limit warming to the below 2 degree target set in Copenhagen. The recent UN Environment Programme report sets out the gap between countries current pledges and what is needed to meet the below 2 degree target set at Copenhagen.

Photo taken by Rodney Dekker

Today, AOSIS made the sensible suggestion that developed countries acknowledge the ‘gigatonne gap’. Their proposal involves a plan for countries to address the gap and includes a ministerial meeting in early 2012. This was a bright ray in a dark day here at the talks.

Australia and other developed countries need to join this coalition of ambition and urgently move to the higher end of their current 2020 pledges. Whilst developing countries also need to clarify what support they need to meet their targets.

This morning, thousands of young people gathered to form a lion roaring for their government to act.

The cost of acting now is far less than the cost of not acting. Delaying action will cost money and lives. As Reverend Tafue Lusama says “climate change is a matter of life and death”.

Clancy Moore is blogging from the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa (November 28 – December 9) as part of Oxfam’s UN Climate Tracker project.

Dark, humid, noisy and little ventilation. This is the location of the Australian Government offices here at the UN climate talks. It is also where on Wednesday morning, some colleagues and I had the chance to meet with Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet.

Although this was a very short meeting, I took the window of opportunity to hand over messages from some Australians and a big poster in the form of a to-do list which calls on Minister Combet to do the following here at the UN climate negotiations in Durban:

1. Ensure that the global Green Climate Fund is up, running and designed to help poor people, especially women – adapt to the impacts of climate change and embark on low carbon development.
2. Fill the global Green Climate Fund with money from shipping emissions and a Robin Hood Tax
3. Ensure poor countries avoid the worst impacts of climate change – global warming above 1.5 degrees will mean catastrophic impacts for Pacific Island & African nations.
4. Keep the Kyoto Protocol alive – it’s the only current international agreement to tackle climate change and we need it.

We pressed him about the need to get agreement in Durban on long-term sources of climate finance to fill the Green Climate Fund. At last year’s UN Climate Summit, the world reaffirmed its commitment to provide $100bn per year by 2020 to flow through to this fund.

In response, Minister Combet stated that “Australia is committed to long-term finance and getting the Green Climate Fund up”.

Minister Combet also spoke about the need for an “environment effective outcome” on the Kyoto Protocol and reiterated the government’s position for a global agreement, which covers all major emitters. The Kyoto Protocol covers most developed countries, with the main exception being the US, and is due to expire at the end of 2012.

Many countries have passionately called on the global community not to let Africa be the deathbed of the Kyoto Protocol. Many developing countries including small islands states like Tuvalu and Kiribati are calling for negotiators to give life to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as a stepping stone to a fair, ambitious, legally binding agreement by no later than 2015.

Significantly, China is suggesting it could commit to legally binding commitments to reduce emissions in the future. The US however is blocking progress on the big issues of a future agreement by pitching an alarming narrative to lock in a ten-year timeout with no new targets to lower emissions until 2020. Put simply, the US has set-up a roadblock on a busy street whilst other countries are noisily beeping their horns, asking them to get out of the way and allow them to move forward.

With three days to go at this year’s UN Climate Summit, Ministers from all countries have parachuted in to negotiate the final pieces of the jigsaw. Australia can play a positive role by working with its negotiating block, which includes countries such as the US, New Zealand and Norway, to make progress around a legal deal and also support calls to fill the fund with new long-term sources of money like a charge on shipping emissions and a Robin Hood Tax.

Clancy Moore is blogging from the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa. You can follow his blogs here Durban Climate Talks: Minister Combet arrives with work to do…

I’m also blogging on our sister site in Australia, A Climate for Change (www.aclimateforchange.org) where you read more of my work…

Creative Commons

The legislation establishes a fixed price on carbon pollution from July 1 2012 before moving to an emissions trading system in 2015 and will cover Australia’s 500 biggest polluters. As a historic first step for Australia in tackling climate change, the legislation now means we have a credible domestic policy that can get us to our inadequate 5% target. However, as the recent Climate Action Tracker report shows, the 5% target, as part of our fair share, is not enough to limit warming to below 2 degrees.

In Durban, Minister Combet is meeting with countries, who have or will have carbon markets in place – EU, New Zealand, China, South Korea to name a few. Today Minister Combet, and New Zealand Minister for International Climate Change Negotiations, Tim Groser, released further plans to link Australia’s and New Zealand’s emissions trading schemes.

Whilst, the establishing and linking of carbon markets is a good form of low cost mitigation, there is still an urgent need to focus on the bigger picture issues here in Durban including a scaling up of mitigation pledges and agreeing on a timeframe for emissions to peak. With out these, it is unlikely the world will limit warming to the below 2 degree target let alone the 1.5 degree target demanded by AOSIS and LDCs.

As one of the key players in discussions around climate finance at Cancun, Minister Combet can also play an influential in the finance track and negotiations around the Green Climate Fund. Specifically, Australia can exercise some middle power diplomacy and as member of the Umbrella group, a key negotiating block that includes the USA, help ensure the Green Climate Fund gets up and running in 2012.

I’m also blogging on our sister site, A Climate for Change (www.aclimateforchange.org) where you read more of my work…