CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS BONN APRIL-MAY 2013 NGO NEWSLETTER
ISSUE NO 1 PAGE 1 FREE OF CHARGE
2299 A Appr r iill
Mother Issue
ECO has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. ECO is produced co-operatively by the Climate Action Network at the UNFCCC meetings in Bonn, April-May 2013.ECO email: administration@climatenetwork.org - ECO website: http://eco.climatenetwork.org - Editorial/Production: Kyle Gracey
Putting the “2 (degrees)” Back in Workstream 2
It is well-trodden ground that there isa huge gap between
what Partiessay
they want (staying below 2°Cand keeping the door open to 1.5°C)and
what Parties have pledged
tocontribute between now and 2020 toachieve that planetary necessity. Intheory, Workstream 2 has alreadyidentified how to bridge the gapthrough: 1) improving developedcountries’ woefully inadequate 2020emission reduction targets; 2) identi-fying ways to enable and support de-veloping countries in upping their own pre-2020 ambition; and 3) jointcomplementary action in addition tothe first two areas on everything fromphasing out HFCs to fossil fuel sub-sidies. The task now is to JUST DOIT.ECO thought “doing it” would re-quire no explanation, but some re-cent happenings in many developedcountries are getting their positionsall wrong. First and foremost – andwe really thought this was obvious –the thing that needs to go up is thetarget, not the temperature. For theEU this means moving to 30% - amove which really shouldn’t be thatdifficult considering that it hasalready achieved its 20% target al-most 8 years ahead of schedule andwill actually achieve more than that(around 25-27%) by 2020. How canthe EU host 2 COPs over the next 3years and ask the rest of the world todo more while it decides to take abreak? In addition, the EU’s incom-petence at repairing its own emis-sions trading scheme is prettymournful. A modest measure to tem-porarily limit the surplus of allow-ances in the EU carbon market wasrecently rejected by some within theEuropean Parliament.The rest of the developed world isno better, and many are far, far worse. There are rumours that Ja-pan is planning to lower its ambitionfrom its current 2020 pledge. Aus-tralia is not likely to do anythingabout its tiny 5% pledge and, de-pending of the outcome of the up-coming national elections, thingscould hit rock bottom, even thoughthe Australian public is strongly in fa-vour of climate action. The USpledge could be labelled ambitious, if the ambition was to overshoot 4°C,while the country is barely on thepath to achieve its very weak 2020
continued on page 2
Plato observed in
The Republic
thatnecessity is the mother of invention.Parties, he was speaking about you.Humanity formed the State to enablethe conditions for sufficient food,shelter and security. Today we facean unprecedented challenge – howwill we respond? At this early stage in developing theglobal climate agreement in 2015,“ambition” dominates the agenda –and for good reason. The IPCC’sforthcoming AR5 will shine a brightand unyielding light on the planetaryemergency we now face.It’s not just about the need to closethe emissions gap. While those 11gigatonnes will help the atmosphere,they won’t break the back of the polit-ics to get us below 2°C. What is re-quired is for collective agreement todramatically change the course of human development with the climateclock ticking. So it’s simple: the 2015deal must deliver ambition compat-ible with a below 2°C trajectory.There is a sense in some quartersthat a top-down method to achievethat kind of ambition is out of reachpolitically, so a bottom-up approachwill have to suffice. But these under-achievers are missing the point.Either they wilfully ignore the fact thatclimate change will ravage the globeand its inhabitants, or they think PlanB[ottom-up] can keep us out of harm's reach of unavoidable climatechange. But Plan B isn’t working. After all, despite floods, droughts,fires and the vanishing Arctic sea ice,developed country commitmentshave hardly changed since Copenha-gen and the Green Climate Fund stillhas no money.For those of us, like ECO, who de-fend the legally binding regime, weget pinned as idealists. But ECObegs to differ. You are the idealists.We are the realists. Weknow what is needed toavoid dangerous cli-mate change and to
continued on page 2
Mothers of Ambition
CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS BONN APRIL-MAY 2013 NGO NEWSLETTER
Mothers
continuedkeep us on a below 2°C trajectory.Of course, these bottom-up actionsare helping, but it’s not enough.Moreover, those proactively promot-ing Plan B[ottom-up] are neglectingthe investors and businesses that re-quire a strong signal from govern-ments to shift their assets. And ECOknows that a strong signal doesn’tmean a “yeah, I can do that, for sure”. Nope, it needs a legally bind-ing, long-term commitment for gov-ernments to decarbonise their economies.So ECO wants to see everyone be-have in our new (albeit temporary)accommodation here in Bonn. And inparticular on equity. ECO would liketo see here in Bonn the developmentof a strong equity framework thatprovides both context and metrics tomeasure progress. We are seeingnotable progress in refining thatframework, anchored firmly in theConvention and the foundational, butdynamic, concepts of common butdifferentiated responsibilities and re-spective capabilities, and equitableaccess to sustainable development.But progress is not yet completed,and Parties must stay focused onachieving a shared understanding onequity.While necessity is the mother of in-vention, invention, in this case, re-quires a top-down regime.
Workstream
continuedtarget. And Canada – well, their onlyambition is to withdraw from as manyinternational treaties as possible (if you hadn’t heard, they’ve also with-drawn from the UN Convention toCombat Desertification).This drooping ambition level needsto stop. By 2014 ALL Parties (KyotoParties and free-riders alike) willhave to increase the ambition of their 2020 pledges. Without this, you won’tget a global agreement in 2015, and – worse – you will not prevent dan-gerous climate change from destroy-ing entire civilisations andthreatening the future of your chil-dren.There is also a role for developingcountries in increasing near-term am-bition. It is worth assessing what ad-ditional ambition more advanceddeveloping countries can muster aswell as what precise support will en-able all to do even more. Jointly, de-veloping and developed countriesshould use Workstream 2 to createan upward spiral of increasing sup-port (finance, technology and capa-city building) and ambition triggeredand enabled by such support. Thiscould also help avoid that, due to, for example low levels of climate fin-ance, developing countries may findthemselves in situations where theylock-in low ambition because of inad-equately supported actions.Finally, there are the complement-ary actions. The COP in Warsawwould ideally invite other bodies(Montreal Protocol, ICAO and IMO,G20 and so forth) to foster actions intheir spheres of expertise and influ-ence to result in additional emissionreductions. Those actions wouldneed to come in addition to whatParties have committed to do basedon their 2020 targets, pledges andNAMAs, rather than as means toachieve them. This is why ECO andsome Parties have used the expres-sion “complementary”, a word whoseproximity to the somewhat less ambi-tious “complimentary” should not cre-ate the false impression that avoidingcatastrophic climate change is an is-sue of voluntary action – it is not. It isan obligation Parties have towardsthe
millions
of people suffering cli-mate change already today, and to-wards the
hundreds of millions
if not
billions
who will be suffering tomor-row, whose lives and livelihoods arethreatened by inaction, complacencyand pretension currently at display atthese negotiations.
ISSUE NO 1 PAGE 2 FREE OF CHARGE
DidYouDownloadOurECOAppYet? (
"Iwastoobusynegotiatingourfuture"
isnotanexcuse) Searchfor"CANInternational"
Coming soon...