[E-rundbrief] Info 867 - Climate in Copenhagen

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 867 - Martin Khor (Portugal/ Malaysia): Challenges 
for Copenhagen. (About the UN-conference on Climate Change).

Bad Ischl, 3.11.2009

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

Challenges for Copenhagen

Martin Khor

In December, the global climate negotiations are expected to reach its
climax point at Copenhagen.  A new global deal is supposed to be
“sealed”, that will move both developed and developing countries onto
intensified actions to counter climate change and its effects.


Unfortunately, it looks as if the Copenhagen conference may be an
anti-climax instead.  While political leaders have made solemn pledges
to do their best, the reality is that these are very complex
negotiations involving not only environmental issues but deep-seated
economic issues involving the distribution of environmental and economic
resources worldwide.  To reach a fair and equitable deal is becoming
elusive. In recent months, there have been intense pressures to get
“advanced developing countries” like China, India, Brazil and others to
commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And to shift the blame to
them if Copenhagen fails to reach a deal.


But the promised financial and technology transfers to help them shift
to a sustainable development path are still nowhere in sight.  The
amount of funds talked about is too little to be seriously considered.

The United Nations recently estimated that USD 500-600 billion is
required by developing countries for mitigation and adaptation annually,
and that much of this should be from public funds, in a programme
similar in spirit to the Marshall Plan after the Second World War. In
contrast, the European Commission (EC) in September proposed that
international public financing for climate activities would be 22-50
billion Euros in 2020, of which Europe would fund only 2 to 15 billion
Euros.


The EC expects developing countries to get most of their funding from
their own domestic resources, or from the carbon market.  But an
international carbon market is yet to exist and can be expected to face
many glitches.  For example, how can a developing country plan a reform
of its energy or transport sector seriously when the funds it will rely
on have to come from the carbon market and there is no way of telling
what the price of carbon will be in two years’ time or even six months
from now.


It is unfair to expect developing countries to commit to emission
reduction before they are assured of the funds and technology they need
to change from one production system to another.

Developed countries have a historical responsibility to help developing
countries because they are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere.  In other words, they have already taken up most of the
“atmospheric space” available.


One key question for the Copenhagen “global deal” is how to assign the
emission-reduction task fairly between developed and developing
countries. Developed countries are proposing a 50% global greenhouse
gases (GHG) emission cut by 2050 (from 38 billion in 1990 to 19.3
billion tonnes in 2050).They are willing to take a 80% cut from 18.3
billion to 3.6 billion tonnes.  This proposal implies that developing
countries would have to accept a 20% cut from 20 billion to 15.7 billion
tonnes. As the population of developing countries is expected to double
during that period, they will end up with a 60% cut per capita. And
since population size is projected to remain the same in developed
countries, their per capita reduction will be the same as their overall
reduction at 80%.



It is unfair to ask developing countries to undertake a per capita
emission cut just slightly below the cut that developed countries are
prepared to make. If developed countries were to make a 100% cut,
developing countries would still be required to make a 52% cut per
capita. Developed countries would need to reduce their emissions by 213%
by 2050, for developing countries to maintain their current per capita
emission level. Developed countries would, in other words, need to cut
emissions to 0% and create sinks to absorb greenhouse gases equivalent
to another 113% of their 1990 emissions.



To both developed and developing countries, this may seem impossible.
For developing countries it may seem impossible to achieve economic
development while maintaining (instead of increasing) their current, low
per-capita level of emissions. For developed countries it may seem
impossible to go beyond a 100% emission cut. But it may need two
impossibles to make a possible deal.



In order not to exceed the danger level, the world has around 600
billion tonnes of emission of carbon (equivalent to around 2,200 billion
tonnes of carbon dioxide) to budget between 1800 and 2050. The developed
countries have already emitted 240 billion tonnes of carbon between 1800
and 2008. This is far above their “fair share” of 81 billion tonnes in
that period (if their emissions had been at the same ratio as their
share of world population).  From 1800 to 2008, developed countries have
a carbon debt of 159 billion tonnes of carbon, or 583 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide. And, given the scenario of a 50% global cut and an 85%
developed country cut by 2050, they will emit another 85 billion tonnes
of carbon between 2009 and 2050. Thus, their total emission would be 325
billion tonnes of carbon from 1800 to 2050. Since their fair share is
125 billion tonnes for this period, they have a “carbon debt” of 200
billion tonnes of carbon.



