Whither Global Climate-Change Talks?
Should international negotiators abandon the top-down multilateral system to confront climate change and find another way?
The 18th installment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is now in its second and final week in Doha, Qatar, the country with--ironically--the world's highest per capita carbon emissions. Expectations that negotiators will strike a grand bargain by week's end are very low, but a lot is at stake nonetheless. The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement signed in 1997 that set binding greenhouse-gas reductions for more than three dozen countries, expires at year's end. (The United States failed to ratify that agreement). Some experts hope that negotiators can come up with some agreement to preserve some of the reduction accomplishments achieved under Kyoto.
Realistically, what can negotiators accomplish by week's end? What other forms of agreement could nations, global organizations, or regions construct that could serve to combat global warming? Should President Obama take a stronger leadership role in this process?
December 6, 2012 11:09 AM
How To Save Doha From Climate Deal Death
By Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif.
US Representative, Silicon Valley
International negotiators at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should not give up on achieving a multilateral, global approach to emission reductions. Currently underway in Doha, Qatar, negotiations are attempting to reach an agreement that will preserve the accomplishments of The Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of this month.
The impending expiration of the 1997 international agreement, which commits nearly 40 nations to greenhouse-gas reductions, should provide an even greater incentive and urgency for an agreement to be reached. So too should this latest article by National Journal energy and environment correspondent Coral Davenport titled "It's Already Too Late to Stop Climate Change," which appeared in print appropriately titled "The Climate Cliff".
A healthy planet is in the best interest of everyone and should certainly be a top-priority for every country. Evi...
International negotiators at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should not give up on achieving a multilateral, global approach to emission reductions. Currently underway in Doha, Qatar, negotiations are attempting to reach an agreement that will preserve the accomplishments of The Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of this month.
The impending expiration of the 1997 international agreement, which commits nearly 40 nations to greenhouse-gas reductions, should provide an even greater incentive and urgency for an agreement to be reached. So too should this latest article by National Journal energy and environment correspondent Coral Davenport titled "It's Already Too Late to Stop Climate Change," which appeared in print appropriately titled "The Climate Cliff".
A healthy planet is in the best interest of everyone and should certainly be a top-priority for every country. Evidence of rapid climate change is visible the world over and with increasing frequency.
This year alone, the U.S. has experienced dramatic temperatures and acts of nature. As a whole, the nation averaged 4 degrees fahrenheit above the average temperature for the year, witnessed disastrous storms such as Hurricane Sandy, and experienced crippling drought throughout more than 60 percent of the county.
The public gets it. A study conducted this fall by the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University indicates that 70 percent of Americans believe that global warming is real, while the number who say it is not happening has declined to just 12 percent.
There are calls for President Obama to take on a stronger leadership role in the negotiations process at the Climate Change convention, but I believe that America as a whole should accept that challenge. We must step up as a global leader in clean energy and green technologies, show the world what can be accomplished when put to task, and encourage others to do the same.There is too much at stake to put this off. We need a comprehensive, actionable, long-term plan for dealing with global climate change and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. But no one country can do it alone. We all occupy the same planet and without a synchronized, concerted effort from all countries, the attempts of any one nation alone would be futile. Therefore, we must not and cannot abandon negotiations for a global approach. The future of our planet lies in Doha this week. The time to act, then, is now.
Read More
December 4, 2012 5:19 PM
More Focus Needed
By Brian Murray
Director for Economic Analysis, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions,Duke University
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate meetings here in Doha are easy to dismiss if you believe climate change is not a problem. The process is indeed long, painfully bureaucratic, rife with posturing by parties of all political, economic and social persuasions, and unfocused (I will get back to that below). If there were no problem to solve, then what is the point in all this trouble and cost?
A reading of the accumulated evidence, however, does not allow us the luxury of dismissing the problem. It is hard to look at the satellite data collected by NASA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10#temp and conclude anything but temperatures have been trending upward since the data were first collected in the 19’th century. The average temperature bounces from year to year, but the trend is clear and upward. Those who pick any two temperature data points on a time line in which the earlier point is higher than th...
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate meetings here in Doha are easy to dismiss if you believe climate change is not a problem. The process is indeed long, painfully bureaucratic, rife with posturing by parties of all political, economic and social persuasions, and unfocused (I will get back to that below). If there were no problem to solve, then what is the point in all this trouble and cost?
