TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Feb10/07)
8 February 2010
Third World Network

Dear friends and colleagues,

Below is an article by Martin Khor, Executive Director of South Centre, that was published in the Malaysian daily newspaper The Star on 8 February 2010.

The article concludes that the controversial Copenhagen Accord has yielded very poor results as developed countries have given very low emission reduction pledges that are in line with disastrous global temperature rise of over 2 or 3 degrees celsius.

With best wishes,
Third World Network

Climate road map loses its direction
By Martin Khor
The Star, 8 February 2010

SEVEN weeks ago, the Copenhagen Climate Conference ended in disarray. A Copenhagen Accord arising from an exclusive meeting of 26 political leaders was not adopted by the UN Convention on Climate Change, but only “taken note of.”

Since then, there has been a campaign by the Danish Prime Minister and the UN Secretary-General to get countries to “associate” themselves with the Accord.

The deadline was Jan 31, the date mentioned in the Accord for developed countries to fill up their national emission reduction commitments in Appendix I, while developing countries were asked to submit their mitigation actions to fill up an Appendix II.

By the deadline, about 56 countries had officially written in. Most of them are developed nations. Not many developing countries have signed up so far. And most have taken a wait-and-see approach.

The Accord is controversial because it arose from a meeting of only a few countries which was not on the official Conference agenda – the Convention has over 190 member states.

Moreover, the Accord threatens to displace the legitimate multilateral process mandated to follow up from the UNFCCC’s 2007 Bali Conference.

The reports of its two working groups on the Kyoto Protocol and on Long-term Cooperative Action are supposed to be the basis for negotiations this year towards a final agreement.

The reports contain the drafts of texts (including options in areas where there is not yet consensus) for the final agreements. They were adopted by all countries in Copen-hagen, unlike the Accord that was not adopted.

The battle is not just on which of the texts are to be used. Behind the different texts are competing approaches to tackling the climate change crisis.

The model agreed to in Bali was to set a binding overall target for developed nations to cut their collective emissions. This was initially set at 25% to 40% by 2020 compared to the 1990 level.

Each developed country would then have to have a binding national target and these targets would all add up to the aggregate target.

The United States, which is not a member of the Kyoto Protocol, would also have an agreed national target. It has to be “comparable” to the efforts of other developed countries.

The developing countries, which had only a small role in emissions of the past, would not have binding emission targets.

They would have to take mitigation actions that are supported by financial and technology transfers from the developed nations, and both the actions and the support would be measured and verified.

The Copenhagen Accord counters this understanding because the developed countries no longer have to make any binding commitments.

Each country merely submits the emission reduction it is willing to undertake. There is also no longer an “aggregate target”.

There is no requirement that the individual pledges have to add up to a credible overall goal. In the last two years’ climate talks, the developing countries were demanding that the aggregate reduction commitment should be at least 40% by 2020 compared to 1990.

When it became clear in October that the developed nations were preparing to dump the Kyoto Protocol and its binding obligations, the developing countries cried “foul”. China even accused them of plotting a Great Escape from their obligations.

Alas, the Copenhagen Accord enables this Great Escape. Critics of the Accord predicted that the unilateral and now voluntary goals submitted by the developed countries could be far below what is required by science, or the need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C or 2°C, above the pre-industrial level.

These fears have now been proven to be justified. The pledges of some of the developed countries are so low that the overall reduction is only 12% to 18% by 2020 compared to 1990, according to a paper by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

The range is due to most countries stating that they would take on a more ambitious target only if other nations make a comparable effort.

The United States, the biggest emitter, has given a low goal, that its 2020 emissions would be 17% below the 2005 level, which is only 5% below the 1990 level. Thus, other countries have lowered or are likely to lower their own targets.

The best example is Canada, which has now said it would take on a similar figure as the US, 17% below the 2005 level by 2020. But this turns out to be 19% above (not below) the 1990 level, because Cana-dian emissions have grown by a lot between 1990 and 2005.

The European Union has repeated its previous offer that by 2020, its member states would reduce their emissions collectively by 30% if others have a similar goal, but by only 20% otherwise. With the low ambition of the US, the EU is likely to take the lower figure.

Thus the individual targets set by the developed countries are likely to add up to nearer 12% than 18% .

Even if the high end of the pledges (18%) is realised, this does not meet the 25%-40% reduction that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated is necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm or below.

The 450 ppm concentration level is usually associated with a global temperature rise of 2°C.

The need for the temperature rise to stay below 2°C is also recognised by the Accord. Thus the the pledges made by the developed countries do not even meet the Accord’s own standard.

Another report last week, by the scientific Ecofys network, assessed the pledges made by both developed and developing countries so far, and concluded that they add up to a level of emissions in 2020 that would be in line with a global temperature rise of over 3°C.

A temperature rise of 2°C would be damaging enough to the environment and to economic activity.

A rise of over 3°C would spell disaster in terms of sea level rise, glacial melting, flooding, agricultural productivity and human life in general.

In recent days, many developing countries, including the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, China and India) as well as the association of small island states, have called for the speedy resumption of the negotiations under the UNFCCC and its two working groups.

This is a clear indication that they do not want the climate talks to shift out from the UNFCCC to an exclusive venue such as the G20.

The road map agreed to in Bali, which includes binding targets for developed countries based on the needed aggregate goal and national goals that are comparable, should be followed.

The Copenhagen Accord should help in this process, and not divert from it.

Otherwise, valuable time will be used up in all kinds of wrangling, and we cannot afford to lose more time as the climate situation gets worse each day.