In a fair climate deal, the historical debt would have to be met, at
least through sufficient transfers of finance and technology that would
enable developing countries to take their own actions to counter the
effects of climate change and to switch to climate-friendly
technologies, while maintaining their ability to have adequate economic
and social growth and development. Of course, a fair deal also requires
developed countries to cut their emissions deeply.  The greater the cut,
the more will be the atmospheric space left for developing countries.
Developing countries have asked that developed countries cut their
emissions collectively by at least 40% by 2020 (compared to the 1990
level).  The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report has
also been interpreted to conclude that developed countries need to cut
their emissions by at least 25 to 40% by 2020.



Unfortunately the announcements made by individual developed countries,
when added up, only amount to an overall cut of 16 to 23% (excluding the
US), according to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change) secretariat data, or 11 to 18% (if the US is included),
according to another reliable estimate Worse, the developed countries in
early October indicated they do not intend to commit themselves to a
second period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is scheduled to start in
2013. Instead, they intend to switch to another agreement to be created,
which will include the US. However the US has made clear that it will
not join a treaty which has internationally binding commitments for
emission cuts.  Thus the likely plan is to replace the Kyoto Protocol
with a much weaker agreement in which developed countries will merely
make pledges to cut emissions by a rate that their national government
or parliament decides on.



It is most unfortunate that such a planned climb-down from an
internationally-binding treaty commitment (aimed at a collective
ambitious target) to a collection of nationally-determined pledges
(which may add up to a low overall level of ambition) is taking place at
a time when scientists  and the world public have become so concerned
about the need for drastic action.



The developing countries at a UNFCCC session in Bangkok in October
registered their protest at what they perceive as a move to kill the
Kyoto Protocol.  “This is an attempt for a great escape,” said the
Chinese delegation. “The Kyoto Protocol track is about to be destroyed
and its debris and fragmented pieces lie on the Convention track. Don’t
kill the Kyoto protocol and don’t derail our Copenhagen train.” Many
other developing countries spoke up in a similar vein.



Meanwhile, the developing countries face increasing pressures to take on
more obligations.  There are many proposals in the negotiations put
forward by developed countries that would blur the distinction (which is
in the Convention) between the mitigation commitments of developed
countries and the actions of developing countries.



On the other hand, the developing countries’ proposals to set up a
Climate Fund and a Technology policy-making body, both inside the UNFCCC
and to be governed by the Convention members, have not been accepted yet
by the developed countries. The developing countries are also asking
that they have access to climate-friendly technologies at the most
affordable prices. The greater the rate of technology development,
transfer and absorption, the greater will be the countries’ capacity to
slow the growth of their emissions. In this regard, international
intellectual property rules, which were set at the WTO, should be
clarified or relaxed to further sustainable development goals. So far
this request has been met with hostility by the developed countries,
which own most of the world’s patents for climate-related technologies.



There is such a wide divide on so many key issues that it would now be
difficult for Copenhagen to reach a full agreement. Even the outlines of
a shorter agreement on politically-important points appear difficult.
Nevertheless all parties have strive to their maximum to avoid a failure
and to ensure that Copenhagen will at least mandate that further
negotiations will take place next year, in the right direction and on
the basis of both environmental ambition and equity among nations.
(29. Oktober 2009).




Weiterführende Informationen

Machtpoker im Treibhaus

Ein ehrgeiziges Klimaschutzabkommen im Dezember in Kopenhagen erfordert
ein neues Entwicklungsparadigma.  Doch ein ambitioniertes
Post-2012-Klimaschutzabkommen kollidiert zwangsläufig mit alten
Strukturen und Partikularinteressen. Kolumne vom 15.6.09, Deutsches
Institut für Entwicklungspolitik


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Das IPCC stellt regelmäßig den Zustand des Klimasystems und seine
Auswirkungen auf die menschlichen Gesellschaftssysteme fest und benennt
Möglichkeiten der politischen Gegensteuerung.