A reading of the accumulated evidence, however, does not allow us the luxury of dismissing the problem. It is hard to look at the satellite data collected by NASA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10#temp and conclude anything but temperatures have been trending upward since the data were first collected in the 19’th century. The average temperature bounces from year to year, but the trend is clear and upward. Those who pick any two temperature data points on a time line in which the earlier point is higher than the later point and call it a cooling trend confuse – or worse, distort - the difference between signal and noise. We could also call up the data on greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric concentrations, glacial ice melt, etc… over time to strengthen the case for the connection between emissions, climate and impact. Are all pieces of the puzzle known with certainty? No. Are there a wide range of possible future outcomes? Yes. Should we continue to try and improve our understanding of climate systems? Absolutely. But the evidence strongly suggests there is reason to take action now.
So let’s say we agree to take action. The question posed here is whether the current UN approach embodied in Conference of Party (COP) meetings like this one on Doha the best way forward. Climate change is a collective action problem, where all parties contributing to the problem must contribute to the solution. Individual parties acting alone cannot achieve the desired collective outcome. Because all countries contribute to and are affected by climate change, an international body such as the UNFCCC and COP seem necessary to adequately address the problem. Indeed, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly told this and previous administrations that they will not approve substantive action on climate change unless other countries follow suit. Some international entity, then, is essential to dealing with the problem. The UNFCCC currently fills that role.
At its essence, the UNFCC process attempts to create four dimensions of agreement: (1) an emissions or climate target and timetable, (2) a set of actions and responsibilities to achieve the target (mitigation), (3) a set of actions and responsibilities to build the capacity to adapt to climate change that will occur (adaptation), and (4) commitment of financial resources to pursue these ends. Item (1) is in some regards the easiest. The Durban Platform signed at last year’s COP sets the roadmap for a new agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol asserts a goal of preventing a 2 degree C rise in global temperature. The agreed scope of mitigation activities to consider is technically challenging (fossil fuel emissions from energy sources are clearly in, what about emissions from deforestation and agriculture?) but is solvable. Where the system tends to grind to a halt, unsurprisingly, is in agreeing to which countries are responsible for taking actions and which ones are responsible for paying the bill. Up to now, the mitigation and financial burden has been exclusively on the so-called Annex I countries, which are loosely defined as the rich countries, but notably exclude the world’s 1’st and 3’rd largest emitters (China and India), as well as the host country Qatar, one of the world’s richest countries and one with the largest per capita emissions footprint. In short, the current 2-party system is outdated and deeply flawed.
Where does that lead us? One of the principles of the Durban Platform to replace the Kyoto Protocol is to share the responsibilities more widely across countries, which is a worthy goal but one that will no doubt induce much acrimony in resolving. Apparently there has already been some back-sliding in the Doha talks about what these common and differentiated responsibilities will mean under a new agreement.
One problem with the current process is lack of focus. It has expanded beyond climate change to deal with a wide collection of important but ancillary matters such as income inequality, rights of marginalized populations, food and energy security and intellectual property rights. These are all important issues, but there are other venues more appropriate for dealing with them than an international climate agreement. The more bandwidth negotiators need to devote to these issues, the less they have for the core climate objectives of mitigation, adaptation and finance. The UNFCCC would do well to narrow the scope of their efforts and reduce the number of issues tied up in time-consuming debate.
Those who are looking for some grand bargain out of Doha are confusing it with previous conferences. Doha is best seen as a first step on a 3-8 year journey to get a new system in place. But that is too long to defer all action. The existence of some international system for agreement is necessary for success but is not sufficient. Decisive national action such as R&D funding, market-based incentives, utilization of existing authorities and complementary efforts on clean and secure energy sources are critical as it is the device by which broad agreements are implemented and by which interim progress can be made.
Read More
December 4, 2012 10:29 AM
The UNFCCC Remains Essential
By Jennifer Morgan
Director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute
Just a year ago, more than 190 countries gathered in Durban, South Africa for the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP17). There, they acknowledged that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to both human societies and the planet. They recognized that solutions will require urgent and sustained action by all.
In the Durban Platform, governments—including the United States—agreed to launch a new round of negotiations that will culminate in 2015 with the adoption of an agreement under the Convention that’s applicable to all. They further acknowledged the scale of the gap between what the global emissions are and where they need to be. They agreed to look into ways to close the gap during the coming decade, while scaling up ambition considerably post 2020. As a result of ...
Just a year ago, more than 190 countries gathered in Durban, South Africa for the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP17). There, they acknowledged that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to both human societies and the planet. They recognized that solutions will require urgent and sustained action by all.
In the Durban Platform, governments—including the United States—agreed to launch a new round of negotiations that will culminate in 2015 with the adoption of an agreement under the Convention that’s applicable to all. They further acknowledged the scale of the gap between what the global emissions are and where they need to be. They agreed to look into ways to close the gap during the coming decade, while scaling up ambition considerably post 2020. As a result of this document, there is renewed hope that countries can work together to take positive action on climate change and embrace a new model that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, builds resilience to climate change, and delivers sustainable development.
This week, countries have gathered again – this time in Doha, Qatar – to make progress on a new global climate agreement. However, it’s a very challenging road ahead.
The UNFCCC has been the center of multi-lateral efforts on climate change since its inception in 1992. The Convention historically has played a very important role in emissions reductions. The UNFCCC incentivizes countries to take action by:
After three consecutive years of rather big moment COPs, Doha is more about giving operational momentum to the decisions reached in Durban. COP18 will likely confirm the design of a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, bring some long-standing work streams to a successful close, and set the parameters for the negotiations leading to a new international climate agreement in 2015.
Of particular importance is how the U.S. negotiating team approaches Doha. After President Obama’s re-election, countries were hoping that the U.S. team would come refreshed with a new strategy, particularly because the UNFCCC process is the most effective way of engaging all countries in this effort. In Doha, participants are still listening for signals of a different approach, one that it is more in line with bridging the gap between the science and action.
It’s now clearer than ever that the citizens of the United States are also very vulnerable to climate change— just look at the impacts of Hurricane Sandy or the U.S. drought across two-thirds of the country. There is, likewise, ample evidence that the U.S. public is increasingly making the connection that climate change is here and having an impact on our daily lives. Therefore, it’s in the U.S. national interest to press the reset button and engage internationally in a way that brings new energy and solutions to the climate crisis.
Of course, understandably the UNFCCC cannot do everything, and it’s important to pursue ambition in other forums as well. In particular, we need bold government leadership at the national and regional levels, greater engagement from the business community, and to hear more stories from the people whose lives are being affected by the changing world.
With climate change impacts already being felt around the world—through more wildfires, droughts, sea level rise, and other recent extreme weather events—the stakes for action have never been higher. Hopefully, Doha can set the world on track for success so that worst effects of climate change—and the costs to so many people, livelihoods, and the planet—can be avoided.
Read More
December 4, 2012 10:26 AM
Failure in Doha Does Not Mean Inaction
By Michael Canes
Distinguished Fellow at LMI
Right now the prospects for serious agreement in Doha are slight. The interests of 180+ countries are too varied to expect them to solidify around a single proposal or set of proposals.
Let’s consider 3 different possibilities, all having to do with the extent to which anthropomorphic forces are causing or will cause the world’s climate to change.
1. The effect of humans is slight, natural phenomena are the chief drivers of the earth’s climate.
2. The effect of humans is moderate, contributing to but not necessarily the chief cause of changes to the climate.
3. The effect of humans is a major factor in determining the earth’s future climate.
If the first of these is the true state of the world, inability to reach agreement in Doha doesn’t matter much. Eventually we’ll look back and agree that it would have been wasteful to expend a lot of resource to combat human caused climate change. Instead, people and governments likely will invest as necessary in adaptation to what occurs naturally. ...
Right now the prospects for serious agreement in Doha are slight. The interests of 180+ countries are too varied to expect them to solidify around a single proposal or set of proposals.
Let’s consider 3 different possibilities, all having to do with the extent to which anthropomorphic forces are causing or will cause the world’s climate to change.
1. The effect of humans is slight, natural phenomena are the chief drivers of the earth’s climate.
2. The effect of humans is moderate, contributing to but not necessarily the chief cause of changes to the climate.
3. The effect of humans is a major factor in determining the earth’s future climate.
If the first of these is the true state of the world, inability to reach agreement in Doha doesn’t matter much. Eventually we’ll look back and agree that it would have been wasteful to expend a lot of resource to combat human caused climate change. Instead, people and governments likely will invest as necessary in adaptation to what occurs naturally.
The second suggests that some collective action might be appropriate assuming that the prospective changes in climate are on balance harmful. This will become more apparent with time, but in the meantime people can be doing R&D on low cost means to reduce GHG emissions and voluntarily reducing these emissions themselves. This is pretty much what many people are doing presently. Worldwide collective action is warranted if benefits exceed costs, but the transactions costs of arranging such action preclude its occurring. Still, people aren’t just standing by – some actions to reduce present or future GHGs are being taken, and adaptation is a viable option within many countries.
Finally, we could be headed for a more drastic outcome, one that if we were certain would occur we’d try very hard to collectively avoid. Again, if that is the case, it should become more apparent with time. Of course, if so it would be better to take action earlier than later, but even in such a case there are means that temporarily could buy time, e.g., geo-engineering to at least slow the rate of warming for some period.
What policy conclusions emanate from this? It doesn’t seem worthwhile to expend huge resource right now to secure binding agreement in Doha. That doesn’t seem to be in the cards. But we should continue to purchase insurance against extreme climate change should it occur through technological development, careful analysis of options, and encouragement for voluntary actions. We should also continue to monitor data to help us determine whether we’re closer to 1, 2 or 3 above – or somewhere else. In other words, what we’re presently doing in the U.S. may not satisfy everyone, but it’s a reasonable path nevertheless.
Read More
December 3, 2012 5:13 PM
Obama key to climate talks
By Keya Chatterjee
Director of International Climate Policy, World Wildlife Fund
The ocean is rising faster than we thought it would, we have lost half of the normal summer polar ice cap, and extreme weather, powered by warmer oceans and higher seas, is devastating communities around the world. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All this havoc is being caused by individuals, corporations, and governments dumping greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere with impunity. No one owns the Earth’s atmosphere, so no one feels responsibility for taking care of it. It’s the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, but on a global scale with existential consequences.
If the United Nations didn’t already exist, we’d have to invent it to tackle the climate crisis.
Luckily it does exist, and we have a climate change treaty that the US signed back in 1992 — The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In order to implement this treaty further, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, and to this day continues to provide a structure for the efforts of dozens of countries...
The ocean is rising faster than we thought it would, we have lost half of the normal summer polar ice cap, and extreme weather, powered by warmer oceans and higher seas, is devastating communities around the world. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All this havoc is being caused by individuals, corporations, and governments dumping greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere with impunity. No one owns the Earth’s atmosphere, so no one feels responsibility for taking care of it. It’s the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, but on a global scale with existential consequences.
If the United Nations didn’t already exist, we’d have to invent it to tackle the climate crisis.
Luckily it does exist, and we have a climate change treaty that the US signed back in 1992 — The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In order to implement this treaty further, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, and to this day continues to provide a structure for the efforts of dozens of countries to put less carbon pollution into the atmosphere. While the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has ended, the second is just about to begin, with around 30 countries participating. The Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period resulted in incredible progress, including Germany’s economic rise that was partly powered by wind and solar energy. This week in Doha expect confirmation that the Kyoto Protocol is alive and well.
Equally important as the health of the Kyoto Protocol is the prospect for a new climate treaty on President Obama’s watch. Last year, the climate talks resulted in an agreement that all countries should participate in a climate agreement to be concluded in 2015. President Obama’s leadership on climate change will determine the success of those efforts. This week in Doha would be a great place for the US to show that leadership.
Read More
December 3, 2012 2:13 PM
Christiana's nightmare – for the rest of us
By Craig Rucker
Executive Director, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
UNFCCC boss Christiana Figueres’ dreams spell a nightmarish future for Earth’s citizens
Talk about alignment of the stars! Barack Obama based his 2008 presidential campaign on the principle of “sharing the wealth.” He won, got reelected and now has, at least in his own mind, a flat-out mandate to extend his vision for wealth redistribution (and wealth destruction) planet-wide.
This week, as United Nations luminaries gather in Doha, Qatar, for the 18th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary,” has presented her goals. The most important is a massive transfer of wealth – $100 billion a year – from soon-to-be formerly rich Europeans and Americans to UN bureaucrats who claim to represent the world's “developing” nations and Earth’s poorest citizens.
This astonishing concept is beyond surreal. It contends that the world already has eno...
UNFCCC boss Christiana Figueres’ dreams spell a nightmarish future for Earth’s citizens
Talk about alignment of the stars! Barack Obama based his 2008 presidential campaign on the principle of “sharing the wealth.” He won, got reelected and now has, at least in his own mind, a flat-out mandate to extend his vision for wealth redistribution (and wealth destruction) planet-wide.
This week, as United Nations luminaries gather in Doha, Qatar, for the 18th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary,” has presented her goals. The most important is a massive transfer of wealth – $100 billion a year – from soon-to-be formerly rich Europeans and Americans to UN bureaucrats who claim to represent the world's “developing” nations and Earth’s poorest citizens.
This astonishing concept is beyond surreal. It contends that the world already has enough wealth; that the developing world cannot or ought not generate any new wealth, certainly not from hydrocarbons, but rather should be content with receiving transfer payments monitored by the UN bureaucracy; and that the industrialized world should be put in an economic straitjacket, and yet charged $1 trillion per decade for climate change reparations and mitigation – on the premise that its carbon dioxide emissions have supplanted the many natural forces that caused extensive and repeated climate changes for eons.
Coupled with the underlying premise that wealth transfers are the only way to combat alleged planet-threatening, manmade global warming, is it any wonder that the entire Doha conference is like a bad dream (or horror movie)? Or that this ridiculous saga is taking place in the nation that boasts the world’s highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions?
Of course, the UN’s objective in Doha extends far beyond wealth transfers. It seeks a total restructuring of world political power, energy systems and economies – with the UN on top.
Just imagine: The gilded Lilliputians have gathered in Doha to strip the giants of their wealth, and oddly enough the giants (the EU and USA) are willing to be stripped naked, but only (apparently) if the emerging economic powers (including China and India) will follow suit and set their own economy-strangling carbon-cutting targets. We are witnessing Mutually Assured Destruction all over again! Except, of course, that China and very likely India will opt out of this charade, laughing all the way to the bank at this grand farce.
Despite a 16-year cooling trend, and growing evidence that prior projections of rapid warming were based on faulty modeling and outright disinformation, the mainstream media continue to hype the global warming cataclysm talking points.
Associated Press “reporter” Karl Ritter, for example, said the Doha battle “between the rich and the poor” is over “efforts to reach a deal to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2° C, compared to preindustrial times” – when Earth was emerging from the Little Ice Age. He cited a recent World Bank “projection” of an up to 4° C rise by 2100. Even worse, New York Times reporter James Atlas, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, warned that the Big Apple will likely sink beneath the sea in the next 50 to 200 years.
Both predictions must have been buried somewhere in Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Energy Information Administration in 2011 forecast a 53% jump in world energy demand from 2008 levels by 2035. And the International Energy Agency predicted that the U.S. will be the world leader in natural gas production by 2015 and oil production by 2020, with Canada not far behind.
More to the point, despite Figueres’ blathering about increased investments in and reduced costs of “clean” energy, the fact is that oil, natural gas and, yes, even coal, will furnish much (if not most) of this expanding demand for energy. Expensive, subsidized, land-hungry, wildlife-killing, food-price-hiking “renewable” energy will remain a small niche player for decades to come.
It is not surprising that the bureaucrats at Doha are focusing on rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, given their catastrophic worldview that somehow fails to incorporate real economic progress for developing world citizens. They apparently see nothing wrong with the fact that most of the fossil energy production in Africa, for example, has contributed virtually nothing to constructing functional power grids, truck-worthy highways, or even air traffic routing that bolster trade, build local economies, lift families out of poverty, and help eliminate the wood and dung burning that kills millions from lung infections.
Instead, the energy is shipped overseas, to countries that don’t have enough indigenous energy – or to the United States, which refuses to develop its own vast hydrocarbon deposits.
And no wonder. Fossil fuel fired power plants in Africa do not fit the “Clean Development Mechanism” model that the UN devised – and foisted on poor countries – to enable rich nations to dump “clean energy” projects on the poor, while maintaining their own comparatively extravagant lifestyles and purchasing indulgences (carbon credits) to assuage their guilt.
Aside from the fact that someone (Al Gore, international bankers and their kin) will make a killing off any carbon trading schemes – and that the UN bureaucracy is seeking to pad its own employment rolls and pocketbooks – the sad reality is that none of the shenanigans at Doha (or at any previous or future UNFCCC dog and pony show) is likely to improve the well-being of the billions of humans in so-called developing countries one whit.
These people need cheap, reliable, abundant energy and the infrastructure it can support, in order to climb out of abject poverty, lengthen life spans grossly shortened by disease and malnutrition, and terminate the tyranny of neo-colonialists who, in the name of “preventing climate change,” continue to rule over them with iron fists.
By now, everyone knows that “global warming” or “climate change” or “weird weather” is nothing but a smokescreen for those like Figueres and Obama, who view economic growth as either evil or environmentally intolerable – and thus think taking from the rich and giving to bureaucrats who claim to represent the poor will even things out, and is the highest and best thing we can do.
A far better agenda for Doha would be encouraging the emergence of genuine leadership in the world’s poor nations (and its rich nations), to foster energy generation and infrastructure building, and unleash entrepreneurial instincts and wealth creation that truly enrich the lives and fortunes of their people
Craig Rucker with Duggan Flanakin
Read More
December 3, 2012 2:05 PM
Shifting Gears In Doha
By Elliot Diringer
True enough, the Doha climate talks will produce no big breakthroughs. Compared to the last three conferences – Copenhagen, Cancún and Durban – Doha is indeed a pretty ho-hum affair.
That is no doubt disappointing to anyone still looking to the U.N. climate negotiations to deliver a quick, decisive response to the challenge of global climate change. In actuality, though, the diplomatic humdrum in Doha marks a long overdue shifting of gears that could, in time, produce a far more practical approach.
Since the start of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) two decades ago, there’s been tension between two competing models, and over that time, parties have experimented with both.
The “top-down” approach of binding targets-and-timetables is reflected in the Kyoto Protocol. As part of last year’s deal in Durban, Kyoto does in fact survive, at least for now. Europe and a handful of other countries will take a second round of bind...
True enough, the Doha climate talks will produce no big breakthroughs. Compared to the last three conferences – Copenhagen, Cancún and Durban – Doha is indeed a pretty ho-hum affair.
That is no doubt disappointing to anyone still looking to the U.N. climate negotiations to deliver a quick, decisive response to the challenge of global climate change. In actuality, though, the diplomatic humdrum in Doha marks a long overdue shifting of gears that could, in time, produce a far more practical approach.
Since the start of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) two decades ago, there’s been tension between two competing models, and over that time, parties have experimented with both.
The “top-down” approach of binding targets-and-timetables is reflected in the Kyoto Protocol. As part of last year’s deal in Durban, Kyoto does in fact survive, at least for now. Europe and a handful of other countries will take a second round of binding emission targets (adoption of a formal amendment to that effect will be the headline achievement in Doha). But these targets cover only about 15 percent of global emissions, and this is almost certainly the last round for Kyoto.
Meanwhile, we’ve seen the emergence of a parallel “bottom-up” framework commonly referred to as pledge-and-review. Starting three years ago in Copenhagen, some 90 countries, including all the major economies, have made explicit pledges to limit or reduce their emissions by 2020. Their progress is subject to international review, but the pledges are strictly voluntary.
Neither model is delivering the strong action we need. Kyoto promises greater rigor, but encompasses a small and shrinking share of global emissions. The bottom-up approach has drawn broader participation, but the pledges fall far short of limiting warming to the goal of 2 degrees Celsius.
Is there a third way?
Also as part of last year’s deal in Durban, governments launched a new round of talks called the Durban Platform with the aim of reaching a comprehensive new agreement by 2015 (to apply starting in 2020). As we explore in a new C2ES report, this new round affords parties the opportunity to weigh the relative merits of top-down and bottom-up, and try to craft an alternative that borrows the best of both.
Doha, then, is year one of a four-year negotiation. While it’s much too early to anticipate the shape of a 2015 agreement, one clear lesson of the past 20 years is that we shouldn’t look to the UNFCCC, or any other forum, to deliver a single sweeping solution to such a multi-faceted global challenge.
Another key lesson is that multilateral agreements can go only as far as the domestic political will of key countries will allow.
In Doha, it’s important that the United States signal its continued commitment to its Copenhagen pledge (reducing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020) and to finance for developing countries. The more critical task, though, is not at the negotiating table. It’s back at home, putting in place the policies that will drive down U.S. emissions and, in so doing, pave the way for a stronger global agreement in 2015.
Read More
December 3, 2012 9:36 AM
Global Green Welfare
By William O'Keefe
CEO, George C. Marshall Institute
Since the time of the Rio Treaty, environmental elites have been enjoying the good life with annual trips to international cities and participating in other meetings related to the Conference of the Parties (COP). After 1997 in Kyoto, it soon became obvious that the Kyoto Treaty was fatally flawed and would not be implemented or seriously pursued.
Some developed countries, mainly the EU, actually implemented the Kyoto provisions only to find that the pursuit of lower greenhouse gas emissions resulted in slower growth, more unemployment, and higher energy costs. Developing countries which were exempt attempted to extort money from developed countries to participate in Kyoto. The net result was that nothing of consequence has happened, and in fact will not happen.
The cost of the COPs, which involved over 10,000 people, and related meetings is incredibly expensive. It represents wasted resources because there is not enough common ground to reach an agreement that 197 countries will actually adhere to. The wasted money would have been better spent achieving the ...
Since the time of the Rio Treaty, environmental elites have been enjoying the good life with annual trips to international cities and participating in other meetings related to the Conference of the Parties (COP). After 1997 in Kyoto, it soon became obvious that the Kyoto Treaty was fatally flawed and would not be implemented or seriously pursued.
Some developed countries, mainly the EU, actually implemented the Kyoto provisions only to find that the pursuit of lower greenhouse gas emissions resulted in slower growth, more unemployment, and higher energy costs. Developing countries which were exempt attempted to extort money from developed countries to participate in Kyoto. The net result was that nothing of consequence has happened, and in fact will not happen.
The cost of the COPs, which involved over 10,000 people, and related meetings is incredibly expensive. It represents wasted resources because there is not enough common ground to reach an agreement that 197 countries will actually adhere to. The wasted money would have been better spent achieving the Millennium Development Goals on poverty.
An important question is why keep pursuing the same misguided game plan when these global efforts have failed? Proponents clearly never learned that when you are in hole, you should quit digging.
One answer and perhaps the most important one is that the global greens who participate in the COPs and represent their governments at these and related meetings have found a full employment strategy. They are well paid, receive lush expense accounts, participate in UN sponsored meetings in appealing venues, and create the appearance of attempting to save the planet. In other words, they live well by appearing to pursue good.
In the past 20 years, the predictions of doom from climate change have not materialized, and doom keeps getting pushed off to some future decade. This has not been a source of humility or reassessment because most of the COPs participants believe in the climate orthodoxy and salvation by global governance by the entitled class.
The time is long past for a new approach to the issue of climate change. What is needed is a fresh assessment of what is known and unknown about climate change and how much of that change can be correctly attributed to human activities. Continued polarization and demonization are just obstacles to real progress on important issues.
Instead of pursuing research to bolster the assertion that the use of fossil energy is the primary cause of climate change, there should be a more intense research effort to understand the climate system and its complexities. The models that have been used to project a climate catastrophe have proven totally inadequate. Instead of making models more complex, we should try to better understand cloud formation, natural variability, solar and ocean effects, and land use impacts. Pursuing the wrong questions does not advance climate science or understanding.
Developed nations are not going to jeopardize their economic well being by suppressing energy use, an essential input to economic growth. The EU experience with green energy over the past decade demonstrates clearly the adverse consequences of ignoring economic and energy realities.
The recent decline in US CO2 emissions, advances in technology, and the global abundance of natural gas provide a path to abundance in affordable energy improvements in standards of living, especially in the developing world. With 1.6 billion people living in abject poverty, attention should be focused on their high rates of mortality and disease, lack of diet and potable water. Ignoring this reality while throwing money at a hypothesis is morally unjustifiable.
In the 14th century, the Florentine historian Guiccardini observed, “Excessive forethought and too great solicitude for the future are often productive of misfortune; for the affairs of the world are subject to so many accidents that seldom do things turn out as even the wisest predicted; and whoever refuses to take advantage of present good from fear of future danger…often discovers to his annoyance and disgrace that he lost opportunities full of profit and glory, from dread of dangers which have turned out to be wholly imaginary.”
Read More
December 3, 2012 6:20 AM
It Takes a Village-In Climate Reductions
By Scott Sklar
President, The Stella Group, Ltd & Adjunct Professor GWU
While national governments believe in the fantasy that they are the steering wheel of their nation, in fact, it is local governments that actually drive development and behavior, whether that’s the United States, India, China, Australia, or Brazil. State and municipal governments, province and county governments, and even regional authorities truly steer energy, water, transportation, and agricultural policies and development.
The failure to meet climate goals has been elusive because national governments have sovereignty issues, concerns about national growth, and the national “protected” industries and interests. Now there’s room for international agreement on a set of enforced principles, such as the recent International Energy Agency plea to remove $500 billion per year of fossil subsidies. Even two years earlier, the G-20 study concluded , “Subsidies for fossil fuels add up to $500 billion a year around the world, money that could be better spent developing alternate fuels and assisting the poorest consumers to meet their energy needs, ac...
While national governments believe in the fantasy that they are the steering wheel of their nation, in fact, it is local governments that actually drive development and behavior, whether that’s the United States, India, China, Australia, or Brazil. State and municipal governments, province and county governments, and even regional authorities truly steer energy, water, transportation, and agricultural policies and development.
The failure to meet climate goals has been elusive because national governments have sovereignty issues, concerns about national growth, and the national “protected” industries and interests. Now there’s room for international agreement on a set of enforced principles, such as the recent International Energy Agency plea to remove $500 billion per year of fossil subsidies. Even two years earlier, the G-20 study concluded , “Subsidies for fossil fuels add up to $500 billion a year around the world, money that could be better spent developing alternate fuels and assisting the poorest consumers to meet their energy needs, according to a draft by an international group of researchers working in advance of the G-20 meeting in Toronto in June (2010). Such subsidies should be gradually eliminated according to each country's terms, say the researchers from the World Bank, International Energy Association, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.”
Additionally, national governments can institute incentives for the depth and breadth of energy efficiency options that are always less expensive than production of electricity and fuels, that will strengthen local economies and allow “saved” energy investments to now be directed into other parts of their economies. This Is fundamentality the only policy that immediately reduces emissions and increases economic growth.
And finally, implementing incentives that drive renewable energy options, would allow them to scale-up and gain footholds in the local markets in cost-effective niche markets displacing transportation fuels and petroleum/coal electric power generation, This will build on what the United States, Japan, Germany and Brazil are already doing.
But beyond removing fossil subsidies, forcefully enhancing energy efficiency, and accelerating growth of renewable energy – there is little beyond that that national governments could agree.
That leaves global action among the various levels of local governments, possibly on a regional basis, as the most viable for meeting realistic emissions targets. As state and county governments have realized in implementing the Clean Air Act, that aside from emission reductions, they can create jobs, reduce noise, save energy, and recycle wastes into productive uses.
The same could result from a global set of aspirations, where national governments limit their involvement to three aforementioned areas, and then empower local governments at all levels to implement, potentially allowing them to keep revenues for local development and projects resulting from their ingenuity.
While global large businesses actually have implemented faster and more effective greenhouse gas reductions than most national governments, small businesses are the next set of actors that really need to be engaged. And they too are not only extremely necessary to engage in positive action, that are most easily interacted with at local levels. Small businesses are the true drivers of employment, and are also the first purveyors of the energy & water efficiency as well as renewable energy and other advanced energy technologies.
The climate issues are too large and complicated to address in an omnibus and “one approach meets all” fashion. Ronald Reagan espoused driving government programs closer to the people, and Hillary Clinton hooked her moniker on “It Takes a Village”. They came to the same vision from different political backgrounds – but this shared vision is the key to action on greenhouse gas reductions before it gets too late, if we are not yet beyond the pale.
Read More