EU-Kommissions-Papier zur finanziellen Unterstützung der Entwicklungsländer

Die EU-Kommission präsentierte Mitte September einen Entwurf zur
Aufstockung der internationalen Finanzmittel, mit denen die
Entwicklungsländer bei der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels unterstützt
werden sollen.  Bis 2020 könnten den Entwicklungsländern bei der
Eindämmung der Treibhausgasemissionen und den Anpassungen an die Folgen
des Klimawandels zusätzliche jährliche Kosten von 100 Milliarden Euro
entstehen. Die EU-Kommission schlägt vor, dass sich Industrie- und
Schwellenländer entsprechend ihrem Anteil am Emissionsaufkommen und
ihrer Wirtschaftskraft an der öffentlichen Finanzierung beteiligen.


Rechnungshof: Erreichung des Kyoto-Ziels derzeit unwahrscheinlich

Im Rechnungshofausschuss des Parlaments ging es um die österreichische
Klimastrategie und den Emissionszertifikate-Handel.



Allianz Klimagerechtigkeit

Die Plattform österreichischer NGOs, die in den Bereichen Umwelt,
Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, Soziales und Humanitäre Hilfe tätig sind,
setzen sich für mehr Klimaschutz in Österreich und für internationale
Klimagerechtigkeit ein. Die Allianz fordert, dass Österreich seine
eigenen Treibhausgasemissionen bis 2020 um 40% senkt und dass die
Industrieländer – als Hauptverursacher des Klimawandels – finanzielle
Mittel für Klimaanpassung in Entwicklungsländern zur Verfügung stellen.



Klimaexperte Stern: Wirtschaftswachstum trotz Klimaschutz

Der britische Wirtschafts- und Klimaexperte Nicholas Stern hält ein
Wirtschaftswachstum trotz Klimaschutz-Anstrengungen für möglich, doch
die Wirtschaft müsse nachhaltig wachsen, die Verbindung zwischen
Wachstum und Treibhausgas Kohlendioxid entkoppelt werden. Der
UN-Klimagipfel im Dezember 2009 in Kopenhagen ist das wichtigste
Zusammenkommen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, an dem alle Staaten an einem
Strang ziehen müssen. In seinem neuen Buch „Der Global Deal“ fordert er
eine drastische Reduzierung der C02-Emissionen auf die Hälfte des
Niveaus von 1990 und mehr Investitionen für Erneuerbare Energien. Kölner
Stadt-Anzeiger 11.9.09; C02-Handel.de - das InfoPortal zum
Emissionshandel und Klimaschutz



Die Weltbank in der globalen Klimafinanzierung

Weltklimarat und IWF kommen unabhängig voneinander zum Schluss, dass die
ärmsten Staaten und die ärmsten Bevölkerungsgruppen am härtesten
betroffen sind, sowohl von der Klima- als auch von der Wirtschaftskrise.
Retter in der Not will auch die Weltbank sein. Sie will ihre
Ausleihungen in den nächsten drei Jahren vervielfachen. Barbara Unmüßig:
Die Weltbank in der globalen Klimafinanzierung. IWF und Weltbank als
Retter in der Not (II), 1.10.09.

World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change

Martin Khor joined as Executive Director of the South Centre on 1 March
2009 (director [at] southcentre.org). Prior to this, he was the Director of
the Third World Network, a leading developing-country civil society
organization involved in research and publications in trade, environment
and development issues. He was also the Editor of the South-North
Development Monitor (SUNS).  He is a member of many organizations, for
example the United Nations Committee on Development Policy. Martin Khor
was educated in Economics in Cambridge University and the Universiti
Sains Malaysia. He has authored many books and papers on trade,
sustainable development, intellectual property rights, and development.


http://www.vidc.org/index.php?id=900

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Bad Ischl,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX