What an emotional rollercoaster today was, but in the end the Berlin Wall of climate change separating rich and poor countries was knocked down and the world’s superpower finally and incredibly, in what is likely the most dramatic public foreign policy shift in the nation’s history, stepped into line with the international community’s long march to reconciling man and climate.
After the crisis from the first morning session in which it appeared the G-77 plus China was about to derail the whole two weeks of talks, the Indonesian Environment Minister, Yvo de Boer, the Secretary General of the UN and the President of Indonesia took the podium. The Environment Minister set the tone with a well-prepared heartfelt speech delivered in a kind and focused rather than his disconsolate manner on display at the morning portion of the meeting. The Minister said we are 80-90 per cent there, and then in a huge diplomatic tipping of the hat to China who had expressed frustration at the lack of coordination between Indonesia’s foreign and environment ministers, the physically small man showed how big he actually was, apologizing in front of his President for his chairmanship: “That was not without its faults, and I do apologize for treading on your sensibilities.” He then added, the concurrent meetings this morning was “due to genuine misunderstanding, I beg your understanding and hope to proceed better. Although I am not too young, I am not too old to learn something.”
The Indonesian President and Secretary General then delivered electrifying speeches that both hit me emotionally. The President said, “I have come here at this hour to make a special plea to you…We must make the last mile of this marathon, the most difficult mile. The worst thing is for our human race and planet to crumble because we cannot find the right wording. What we do on this day will have an impact for decades to come.” He closed, “The world is watching, let us not let them down.”
The Secretary General began on a sober note, saying: “I’m disappointed at the level of progress. You have accomplished much in the past few days. But now the hour is late. It’s time to decide. You have in your hands the ability to deliver a successful outcome to the world. The scientific realities affecting our planet demand the highest level of ambition. A few days ago, I said we were at a crossroads: one path leads to a new comprehensive climate change agreement, the other leads to a betrayal of our planet and our children. You are about to take the first step down one of these paths. I hope you take the right path.”
Not satisfied with the Environment Minister’s apology, China asked the Secretariat to explain what had happened. Yvo de Boer turned on his microphone to answer and began to speak before hiding his head in his hands. He shook his head, which was red, in the way that someone with deep dignity reacts when their integrity is attacked. He finally sputtered out, choking back tears naked with emotion: "The Secretariat was not aware there was a meeting taking place,” before swiftly exiting the room.
The room gave him a standing ovation and the Chinese let it rest.
India, Portugal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Philippines, Mauritius, and Saudi Arabia raised mostly minor points. Then the main event: Paula Dobriansky, US Undersecretary of Global Affairs, took the floor. She said that she had been heartened with the statements from large developing countries on their willingness to take action on climate change but that she was disappointed that this sentiment was not reflected in an outcome here, before dropping a bomb that kicked off almost unanimous boos and cat calls from the usually staid diplomats: "We cannot accept this text because it represents a significant change in the balance that many of us have worked together for in the past week.”
With the agreement seemingly scuttled, Japan took the floor next, and with his own translator to ensure that no diplomatic niceties of his intervention was lost on the regular UN translator, he supported some of the US sentiment but made it clear that an agreement would be reached: “The President mentioned that climate change is a common responsibility. Japan is 100 per cent in agreement with that statement. We have the expectation and hope that this agreement will make it possible for major emitters to discuss the issue and aim for results. Japan will do its utmost to lead this conference to success.”
South Africa then took the floor: “The science is clear. It is recognized by most of us. The reference by the United States to developing countries not accepting full responsibility is most unwelcome and without any basis. As a matter of fact, we are willing to commit ourselves to measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation action. We are also willing to agree to [the language around commitments by developed countries] which admittedly we would liked to have seen stronger commitment. We request the US to reconsider.” Thunderous applause.
Brazil then intervened: “We are ready to do measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation actions, and we ask that those countries with the historical responsibility do the same.”
Jamaica was to speak next, but they didn’t have much to say: “It’s a mistake, button presser.”
Tuvalu who was introduced as Turkmenistan then appealed to delegates: "If you are not comfortable enough to support the text, instead of blocking consensus, please just register your interpretation of it to be included in the report."
Chile echoed Tuvalu: “If delegates have a problem with text, take Tuvalu’s suggestion. Don’t block consensus.”
Uganda appealed to the US to agree to the text noting that the US’ strongest views had been considered. “We would like to beg them that they do accept our position.”
Tanzania spoke next. “I have a superpower on my right (US) and an economic power on my left. I’m almost squeezed. The neighbour to my right has the power to block progress in their hands. The power to wreck progress. Let’s leave Bali having made a footprint for future generations so we can say we were in Bali and we did something great here.”
The next speaker, Papua New Guinea, marked the tipping point, saying to the US in the most direct terms: “If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way. We want you to lead, we ask you to lead. If you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.” The room shook.
A mere 25 minutes had passed since the US had rejected the agreement. Paula Dobriansky from the US took the floor once again, showing some of the mettle of her famous Ukrainian Patriot father Lev Dobriansky. She said: “We have listened. We are heartened by expressions of firm commitments, especially the major economies. We all will act together. We will go forward and join consensus.” Awe-struck applause.
I could have given Paula a hug right there.
Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists and battle-hardened climate warrior who was standing near the US delegation said to me: “that’s one hell of a shift.”
China as well as a bevy of countries responded with happy welcome, though China’s welcome was a little measured. “Most importantly, we can welcome the US on board, who although is not in the seat of the driver, at last we can begin on our march.”
With that the world’s superpower averted what would have been a disaster in climate governance. Now the long march to finding a way to reconcile billions of people with our precarious climate balance begins at last with the US and big developing countries on board.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Musical chairs.
In the morning after the evening in which a climate bargain was meant to be hammered out, all hell is breaking loose. It started a little after 8 am when the text that was meant to be a fait accompli came out. I knew there was trouble when I saw James Connaughton, Chairman of the US President’s Council of Environment Quality. He was quite agitated to the point where his bald head was beet red. He was grabbing delegates as they walked by and I followed him down the hall with a Japanese colleague he was speaking with. All I could make out was mitigation, or some reference to it in the text he was appalled about. Then they gathered with Japan, Australia (Penny Wong), and Minister Baird, who arrived a little after the meeting got underway (8.21am) in the Tulip Room of the Westin Hotel. As they exited the meeting room, Connaghton pigeon holed Baird to make a point. I could not hear what he said, but Baird replied “2006,” which is Canada’s current base year for measuring GHG reductions.
Back in the main plenary, there were two false starts, as the G-77 was meeting in another room with Indonesia’s foreign minister hammering over text that was changed last night without their input. This made the Chinese angry. A junior person in the delegation raised an objection about concurrent meetings taking place. The Indonesian Environment Minister who is supposed to be the President of the meeting said he would ask the Foreign Minister to wrap things up and they would convene in a few minutes, to which the Chinese delegate said: "No, not in a few minutes. Until they are done.” The Chinese senior negotiator came back in the room and in English (which they never speak in the plenary), said: "The G-77 is meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Indonesian Government. I would like to seek clarification from the Secretariat why these meetings are going on concurrently. I think the Secretariat did this intentionally. I would like to ask for an apology from the Secretariat." Yvo de Boer, UN Executive Secretary could be overheard: “Yes, now, I’m offended.” Then the Environment Minister adjourned the meeting.
The problem here is that the meeting now has two chairs. The official one, who is nice but viewed as a bit weak and the foreign minister who was brought in the second day of high level meetings and is effectively running the show—though the two ministers are clearly not on the same page at all times.
I walked over to the Chinese delegation to listen in on a conversation between the German Environment Minister and the Chinese lead negotiator. The junior Chinese delegate was waving his fingers and yelling “Twice, twice,” referring to the fact that the plenary meeting had been convened twice while the G-77 was meeting outside with the Foreign Minister.
The senior Chinese negotiator accused the German Environment Minister of colluding with the US to make the language tougher for the G-77 and China. The German Minister took exception to this and said no way. The EU met this morning at 7am and there was no discussion of this nor meeting with the US. China shot back saying, "Yes maybe, but maybe someone other than you met with them." The German was adamant that this did not happen, and then he said some pretty powerful things: If this fails, the UN fails, and that is a big victory for the US. If we dig our heels in now, the US wins. They can go back and say: “Look, the UN can’t get anything done. They are so stupid. Then they win. We lose.” The German Minister continued: "I have to go on a TV interview tomorrow before a national audience, and what am I going to tell them?” The Chinese delegate said he agreed, but that he couldn’t understand how the same mistake was made twice. Germany replied that the reason was simple: there are two chairs of the meeting and they are not talking to each other. The German Minister then said, “I’m a friend of China. I didn’t have the Dalai Lama in my office.” This seemed to build some rapport. Then the Chinese said something about the quality of German technology. The German Minister said his riding was close to Siemans headquarters and he had had the honour of having Jiang Zemin visit his home.
The German Minister then said: "Next time we need to work more closely and I am sure we will have only one chair to deal with."
John Baird and Eric Richer both intercepted me on my way out to underline that this was not Canada’s fault.
I then went and slipped a note to Yvo saying that the Chinese didn’t mean to insult him, it was just that their one-party country made it difficult for them to understand how the Indonesian government could be so uncoordinated, and suggested that it would go some way if he could get the Secretary General to apologize for the unintentional process overlap.
That’s all for now.
Back in the main plenary, there were two false starts, as the G-77 was meeting in another room with Indonesia’s foreign minister hammering over text that was changed last night without their input. This made the Chinese angry. A junior person in the delegation raised an objection about concurrent meetings taking place. The Indonesian Environment Minister who is supposed to be the President of the meeting said he would ask the Foreign Minister to wrap things up and they would convene in a few minutes, to which the Chinese delegate said: "No, not in a few minutes. Until they are done.” The Chinese senior negotiator came back in the room and in English (which they never speak in the plenary), said: "The G-77 is meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Indonesian Government. I would like to seek clarification from the Secretariat why these meetings are going on concurrently. I think the Secretariat did this intentionally. I would like to ask for an apology from the Secretariat." Yvo de Boer, UN Executive Secretary could be overheard: “Yes, now, I’m offended.” Then the Environment Minister adjourned the meeting.
The problem here is that the meeting now has two chairs. The official one, who is nice but viewed as a bit weak and the foreign minister who was brought in the second day of high level meetings and is effectively running the show—though the two ministers are clearly not on the same page at all times.
I walked over to the Chinese delegation to listen in on a conversation between the German Environment Minister and the Chinese lead negotiator. The junior Chinese delegate was waving his fingers and yelling “Twice, twice,” referring to the fact that the plenary meeting had been convened twice while the G-77 was meeting outside with the Foreign Minister.
The senior Chinese negotiator accused the German Environment Minister of colluding with the US to make the language tougher for the G-77 and China. The German Minister took exception to this and said no way. The EU met this morning at 7am and there was no discussion of this nor meeting with the US. China shot back saying, "Yes maybe, but maybe someone other than you met with them." The German was adamant that this did not happen, and then he said some pretty powerful things: If this fails, the UN fails, and that is a big victory for the US. If we dig our heels in now, the US wins. They can go back and say: “Look, the UN can’t get anything done. They are so stupid. Then they win. We lose.” The German Minister continued: "I have to go on a TV interview tomorrow before a national audience, and what am I going to tell them?” The Chinese delegate said he agreed, but that he couldn’t understand how the same mistake was made twice. Germany replied that the reason was simple: there are two chairs of the meeting and they are not talking to each other. The German Minister then said, “I’m a friend of China. I didn’t have the Dalai Lama in my office.” This seemed to build some rapport. Then the Chinese said something about the quality of German technology. The German Minister said his riding was close to Siemans headquarters and he had had the honour of having Jiang Zemin visit his home.
The German Minister then said: "Next time we need to work more closely and I am sure we will have only one chair to deal with."
John Baird and Eric Richer both intercepted me on my way out to underline that this was not Canada’s fault.
I then went and slipped a note to Yvo saying that the Chinese didn’t mean to insult him, it was just that their one-party country made it difficult for them to understand how the Indonesian government could be so uncoordinated, and suggested that it would go some way if he could get the Secretary General to apologize for the unintentional process overlap.
That’s all for now.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bali finale - postponed.
Quote of the Day: “I feel like a swiss clock.”
-UN Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer commenting on the ups and downs of negotiating
When I woke up this morning, I had a funny feeling, replaying in my head RP, IPCC chairman’s presentation to the plenary on Wednesday. The presentation was pretty graphic and had eerie background music, as it showed smokestacks billowing CO2 into the air, and icebergs melting. I had dreamt that I was watching a small group of people watching a video of IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation sometime in the future in which the planet had reaped the worst predictions made by the IPCC, with sea rises, disease, conflicts, and droughts bringing civilization back to a less populous, simpler form. I felt their sense of puzzlement for how we could have let this happen.
Today was the final day to hash everything out here in Bali, but an announcement has just been made that the finale will be postponed until 8am Bali time. I was hoping that we would just get it over with tonight or even better at dawn, for the dawn of a new protocol.
The main numbers at issue are:
1. 25-40 per cent reductions by rich countries by 1990 (rumour is that this was just sacrificed by the EU)
2. Stop the increase in greenhouse gases in next 10-15 years
3. 50 per cent global greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 from 2000 base year
As long as 2 and 3 make it into final text, Bali can be considered a victory as the level of ambition that UN Chief Yvo de Boer wanted will be mostly there--but it will mean a rough and tumble 2-year negotiating period about who does what between Bali and the climate talks scheduled to take place in Copenhagen in 2009.
Of the three points above, I think the 25-40 per cent reduction by rich countries from 1990 is the easiest one to do without for two reasons: one is that the base year of 1990 is a long time ago, and will be a huge sticking point. It would be better to use 2000 as a base year, and a narrower target range if the goal is to get the US on board. Two, if the developed countries say we will do this no matter what, it will build good will, but it will also take negotiating power away that I think will be necessary to bring in the big industrializing countries.
Tidbits of today:
Mayor Mike Bloomberg: ruled out running as VP on Gore-Bloomberg ticket because “I’m too old to work for someone else.”
Munir Akram, Pakistani envoy to the UN and chairman of the G77 said that rich nations were threatening poor nations with trade sanctions if they did not agree to absolute caps. When asked what developing countries could agree to, he said: “voluntary measures at a national level.” I am not sure how well that will work.
-UN Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer commenting on the ups and downs of negotiating
When I woke up this morning, I had a funny feeling, replaying in my head RP, IPCC chairman’s presentation to the plenary on Wednesday. The presentation was pretty graphic and had eerie background music, as it showed smokestacks billowing CO2 into the air, and icebergs melting. I had dreamt that I was watching a small group of people watching a video of IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation sometime in the future in which the planet had reaped the worst predictions made by the IPCC, with sea rises, disease, conflicts, and droughts bringing civilization back to a less populous, simpler form. I felt their sense of puzzlement for how we could have let this happen.
Today was the final day to hash everything out here in Bali, but an announcement has just been made that the finale will be postponed until 8am Bali time. I was hoping that we would just get it over with tonight or even better at dawn, for the dawn of a new protocol.
The main numbers at issue are:
1. 25-40 per cent reductions by rich countries by 1990 (rumour is that this was just sacrificed by the EU)
2. Stop the increase in greenhouse gases in next 10-15 years
3. 50 per cent global greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 from 2000 base year
As long as 2 and 3 make it into final text, Bali can be considered a victory as the level of ambition that UN Chief Yvo de Boer wanted will be mostly there--but it will mean a rough and tumble 2-year negotiating period about who does what between Bali and the climate talks scheduled to take place in Copenhagen in 2009.
Of the three points above, I think the 25-40 per cent reduction by rich countries from 1990 is the easiest one to do without for two reasons: one is that the base year of 1990 is a long time ago, and will be a huge sticking point. It would be better to use 2000 as a base year, and a narrower target range if the goal is to get the US on board. Two, if the developed countries say we will do this no matter what, it will build good will, but it will also take negotiating power away that I think will be necessary to bring in the big industrializing countries.
Tidbits of today:
Mayor Mike Bloomberg: ruled out running as VP on Gore-Bloomberg ticket because “I’m too old to work for someone else.”
Munir Akram, Pakistani envoy to the UN and chairman of the G77 said that rich nations were threatening poor nations with trade sanctions if they did not agree to absolute caps. When asked what developing countries could agree to, he said: “voluntary measures at a national level.” I am not sure how well that will work.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Baird goes big on global target and Yvo reveals his secret to Bali success
Some big news today. The first big newsmaker of the day was Yvo De Boer; the UN chief finally clarified what success would mean in Bali, beyond getting a mandate to negotiate further negotiations that is. Bali success will be getting agreement on an overall global target---rather than specific national targets--for emissions reductions consistent with the IPCC recommendations to avoid dangerous climate change. This he said would then guide and the ambition of negotiations going forward to the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, when a deal must be hammered out by.
Shortly after this, I asked Minister Baird to clarify if Canada would support a global target consistent with Yvo’s definition of success. He said that Canada would be willing to support a 40 per cent global emissions reduction by 2020 from a 2000 base year. He also mentioned the words common but differentiated responsibility in the same sentence, something that the government was staying away from before. This is huge and at least twice as ambitious as Canada’s current domestic plan. Of course anyone can promise a target. Just ask Jean Chrétien. The hard part is to do the actual implementation, annual updates while setting regular milestones so progress can be regularly evaluated and carbon cycles can be better aligned with political cycles.
Somebody asked Baird about base years. He said that the base years were political; pointing out that he lost 50 pounds in 1996, so 1995 would be a great base year for him.
Negotiations update: There are two lines in the negotiating text being hotly debated at the moment. One references 25-40 per cent cuts by rich nations by 2020 from 1990 base year. The other references 50 per cent global emissions reductions by 2050 from 200 base year. If they are separated Canada, Australia and Japan (part of the quixotic quartet along with the US) will almost certainly support the global target of 50 by 2050, which would then allow the ensuing 2 years to hammer out the mechanism for sharing this responsibility and leave the US isolated until a new President can come on board. The trouble is developing countries will find this difficult to swallow unless it is accompanies by a substantial commitment (say annual $100 billion of funds) from rich nations to finance part of the incremental costs of mitigation including forest preservation and the crucial investments to be made to prepare for adapting to the climate change that would come no matter what we because of the billions of tonnes of GHGs the rich world has already put into he atmosphere. Those are the seeds around which a grand compact between the rich and developing world could be agreed upon.
Tidbits: Stephane Dion said today that the specter of environmental protectionism (which would be legitimate in many case) requires that the “WTO become experts on climate change.”
Tomorrow: Minister Baird and Al Gore will make presentations to the plenary session. It would be pretty cool if our Minister could upstage the Goreacle, but that would involve a substantially bold departure from what is expected.
Who’s Hot?
John Baird for laying down the gauntlet and saying Canada would support and 40 per cent global emissions reduction by 2020 from a 2000 base year
Australian PM Kevin Rudd for admitting that defeating climate change “would not be easy,” in contrast to IPCC chairman’s entreaty that it would be easy as delaying growth by one year.
Yvo de Boer for clariying what Bali success would be (an ambitious global emissions target)
Stephane Dion for not taking potshots at the current government, even when baited in the
Who’s Not
The US for standing in the way of a global greenhouse gas emissions target because it “may predetermine the outcome,” (That’s the point guys—we are trying to predetermine climate change jeopardizing our plant and human security)
Canadian delegation for calling police on your protesters outside Canadian tent
The Daily Telegraph correspondent for whining to UN media man John Hay for not being called on to ask the Secretary General a question. He was wearing a pink shirt, but if he really wants to ask a question he should sit in the centre like Corporate Knights’ Felix Von Geyer, with a pinstripe suit and hand erected high into the air.
Shortly after this, I asked Minister Baird to clarify if Canada would support a global target consistent with Yvo’s definition of success. He said that Canada would be willing to support a 40 per cent global emissions reduction by 2020 from a 2000 base year. He also mentioned the words common but differentiated responsibility in the same sentence, something that the government was staying away from before. This is huge and at least twice as ambitious as Canada’s current domestic plan. Of course anyone can promise a target. Just ask Jean Chrétien. The hard part is to do the actual implementation, annual updates while setting regular milestones so progress can be regularly evaluated and carbon cycles can be better aligned with political cycles.
Somebody asked Baird about base years. He said that the base years were political; pointing out that he lost 50 pounds in 1996, so 1995 would be a great base year for him.
Negotiations update: There are two lines in the negotiating text being hotly debated at the moment. One references 25-40 per cent cuts by rich nations by 2020 from 1990 base year. The other references 50 per cent global emissions reductions by 2050 from 200 base year. If they are separated Canada, Australia and Japan (part of the quixotic quartet along with the US) will almost certainly support the global target of 50 by 2050, which would then allow the ensuing 2 years to hammer out the mechanism for sharing this responsibility and leave the US isolated until a new President can come on board. The trouble is developing countries will find this difficult to swallow unless it is accompanies by a substantial commitment (say annual $100 billion of funds) from rich nations to finance part of the incremental costs of mitigation including forest preservation and the crucial investments to be made to prepare for adapting to the climate change that would come no matter what we because of the billions of tonnes of GHGs the rich world has already put into he atmosphere. Those are the seeds around which a grand compact between the rich and developing world could be agreed upon.
Tidbits: Stephane Dion said today that the specter of environmental protectionism (which would be legitimate in many case) requires that the “WTO become experts on climate change.”
Tomorrow: Minister Baird and Al Gore will make presentations to the plenary session. It would be pretty cool if our Minister could upstage the Goreacle, but that would involve a substantially bold departure from what is expected.
Who’s Hot?
John Baird for laying down the gauntlet and saying Canada would support and 40 per cent global emissions reduction by 2020 from a 2000 base year
Australian PM Kevin Rudd for admitting that defeating climate change “would not be easy,” in contrast to IPCC chairman’s entreaty that it would be easy as delaying growth by one year.
Yvo de Boer for clariying what Bali success would be (an ambitious global emissions target)
Stephane Dion for not taking potshots at the current government, even when baited in the
Who’s Not
The US for standing in the way of a global greenhouse gas emissions target because it “may predetermine the outcome,” (That’s the point guys—we are trying to predetermine climate change jeopardizing our plant and human security)
Canadian delegation for calling police on your protesters outside Canadian tent
The Daily Telegraph correspondent for whining to UN media man John Hay for not being called on to ask the Secretary General a question. He was wearing a pink shirt, but if he really wants to ask a question he should sit in the centre like Corporate Knights’ Felix Von Geyer, with a pinstripe suit and hand erected high into the air.
The anniversary of Kyoto.
Today was the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol. It started out kind of badly and got progressively worse. As I was leaving my bungalow I crashed my bike into a brick wall—a metaphor for a day that turned out to be almost Shakespearean for its invocation of literary devices.
The morning started out with a press conference put on by Climate Action International, in which the Japanese environmental campaigner said that for Japan to undermine the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a great source of pride, was a violation of Japanese honour.
The Canadian daily press conference was held in a tent about a five-minute bike ride away. It was hot in the tent and the Minister was running a little behind, so we were treated to a presentation about some pretty neat Canadian climate change software by a gentleman that bore a strong resemblance in demeanor and appearance to those people you see on the 2 am infomercials for stainerator. When Minister Baird showed up, he had a tough round of questioning from the press corps. The Minister did make the interesting point that “unlike the United States, Canada supports binding emissions targets.” I tried to get him to clarify the global base year Canada wanted to use for plotting emissions reductions (1990, 2000, 2005 or 2006). He chose to remain coy, which is understandable because as soon as you pick a base year that is not 1990 (which is Canada’s assured preference if our domestic plan with a 2006 base-year has any significance), people will attack. I don’t think though that it is fair to use a base year of 1990 if we are going to making a decision today that is far more severe in its annual trillion dollar economic implications that we ever would have imagined in 1990. If we are going to make a bold commitment as the global community in 2007 (including those large emitters that did not make the initial modest at the time Kyoto commitment)--which we must do if we want to avoid “oblivion” in the UN Secretary General’s words—then lets make the base year current and the commitment in line with best current science, which the IPCC says is to ratchet down global emissions 25-40 per cent by 2020 from 2000.
After the Canadian press conference, I shot off to the Intercontinental Hotel for the Finance Ministers meeting where finance ministers and senior officials from 36 countries met for the first time ever to talk about climate change. Lord Nicholas Stern (if his nametag was accurate, he has been promoted from Sir) presented to the ministers on the economics of climate change. The Finance Ministers, like the Trade Ministers, agreed to keep the climate change dialogue going, including on the fringes of the next UN Climate Change meeting in Poland. Stern told the ministers that for $5 billion per year for eight years, it would be possible to build 30 carbon capture and storage coal plants that would not otherwise happen; that for $10-$15 billion per annum it would be possible to halve deforestation, which is responsible for a fifth of human-caused emissions. He also said the science was clear about needing to make 50 per cent emissions reductions by 2050, and that from a fairness point of view, developed countries would have to take at least 75 per cent reductions, which still leaves developing countries with growing economies and populations a fair bit to do—even with the public funds and their multiplier effect leveraging private funds.
India made what I thought was a rather unhelpful contribution during the financial mechanism part of the meetings, saying that a “globally harmonized carbon tax required internalization of greenhouse gas externalities by developing countries on par with developed countries, and is squarely in violation of UNFCCC principles.” In other words, the polluter pays principle is unfair for Indian polluters. Fair enough if we are horse trading, but when the stakes of not doing the job is human suffering beyond the scale of the worst crimes against humanity of the 21st century (including the more than 250 million additional defenseless people in Africa that will be facing drought), that’s not good enough India. There are ways if we put our heads together to put a meaningful price on carbon everywhere that offer cushions and financing for developing countries and we should exploring those rather than throwing up brick walls.
Back at the convention centre, people were celebrating the 10th anniversary of Kyoto with a giant chocolate cake. Weary of the saying that you can’t have your cake and it too, I took a pass on eating a slice, hoping instead to have the substance of Kyoto carry forward.
The next big event of the day was a panel of heavyweights to underline how climate change was not only the environmental challenge of the day, but also the defining human development issue of our time, according the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, who was on hand. Nick Stern was at this panel too, where he forcefully presented climate change as the defining economic issue of our time. The UN Human development report which was the centerpiece of the event called for a global convergence of per capita emissions over the next 50 years. This sounded like a good idea, but worried me a little. As emissions are well correlated to income, it implies achieving global equality of income (an ideal I deeply believe in), and I wondered if we might be walking into a trap if—even in a world in which everything is connected--we made defeating global warming conditional upon defeating global inequality, an even taller order.
After the event, they served a spread with mostly meat, which was unfortunate considering that meat and all the feedstock and transport around it accounts for 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions (climate change).
Next stop was the Canadian Delegation’s official side event. I got there and someone from EnCana was talking about carbon capture and storage but I could not hear him as the acoustics were really bad. In fact, you had to have a radio device on your ear even if you were only 40 feet away to hear what he was saying. They were handing out fortune cookies on the way in. There was one pile for regular people and one for media. Remembering the hard time the media had given the Minister earlier in the afternoon, I asked if the media ones were poisoned. I was assured they were not. I accidentally swallowed my fortune cookie message so I was unable to read it, but a few of my colleagues kept theirs. One read: “check your baselines.” Another read: “Canadian COP out. Scoop at the BICC free bicycles, Wednesday 9am.” A third said: “Beware of intensity-based targets.” At the end of the event right before we were supposed to hear from Minister Baird, it was announced that he would not be speaking, as he had negotiating matters that had popped up he had to attend to, which was his first priority. The youth delegates there were not happy going so far as to walk out and snub free food and drink on offer, which was substantially vegetarian in contrast to the UN event’s meatlovers menu. A seasoned Ministerial aide walked out of the side event with an utterly astonished look, and commented to me that “this was the strangest thing I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of strange things.”
Rather than complain about sour lemons, I grabbed a glass of lemonade, and gave a proposal to Baird’s spokesperson on how to get meaningful and doable roadmap to Copenhagen on which China and the US could come along.
After, I popped over to the Kyoto party, but when I was arrived, I was told the Kyoto Party was over—I hoped this wasn’t foreshadowing.
On the way home, I almost ran over a black cat and on my kitchen floor was a moribund green gecko, for which a ceremony to celebrate his short wall-crawling life is planned tomorrow.
The morning started out with a press conference put on by Climate Action International, in which the Japanese environmental campaigner said that for Japan to undermine the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a great source of pride, was a violation of Japanese honour.
The Canadian daily press conference was held in a tent about a five-minute bike ride away. It was hot in the tent and the Minister was running a little behind, so we were treated to a presentation about some pretty neat Canadian climate change software by a gentleman that bore a strong resemblance in demeanor and appearance to those people you see on the 2 am infomercials for stainerator. When Minister Baird showed up, he had a tough round of questioning from the press corps. The Minister did make the interesting point that “unlike the United States, Canada supports binding emissions targets.” I tried to get him to clarify the global base year Canada wanted to use for plotting emissions reductions (1990, 2000, 2005 or 2006). He chose to remain coy, which is understandable because as soon as you pick a base year that is not 1990 (which is Canada’s assured preference if our domestic plan with a 2006 base-year has any significance), people will attack. I don’t think though that it is fair to use a base year of 1990 if we are going to making a decision today that is far more severe in its annual trillion dollar economic implications that we ever would have imagined in 1990. If we are going to make a bold commitment as the global community in 2007 (including those large emitters that did not make the initial modest at the time Kyoto commitment)--which we must do if we want to avoid “oblivion” in the UN Secretary General’s words—then lets make the base year current and the commitment in line with best current science, which the IPCC says is to ratchet down global emissions 25-40 per cent by 2020 from 2000.
After the Canadian press conference, I shot off to the Intercontinental Hotel for the Finance Ministers meeting where finance ministers and senior officials from 36 countries met for the first time ever to talk about climate change. Lord Nicholas Stern (if his nametag was accurate, he has been promoted from Sir) presented to the ministers on the economics of climate change. The Finance Ministers, like the Trade Ministers, agreed to keep the climate change dialogue going, including on the fringes of the next UN Climate Change meeting in Poland. Stern told the ministers that for $5 billion per year for eight years, it would be possible to build 30 carbon capture and storage coal plants that would not otherwise happen; that for $10-$15 billion per annum it would be possible to halve deforestation, which is responsible for a fifth of human-caused emissions. He also said the science was clear about needing to make 50 per cent emissions reductions by 2050, and that from a fairness point of view, developed countries would have to take at least 75 per cent reductions, which still leaves developing countries with growing economies and populations a fair bit to do—even with the public funds and their multiplier effect leveraging private funds.
India made what I thought was a rather unhelpful contribution during the financial mechanism part of the meetings, saying that a “globally harmonized carbon tax required internalization of greenhouse gas externalities by developing countries on par with developed countries, and is squarely in violation of UNFCCC principles.” In other words, the polluter pays principle is unfair for Indian polluters. Fair enough if we are horse trading, but when the stakes of not doing the job is human suffering beyond the scale of the worst crimes against humanity of the 21st century (including the more than 250 million additional defenseless people in Africa that will be facing drought), that’s not good enough India. There are ways if we put our heads together to put a meaningful price on carbon everywhere that offer cushions and financing for developing countries and we should exploring those rather than throwing up brick walls.
Back at the convention centre, people were celebrating the 10th anniversary of Kyoto with a giant chocolate cake. Weary of the saying that you can’t have your cake and it too, I took a pass on eating a slice, hoping instead to have the substance of Kyoto carry forward.
The next big event of the day was a panel of heavyweights to underline how climate change was not only the environmental challenge of the day, but also the defining human development issue of our time, according the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, who was on hand. Nick Stern was at this panel too, where he forcefully presented climate change as the defining economic issue of our time. The UN Human development report which was the centerpiece of the event called for a global convergence of per capita emissions over the next 50 years. This sounded like a good idea, but worried me a little. As emissions are well correlated to income, it implies achieving global equality of income (an ideal I deeply believe in), and I wondered if we might be walking into a trap if—even in a world in which everything is connected--we made defeating global warming conditional upon defeating global inequality, an even taller order.
After the event, they served a spread with mostly meat, which was unfortunate considering that meat and all the feedstock and transport around it accounts for 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions (climate change).
Next stop was the Canadian Delegation’s official side event. I got there and someone from EnCana was talking about carbon capture and storage but I could not hear him as the acoustics were really bad. In fact, you had to have a radio device on your ear even if you were only 40 feet away to hear what he was saying. They were handing out fortune cookies on the way in. There was one pile for regular people and one for media. Remembering the hard time the media had given the Minister earlier in the afternoon, I asked if the media ones were poisoned. I was assured they were not. I accidentally swallowed my fortune cookie message so I was unable to read it, but a few of my colleagues kept theirs. One read: “check your baselines.” Another read: “Canadian COP out. Scoop at the BICC free bicycles, Wednesday 9am.” A third said: “Beware of intensity-based targets.” At the end of the event right before we were supposed to hear from Minister Baird, it was announced that he would not be speaking, as he had negotiating matters that had popped up he had to attend to, which was his first priority. The youth delegates there were not happy going so far as to walk out and snub free food and drink on offer, which was substantially vegetarian in contrast to the UN event’s meatlovers menu. A seasoned Ministerial aide walked out of the side event with an utterly astonished look, and commented to me that “this was the strangest thing I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of strange things.”
Rather than complain about sour lemons, I grabbed a glass of lemonade, and gave a proposal to Baird’s spokesperson on how to get meaningful and doable roadmap to Copenhagen on which China and the US could come along.
After, I popped over to the Kyoto party, but when I was arrived, I was told the Kyoto Party was over—I hoped this wasn’t foreshadowing.
On the way home, I almost ran over a black cat and on my kitchen floor was a moribund green gecko, for which a ceremony to celebrate his short wall-crawling life is planned tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Human Rights
Quote of the Day: “If a country chooses not to undertake the mitigation necessary to avoid dangerous climate change and if a country chooses not to invest in the adaptation to facilitate coping with the climate change that is going to happen that is a choice in favour of the systematic abuse of human rights.” — Kevin Watkins, UN Human Development Report Lead Author, commenting on considering climate change within the context of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
I started off the morning with a Press Conference at the Laguna Hotel where Minister Baird is staying. He arrived in jovial spirits and spoke French with the Global Environment Fund chief for a few minutes before making his announcement. He said the climate change science was even stronger (presumably stronger than it was a few years ago, when his Prime Minister dismissed it as a socialist hoax designed to suck money out of wealth producing nations). The Minister said he would not be daunted or deterred by those who preach the art of the impossible with respect to developing countries taking on taking on binding emission limits. He also said that the world needs to “take action under the United St..” before catching one of his rare slips mid-way to say “United Nations.”
Next, I popped down to the press tent to the Indonesian Pavilion, otherwise known as the place to get free cappuccino. A PR lady volunteered me to interview Muhammad Lutfi, the Chairman of Indonesia’s powerful Investment Coordinating Board, who was sitting in a room beside the cappuccino machine. I asked him what he thought about developed countries competitiveness concerns if they moved to put a big price on carbon for their industry while developing countries did not and the temptation for rich countries to impose carbon import taxes (or countervailing duties) like President Sarkozy has called for, while many others are thinking of it. His reply: “If I was the French President, I would probably do the same thing. Trade has to be on a level playing field.”
I also learnt that Indonesia has a big geothermal power strategy. “We’re going to push geothermal like no tomorrow,” Lutfi said. Indonesia has about 16,000 MW of geothermal potential, and plans to have at least 4000 MW of it online for the Java-Bali grid by 2015.
Today was business day, so I headed over to the Conrad Hotel to check it out. A lot of nice suits and finger food. Bjorn Stigson, World Business Council of Sustainable Development chief, seemed to be in his usual professor-type demeanor. He told me “we should not discount the risk of serious distortion to the international trading system, if we fail to reach a comprehensive climate agreement.”
In the afternoon, I met with a colleague of Madame Gro Harlan Brundtland to discuss the Global Leaders for Climate Action initiative and ideas for striking a post-2012 climate agreement grand bargain between developed and developing countries.
The highlight of the day was interviewing Kevin Watkins, the lead author the UN Human Development Report which was published a couple of weeks ago, presenting climate change as the human rights issue of our time, as an analog to the Stern Report that defined climate change as the economic issue of our time. Below is part of the Q and A that was conducted with Balinese drummers in the background doing a jig.
Kevin Watkins, UN Human Development Report Q and A:
What are the human rights of climate change?
The potential costs of avoiding dangerous climate change are in the order of 1.6 per cent of GDP. The potential costs of not undertaking that investment are 400 million additional people exposed to the risk of malnutrition, another 300 million people potentially displaced as a result.
Children born in a drought year face increased risk of malnutrition at age five, by about a third. For people in a vulnerable position, their ability to manage a single climate event like drought is extremely limited.
There is tendency in the west to think of climate shocks as short, sharp events that cause a lot of suffering. But it is indeed a long-lived impact. Poor people in particular have to sell off productive assets, which limits their capacity for recovery. It can take ten years to restore your assets after a single drought event.
If we don’t tackle climate change (mitigation and adaptation), what we will see after 2015 is the potential for some rapid unprecedented reversals in human development.
What about those skeptics like Lomborg who say spending money on climate change is a poor use of funds if human development is the goal?
Climate change is doing is making people more vulnerable to malnutrition, more likely to take their kids out of school, running down their health, and making them less resistant to diarrhea and diseases like malaria. This is not an either or option. What do you prefer? Your head or your heart?
India greeted your report’s suggestion of cutting developed countries emission by 80 per cent by 2050 and developing countries emissions by 20 per cent as unfair, as it would mean taking India’s emissions from 1 tonne of carbon per capita to 0.8 tonnes per capita while the US would go down from 20 tonnes to 4 tonnes, which would still leave them with 5 times as much per capita as India. How do you respond to that?
This is a total straw man. We are not suggesting the 80-20 cuts for any country in particular—these are aggregate reductions meant for the developed and developing countries as a group to lead both groups to converge on two tonnes of carbon emissions per capita by 2060 [they are currently at 7 tonnes per capita]. Countries like India (1 tonne per capita) Ethiopia (0.1 tonne per capita) would be able to increase their per capita emissions--by double in India’s case. By the same token countries like the US [or Canada] with higher than average per capita emissions in the industrialized world, will have to make more stringent cuts than 80 per cent than countries like Japan which are much more efficient. The other point we make is that you can’t expect developing countries to make these cuts without financing from the industrialized world.
How important is putting a price on carbon in the battle against climate change?
Carbon pricing in all countries is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for mitigating climate change.
What do you think of the current pricing approach for carbon?
Cap and trade as its currently being regulated isn’t producing the results needed. What carbon markets do is price scarcity. And if you regulate a market to generate surplus the price tends to disappear. That is precisely what happened with the EU emissions trading system. The problem in Europe is that the political leverage of big utilities is such that politicians haven’t been able to bit the bullet and align the caps in the current trading system with their own climate change mitigation goals. And that’s a problem. The key question is how fast we move to full auctioning of carbon permits.
What do you think about developed countries' competitiveness concerns around pricing carbon?
If governments do take more stringent emission mitigation, it clearly has implications for the competitiveness of industry and it varies by industry according to the costs they can pass through to the consumer. I think it would be quite dangerous if you had major developing countries that developed a comparative advantage in carbon pollution, with the underpricing of carbon.
I finished the day off at some room in the Grand Hyatt complex talking to a Canadian and a guy named Jonas who helped the Pope go carbon-neutral.
Things are starting to get bizarre in Bali.
Quote of the Day:
I wasn’t privy to the conversation, but the body language was peculiar to put it mildly. The Minister was yelling in the face of a David Suzuki climate campaigner, poking him in the chest in what looked to be quite an assertive way. Fortunately no fist-a-cuffs broke out.
On Sunday, Trade Ministers wrapped up their first ever meeting. The following countries sent their Minister to the talks: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, Finland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerand, and the US. Japan, who has been Canada’s soul mate in Bali on the topic of competitiveness concerns to do with tackling climate change, sent a 12-member delegation including its Vice-Minister. Canada was one of only two countries to have a one-man delegation (Argentina was the other) led by John T. Holmes, our Ambassador to Indonesia, who is meant to be a really nice guy, but probably not the best person to be discussing the scope for redefining the multilateral trading system to take climate change into account.
While the Canadian government was missing in action at the meeting, Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development’s four-strong delegation led by David Runnalls set the tone, presenting the Ministers with an IISD opening report marking the emergence of climate change as the trade issue of our time.
Bright Spot: Everyone from the US who is not part of the US official delegation is tripping over themselves to explain how there are two America’s and Bush’s climate skeptic America is the old one, soon to give way to a new President, and a current majority of States and Senators to take bold action on climate change. What about Canada? Good authority has it that Quebec (not one to let regionalism get in the way of progress J) may soon join the California Governator’s Western Regional Climate Change Action Initiative (WRCAI), aimed at having an emissiona trading market up and running by August 2008. Manitoba is already on board. Premier McGuinty met with Governator when he visited Toronto. If Ontario jumps on board as well, that will cover off the majority of Canada’s population. Ontario Environment Minister John Garretson is in Bali this week—maybe it will be a topic of discussion.
“I support the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities when it comes to climate change. Yet this principle does not mean that developing countries should do nothing.”Things are starting to get bizarre in Bali. On Saturday night, the environmental groups threw their much anticipated beach bash (which lived up to its billing). When I arrived the US chief negotiator present at the talks for the first week, Dr Harlan Watson was shuffling on the outskirts of the dance floor, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief, was busting the moves on the dance floor, and people were swimming out into the ocean with one hand in the water and one hand above holding their beverage. But Minister John Baird took the cake.
— UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon
I wasn’t privy to the conversation, but the body language was peculiar to put it mildly. The Minister was yelling in the face of a David Suzuki climate campaigner, poking him in the chest in what looked to be quite an assertive way. Fortunately no fist-a-cuffs broke out.
On Sunday, Trade Ministers wrapped up their first ever meeting. The following countries sent their Minister to the talks: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, Finland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerand, and the US. Japan, who has been Canada’s soul mate in Bali on the topic of competitiveness concerns to do with tackling climate change, sent a 12-member delegation including its Vice-Minister. Canada was one of only two countries to have a one-man delegation (Argentina was the other) led by John T. Holmes, our Ambassador to Indonesia, who is meant to be a really nice guy, but probably not the best person to be discussing the scope for redefining the multilateral trading system to take climate change into account.
While the Canadian government was missing in action at the meeting, Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development’s four-strong delegation led by David Runnalls set the tone, presenting the Ministers with an IISD opening report marking the emergence of climate change as the trade issue of our time.
Bright Spot: Everyone from the US who is not part of the US official delegation is tripping over themselves to explain how there are two America’s and Bush’s climate skeptic America is the old one, soon to give way to a new President, and a current majority of States and Senators to take bold action on climate change. What about Canada? Good authority has it that Quebec (not one to let regionalism get in the way of progress J) may soon join the California Governator’s Western Regional Climate Change Action Initiative (WRCAI), aimed at having an emissiona trading market up and running by August 2008. Manitoba is already on board. Premier McGuinty met with Governator when he visited Toronto. If Ontario jumps on board as well, that will cover off the majority of Canada’s population. Ontario Environment Minister John Garretson is in Bali this week—maybe it will be a topic of discussion.
Monday, December 10, 2007
A fly on the wall
Today, I rode over in my Sunday best to the Bali Intercontinental Hotel in where the trade ministers were meeting for the first time ever on the topic of climate change. I wandered into a big room that had large square table with flags from different countries around the world set. I took a seat behind the table straddling the New Zealand and Norway spots, figuring I’d have a better chance blending in there than with the Philippine or Pakistani delegation.
A few minutes later the room started to fill with trade ministers. Camera crews followed and then were quickly ushered out leaving me as the only apparent member of the media in the room. Below is the summary.
First Trade Ministers Meeting on Climate Change
Hither to, we arrive at the issue. Climate change is not just a problem for environment ministers anymore, a cadre of trade ministers, including US Trade Representative Susan Schwab, were told today at the Bali Intercontinental Hotel on the fringes of UN Climate Change meetings. The meeting marked the first time ever that trade ministers met on the topic of climate change.
Reducing emissions in developed countries by 70-80 per cent by 2050 and substantially bending back the emissions growth curve for developing countries will have profound impacts for the global economy, because energy powers the economy, and meeting the climate change challenge will require no less than a multi-trillion dollar revamp of our energy infrastructure (US$20 trillion of for Asia alone over next several decades), David Runnalls, President of the International Institute for Sustainable Development told the group of ministers and officials, who had commissioned a report on trade and climate change from his Institute.
Mr. Runnalls characterized the Kyoto Protocol as “principally an investment agreement” that involves fundamentally changing our energy system, adding, “a failure to address climate change would constitute a failure of the multilateral trading system.”
So far, climate and trade agreements appear to have been on the same page. Article 35 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change clearly states that measures taken to combat climate change should not be disguised restrictions on international trade.
Likewise, the role of the WTO is to advance development objectives in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. But Runnalls cautioned that this honeymoon between trade and climate could soon end if we do not proactively address conflicts that will arise around competitiveness concerns that the prospect of substantial and uneven carbon pricing bring to the fore.
To start, Runnalls urged countries to focus on the promise of trade to combat climate change rather than the potential for conflict. Good places to start include looking at scrapping some of annual US $250 billion in fossil fuel subsidies that International Energy Agency has identified, and looking at how trade policy can best supply climate friendly goods and services, to meet the estimated additional $200-$210 billion dollars per year (compared to present ODA levels of just $100 billion/year) the UNFCCC says it will be necessary to invest over the next 23 years to achieve the climate change mitigation goals of the convention.
The World Bank also presented a preliminary report at the meeting, which showed that trade flows of climate friendly goods and services could expand by as much as 7.2 to 13.5 per cent if tariffs and non-tariff-barriers (NTBs) are removed. The same report found that so far that climate regulations have affected competitiveness much more than carbon taxes, in part because countries generally offset carbon taxes for trade-exposed industries, or the carbon tax rate has not been substantial enough to make that much of a difference.
The World Bank report did find a trend of carbon leakage, whereby carbon intensive industries relocate from high carbon-price jurisdictions to low-carbon price jurisdictions, but this may be due in part to the availability of raw materials and rampant growth in some developing countries like China and India. The World Bank official said the intellectual property rights would also have to be tackled in any agreement to expand technology transfer of climate friendly goods and services.
The most newly minted trade minister, Simon Crean, from Australia was the first minister to speak up, insisting that trade and environment policies must be mutually supportive, identifying the carbon market as one part of the solution, towards which Australia will establish a national emission trading system to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050.
Mr Crean also cautioned about messing with the trade goose that lays golden eggs for the economy. “These international agreements are based on a hard earned consensus,” he said.
In a not so veiled reference to France’s carbon import tax proposal and the requirement for importers of carbon intensive products to purchase emissions allowances under the Lieberman-Warner bill making its way through the US Senate, he went on: “When countries mention things like carbon taxes or border transfer taxes, as trade ministers, we should be quite concerned about such a systemic threat to the trade system that has served us so well.”
The best way to ensure this doesn’t happen, he said, is to “ensure that all major emitters are involved in emission reductions efforts.”
US Trade Representative Susan Schwab echoed Mr Crean’s concern, cautioning, “using climate as an excuse for covert protectionism is a slippery slope and will ultimately hurt all of us.”
Better, Ms Schwab said, to focus on the positive things we can do with trade. She singled out the Doha round as offering the “single best early opportunity to make a contribution that is climate friendly.”
The EU and the US have a proposal on the table at Doha to immediately eliminate NTBs for 43 goods and services that the World Bank has classified as environmentally friendly, and to make progress on a more broadly based environmental goods and services agreement. This could be expected to expand climate friendly trade, and not just the north selling to south, Ms Schwab underlined, pointing out that the US currently imports $18 billion of environmentally friendly goods and services each year, with four of the top ten (including the top two) ports of origin being in developing countries.
Ms Schwab also commented that trade ministers meeting on the topic of climate was long overdue and it was “astonishing that this was the first time that we gathered at the nexus of trade and climate.”
Miguel Jorge, the Brazilian Minister of Development, Industry and Trade, said he would oppose the EU-US proposal because the list of 43 environmental goods and services excluded ethanol.
“Why is ethanol considered an agricultural product, when biodiesel produced from vegetables is not?” he asked. Ms Schwab’s other remarks that regional and bilateral forums would be useful additional forums for opening up the floodgates for green trade also rubbed Mr Jorge the wrong way.
“If there are two things that are global, it is trade and climate change,” he said, citing the risk of a patchwork approach in which the sum of the parts are less than the whole required to meet the global climate challenge. Mr Jorge challenged his colleagues to work with him to find a way to value the ecosystem services and carbon sink function provided by Brazil’s threatened Amazon forest, without exonerating rich countries from making emission reductions themselves.
“Even if Brazil does everything it can to stop further deforestation,” Mr Jorge explained, “without aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emission, the Brazilian rainforest will be destroyed within 70 years because of climate change.”
Mr Jorge also suggested that lessons from expanding access to certain pharmaceutical drugs through TRIPS be applied to opening up green trade. WTO chief Pascal Lamy said that an important element of green trade was to change transport patterns.
“Air and truck produces more greenhouse gases than shipping,” he pointed out. Mr Lamy discouraged expanding aid for trade. “We have enough problems we need to address. We should focus on those,” he said.
The Swedish official recommended commencing a multilateral effort to explore using labels and certifications in collaboration with the WTO, UNFCCC and International Standards Organization, pertaining to environmental information about the life cycle impact of products in a way that expands trade rather than erecting impediments as have some other labeling and certification schemes.
The UN Conference on Trade and Development head, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi registered strong disdain for using punitive trade measures levied against countries that cannot afford to take aggressive low-carbon development paths. He also made an aggressive pitch for lifting barriers from biofuels as the single measure that would best advance the equally important battles against poverty and dangerous climate change.
The EU trade official, who may have been Peter Mendelson (it was hard to make him out from across the room), delivered a sobering dose of reality to the meeting: “we’d better hope that our colleagues can reach a comprehensive global climate agreement, or we will face problems stemming from competitiveness concerns that go beyond our ability to solve them.” Japan expressed support for the EU-US green trade proposal but requested that hybrid cars be added to the list of 43 approved goods and services.
Of all the speakers, China took up the least amount of floor time, emphasizing that there is no contradiction between trade and climate change, as long as everyone respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. China also cautioned that in addition to its low per capita emissions, historic responsibility and lower than average GDP per capita, the reallocation of energy intensive industry into developing countries also had to be taken into account.
India beat its usual drum role about having low per capita emissions and stressed the importance of dealing with intellectual property rights as part of the strategy for scaling up green technology transfer. Russia’s main contribution was to caution that [trade and climate change] “is an extremely sensitive space and we must be careful not to distort the market.”
The UK wrapped up the meeting noting that it was surprising that so little literature existed in the trade and climate change nexus, and suggested commissioning works similar in authority to the Stern Report to help pave the way for a green trading system up to the challenge of climate change.
A few minutes later the room started to fill with trade ministers. Camera crews followed and then were quickly ushered out leaving me as the only apparent member of the media in the room. Below is the summary.
First Trade Ministers Meeting on Climate Change
Hither to, we arrive at the issue. Climate change is not just a problem for environment ministers anymore, a cadre of trade ministers, including US Trade Representative Susan Schwab, were told today at the Bali Intercontinental Hotel on the fringes of UN Climate Change meetings. The meeting marked the first time ever that trade ministers met on the topic of climate change.
Reducing emissions in developed countries by 70-80 per cent by 2050 and substantially bending back the emissions growth curve for developing countries will have profound impacts for the global economy, because energy powers the economy, and meeting the climate change challenge will require no less than a multi-trillion dollar revamp of our energy infrastructure (US$20 trillion of for Asia alone over next several decades), David Runnalls, President of the International Institute for Sustainable Development told the group of ministers and officials, who had commissioned a report on trade and climate change from his Institute.
Mr. Runnalls characterized the Kyoto Protocol as “principally an investment agreement” that involves fundamentally changing our energy system, adding, “a failure to address climate change would constitute a failure of the multilateral trading system.”
So far, climate and trade agreements appear to have been on the same page. Article 35 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change clearly states that measures taken to combat climate change should not be disguised restrictions on international trade.
Likewise, the role of the WTO is to advance development objectives in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. But Runnalls cautioned that this honeymoon between trade and climate could soon end if we do not proactively address conflicts that will arise around competitiveness concerns that the prospect of substantial and uneven carbon pricing bring to the fore.
To start, Runnalls urged countries to focus on the promise of trade to combat climate change rather than the potential for conflict. Good places to start include looking at scrapping some of annual US $250 billion in fossil fuel subsidies that International Energy Agency has identified, and looking at how trade policy can best supply climate friendly goods and services, to meet the estimated additional $200-$210 billion dollars per year (compared to present ODA levels of just $100 billion/year) the UNFCCC says it will be necessary to invest over the next 23 years to achieve the climate change mitigation goals of the convention.
The World Bank also presented a preliminary report at the meeting, which showed that trade flows of climate friendly goods and services could expand by as much as 7.2 to 13.5 per cent if tariffs and non-tariff-barriers (NTBs) are removed. The same report found that so far that climate regulations have affected competitiveness much more than carbon taxes, in part because countries generally offset carbon taxes for trade-exposed industries, or the carbon tax rate has not been substantial enough to make that much of a difference.
The World Bank report did find a trend of carbon leakage, whereby carbon intensive industries relocate from high carbon-price jurisdictions to low-carbon price jurisdictions, but this may be due in part to the availability of raw materials and rampant growth in some developing countries like China and India. The World Bank official said the intellectual property rights would also have to be tackled in any agreement to expand technology transfer of climate friendly goods and services.
The most newly minted trade minister, Simon Crean, from Australia was the first minister to speak up, insisting that trade and environment policies must be mutually supportive, identifying the carbon market as one part of the solution, towards which Australia will establish a national emission trading system to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050.
Mr Crean also cautioned about messing with the trade goose that lays golden eggs for the economy. “These international agreements are based on a hard earned consensus,” he said.
In a not so veiled reference to France’s carbon import tax proposal and the requirement for importers of carbon intensive products to purchase emissions allowances under the Lieberman-Warner bill making its way through the US Senate, he went on: “When countries mention things like carbon taxes or border transfer taxes, as trade ministers, we should be quite concerned about such a systemic threat to the trade system that has served us so well.”
The best way to ensure this doesn’t happen, he said, is to “ensure that all major emitters are involved in emission reductions efforts.”
US Trade Representative Susan Schwab echoed Mr Crean’s concern, cautioning, “using climate as an excuse for covert protectionism is a slippery slope and will ultimately hurt all of us.”
Better, Ms Schwab said, to focus on the positive things we can do with trade. She singled out the Doha round as offering the “single best early opportunity to make a contribution that is climate friendly.”
The EU and the US have a proposal on the table at Doha to immediately eliminate NTBs for 43 goods and services that the World Bank has classified as environmentally friendly, and to make progress on a more broadly based environmental goods and services agreement. This could be expected to expand climate friendly trade, and not just the north selling to south, Ms Schwab underlined, pointing out that the US currently imports $18 billion of environmentally friendly goods and services each year, with four of the top ten (including the top two) ports of origin being in developing countries.
Ms Schwab also commented that trade ministers meeting on the topic of climate was long overdue and it was “astonishing that this was the first time that we gathered at the nexus of trade and climate.”
Miguel Jorge, the Brazilian Minister of Development, Industry and Trade, said he would oppose the EU-US proposal because the list of 43 environmental goods and services excluded ethanol.
“Why is ethanol considered an agricultural product, when biodiesel produced from vegetables is not?” he asked. Ms Schwab’s other remarks that regional and bilateral forums would be useful additional forums for opening up the floodgates for green trade also rubbed Mr Jorge the wrong way.
“If there are two things that are global, it is trade and climate change,” he said, citing the risk of a patchwork approach in which the sum of the parts are less than the whole required to meet the global climate challenge. Mr Jorge challenged his colleagues to work with him to find a way to value the ecosystem services and carbon sink function provided by Brazil’s threatened Amazon forest, without exonerating rich countries from making emission reductions themselves.
“Even if Brazil does everything it can to stop further deforestation,” Mr Jorge explained, “without aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emission, the Brazilian rainforest will be destroyed within 70 years because of climate change.”
Mr Jorge also suggested that lessons from expanding access to certain pharmaceutical drugs through TRIPS be applied to opening up green trade. WTO chief Pascal Lamy said that an important element of green trade was to change transport patterns.
“Air and truck produces more greenhouse gases than shipping,” he pointed out. Mr Lamy discouraged expanding aid for trade. “We have enough problems we need to address. We should focus on those,” he said.
The Swedish official recommended commencing a multilateral effort to explore using labels and certifications in collaboration with the WTO, UNFCCC and International Standards Organization, pertaining to environmental information about the life cycle impact of products in a way that expands trade rather than erecting impediments as have some other labeling and certification schemes.
The UN Conference on Trade and Development head, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi registered strong disdain for using punitive trade measures levied against countries that cannot afford to take aggressive low-carbon development paths. He also made an aggressive pitch for lifting barriers from biofuels as the single measure that would best advance the equally important battles against poverty and dangerous climate change.
The EU trade official, who may have been Peter Mendelson (it was hard to make him out from across the room), delivered a sobering dose of reality to the meeting: “we’d better hope that our colleagues can reach a comprehensive global climate agreement, or we will face problems stemming from competitiveness concerns that go beyond our ability to solve them.” Japan expressed support for the EU-US green trade proposal but requested that hybrid cars be added to the list of 43 approved goods and services.
Of all the speakers, China took up the least amount of floor time, emphasizing that there is no contradiction between trade and climate change, as long as everyone respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. China also cautioned that in addition to its low per capita emissions, historic responsibility and lower than average GDP per capita, the reallocation of energy intensive industry into developing countries also had to be taken into account.
India beat its usual drum role about having low per capita emissions and stressed the importance of dealing with intellectual property rights as part of the strategy for scaling up green technology transfer. Russia’s main contribution was to caution that [trade and climate change] “is an extremely sensitive space and we must be careful not to distort the market.”
The UK wrapped up the meeting noting that it was surprising that so little literature existed in the trade and climate change nexus, and suggested commissioning works similar in authority to the Stern Report to help pave the way for a green trading system up to the challenge of climate change.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Canada: strategy or sabotage?
Quote of the Day: “Canada is becoming a bargain discount version of Australia of old.”
Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief
Canada is saying no China, no climate deal: Unless all major emitters accept binding targets, Canada will not. Considering China is the largest emitter in the world (or soon to be, depending on whose stats you use) and we live in a globalized economy, this seems prudent from both an environmental and economic perspective. On the other hand, the environmental group pleas do not sound that sensible from an environmental or economic perspective. Their proposal is for rich countries to accept binding targets, while industrializing greenhouse gas powerhouses like China get what amounts to a free pass and scoop up the bulk of new business investment sensitive to carbon pricing along their greenhouse gas belching way.
Today, I finally figured why I was so conflicted, finding myself agreeing with the perennial Fossil of the Day, rather than the defenders of Mother Nature. Both parties are right in a way. Canada is right that if you don’t involve China, you don’t make much of a dent in emissions and would economically hurt countries that try to make a dent. The environmentalists are right that asking fast-growing countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty to accept the economic straightjacket of binding targets is like banning hockey in Canada—there is absolutely no chance. So by making this demand contingent on any deal, Canada is either engaging in some grandmaster chess negotiating or spectacular sabotage of a future climate agreement. For a government that prides itself on realism, I can’t understand why, if they are sincere about getting a valid climate deal that keeps temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius as Baird said is necessary a few days ago in the House of Commons, they don’t square their stated economic and environmental objectives with a mechanism that is not a non-starter with China. It’s not because one doesn’t exist.
China made that clear this week, saying that it would be willing to accept intensity targets if the developed world shows leadership. This titanic shift in China’s negotiating stance opens the door to make a breakthrough in Bali that satisfies Canada’s stated environmental and economic principles, by shifting the focus away from many national carbon caps to one global greenhouse gas target (for one atmosphere) joined at the hip with an intensity mechanism, such as a carbon tax. The door is wide-open for this, but the question is does Canada want to blaze a breakthrough in Bali, or will it continue to pop poison pills? Maybe Mother Nature was sent signal to shake things up with the mild earth quake that brought tremors through Bali this evening.
Newsflash: On December 13th Minister Baird and Stephane Dion are slated to be on the same panel together in Bali on the topic of Canadian action on climate change federally and provincially. One of the other speakers on the panel told me that she plans on holding her remarks to 1.5 minutes in order to allow maximum time for the two elected officials to hash it out.
Adventures in Bali-Land:
You can tell a lot about the five main groups of people at the Bali meetings by checking out their quarters.
The press tent provides abundant access of the lifeblood of journalists: coffee and wireless internet.
The international organizations have staid unassuming booths.
The wealthy carbon traders have fancy booths with booth bunnies in many cases, and put on great spreads of food which lead to massive migration (and free bike scarcity) of delegates during lunch time to the Grand Hyatt where their events take place.
The civil society groups have outdoor canopies with no air conditioning and no tasty free food, so they lack traffic.
Most of the national delegations have tents too. Almost none of them lock the doors to the tents. The Russians, hardened by the Al Capone capitalism of their homeland, do lock up the tent. Most of the tents are pretty makeshift like a student dorm room, but not the French tent. Their tent has two nice plants and a cappuccino machine and even though it is temporary, their tent has been made to have a classy feel, as only the French know how.
Who’s hot?
• Canadian Boreal: Canada’s boreal forest is a significant part of the global climate change solution, according to Chris Henschel of Canadian Parks and Wilderness who will be making a presentation this Saturday on the topic. The Canadian Boreal stores an estimated 186 billion tones of carbon in forest and peat ecosystems, equivalent to 27 years worth of the world’s carbon emission from burning fossil fuels. To help preserve this massive carbon sink, Henchel is encouraging Canada and the other countries that are spearheading a land use, land-use change and forestry sector review to do three key things:
1. Require mandatory reporting of all emissions from all land types (both forests and managed forests, peat lands, and agriculture). This is not the case right now. For instance Canada’s approximated 200 million ha of managed forests are excluded from present accounting under the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Rules and mechanisms for protecting natural carbon storehouses (forests, peat lands, permafrost soils, agrilands).
3. Introduce segmented liability so that countries are responsible for emissions over which they have control over, and are not responsible for phenomena over which they do not have control, such as pine beetle infestation or forest fires.
• World’s Top Climate Scientists from the IPCC: For issuing the Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists calling on governments to reduce emissions “by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.”
• Minister Baird: For agreeing to be on the same panel with Stephane Dion.
Who’s not?
• Canada: German Watch ranked Canada as the fourth worst country out of 56 on an assessment of climate mitigation policies. Perhaps aware of how bad things are going in Canada emissions-wise, Canada tried to take some of the gusto out of the compliance committee hardliners (mostly from African nations) that want countries that fail to meet their Kyoto obligations to be punished. Canada’s response: to propose that the countries who appoint representatives to look at this matter should be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. .
• IPCC Chairman, RK Pachauri: I bumped in IPCC Chair, RK Pachauri, and asked him what he thought of the UN Human Development Report’s lead author calling for a shift from a cap-and-trade to carbon tax. His curt reply: “I’d rather not talk about it,” before eschewing a free bike to jump in a taxi to motor off.
• Me: At the President’s Party tonight by the pool area with Balinese dancers, the beerless Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, caught me double fisting a couple of beers and, possibly fresh from going over equity principles in one of the negotiating groups, asked me “why do you have two beers?”
Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief
Canada is saying no China, no climate deal: Unless all major emitters accept binding targets, Canada will not. Considering China is the largest emitter in the world (or soon to be, depending on whose stats you use) and we live in a globalized economy, this seems prudent from both an environmental and economic perspective. On the other hand, the environmental group pleas do not sound that sensible from an environmental or economic perspective. Their proposal is for rich countries to accept binding targets, while industrializing greenhouse gas powerhouses like China get what amounts to a free pass and scoop up the bulk of new business investment sensitive to carbon pricing along their greenhouse gas belching way.
Today, I finally figured why I was so conflicted, finding myself agreeing with the perennial Fossil of the Day, rather than the defenders of Mother Nature. Both parties are right in a way. Canada is right that if you don’t involve China, you don’t make much of a dent in emissions and would economically hurt countries that try to make a dent. The environmentalists are right that asking fast-growing countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty to accept the economic straightjacket of binding targets is like banning hockey in Canada—there is absolutely no chance. So by making this demand contingent on any deal, Canada is either engaging in some grandmaster chess negotiating or spectacular sabotage of a future climate agreement. For a government that prides itself on realism, I can’t understand why, if they are sincere about getting a valid climate deal that keeps temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius as Baird said is necessary a few days ago in the House of Commons, they don’t square their stated economic and environmental objectives with a mechanism that is not a non-starter with China. It’s not because one doesn’t exist.
China made that clear this week, saying that it would be willing to accept intensity targets if the developed world shows leadership. This titanic shift in China’s negotiating stance opens the door to make a breakthrough in Bali that satisfies Canada’s stated environmental and economic principles, by shifting the focus away from many national carbon caps to one global greenhouse gas target (for one atmosphere) joined at the hip with an intensity mechanism, such as a carbon tax. The door is wide-open for this, but the question is does Canada want to blaze a breakthrough in Bali, or will it continue to pop poison pills? Maybe Mother Nature was sent signal to shake things up with the mild earth quake that brought tremors through Bali this evening.
Newsflash: On December 13th Minister Baird and Stephane Dion are slated to be on the same panel together in Bali on the topic of Canadian action on climate change federally and provincially. One of the other speakers on the panel told me that she plans on holding her remarks to 1.5 minutes in order to allow maximum time for the two elected officials to hash it out.
Adventures in Bali-Land:
You can tell a lot about the five main groups of people at the Bali meetings by checking out their quarters.
The press tent provides abundant access of the lifeblood of journalists: coffee and wireless internet.
The international organizations have staid unassuming booths.
The wealthy carbon traders have fancy booths with booth bunnies in many cases, and put on great spreads of food which lead to massive migration (and free bike scarcity) of delegates during lunch time to the Grand Hyatt where their events take place.
The civil society groups have outdoor canopies with no air conditioning and no tasty free food, so they lack traffic.
Most of the national delegations have tents too. Almost none of them lock the doors to the tents. The Russians, hardened by the Al Capone capitalism of their homeland, do lock up the tent. Most of the tents are pretty makeshift like a student dorm room, but not the French tent. Their tent has two nice plants and a cappuccino machine and even though it is temporary, their tent has been made to have a classy feel, as only the French know how.
Who’s hot?
• Canadian Boreal: Canada’s boreal forest is a significant part of the global climate change solution, according to Chris Henschel of Canadian Parks and Wilderness who will be making a presentation this Saturday on the topic. The Canadian Boreal stores an estimated 186 billion tones of carbon in forest and peat ecosystems, equivalent to 27 years worth of the world’s carbon emission from burning fossil fuels. To help preserve this massive carbon sink, Henchel is encouraging Canada and the other countries that are spearheading a land use, land-use change and forestry sector review to do three key things:
1. Require mandatory reporting of all emissions from all land types (both forests and managed forests, peat lands, and agriculture). This is not the case right now. For instance Canada’s approximated 200 million ha of managed forests are excluded from present accounting under the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Rules and mechanisms for protecting natural carbon storehouses (forests, peat lands, permafrost soils, agrilands).
3. Introduce segmented liability so that countries are responsible for emissions over which they have control over, and are not responsible for phenomena over which they do not have control, such as pine beetle infestation or forest fires.
• World’s Top Climate Scientists from the IPCC: For issuing the Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists calling on governments to reduce emissions “by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.”
• Minister Baird: For agreeing to be on the same panel with Stephane Dion.
Who’s not?
• Canada: German Watch ranked Canada as the fourth worst country out of 56 on an assessment of climate mitigation policies. Perhaps aware of how bad things are going in Canada emissions-wise, Canada tried to take some of the gusto out of the compliance committee hardliners (mostly from African nations) that want countries that fail to meet their Kyoto obligations to be punished. Canada’s response: to propose that the countries who appoint representatives to look at this matter should be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. .
• IPCC Chairman, RK Pachauri: I bumped in IPCC Chair, RK Pachauri, and asked him what he thought of the UN Human Development Report’s lead author calling for a shift from a cap-and-trade to carbon tax. His curt reply: “I’d rather not talk about it,” before eschewing a free bike to jump in a taxi to motor off.
• Me: At the President’s Party tonight by the pool area with Balinese dancers, the beerless Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, caught me double fisting a couple of beers and, possibly fresh from going over equity principles in one of the negotiating groups, asked me “why do you have two beers?”
Thursday, December 6, 2007
New Bali vocab.
Term of the Day: Self Financing Climate Compact (When levies on mitigation are used to finance adaptation, and climate regime begins to pay for itself. Translated to English: money raised from carbon levies could be directed toward drought-early warning systems, drought resistant crops, dykes, flood proof houses on stilts, or water wings)
Other Term of the Day: GNGO. I met a nice lady from the China Association for NGO Cooperation, which is a GNGO—a Governmental Non-Government Organization.
Who’s hot?
-Indonesian hospitality: The Balinese people, predominantly Hindu, are some of the most smiling warm people I have come across. Even their horns honk unobnoxiously. A couple of examples: I fell asleep at the Climate Change Conference 5-Star hotel in the lobby after filing a blog and drinking a beer, as a procrastination effort to avoid my two hour scooter ride to my sleeping quarters located a fairly well-priced but not-so-convenient 2 hour ride away, assuming my sense of navigation didn’t betray me. If this happened in Toronto’s downtown Hyatt, a rather burly security guard would wake you up with threatening questions and sweep you out onto the street like a happy wanderer. Not in Bali. In Bali, the small soft spoken man with a smile wakes you up gently to offer you a pillow. In the morning, it gets even better. A breakfast buffet fit for a king awaits. It was only free the first time as I discovered on my second try, if you come after it officially opens and there are people to get your room number or credit card in its absence. At 186,000 Rupiah (about $19), it isn’t cheap, so I stocked up on food including boxes of Muesli and loaf of bread to see me through the day. Noticing all the extra food I had, the nice Balinese waitress brought me a doggy bag to pack up.
-Germany: Towards, the end of the day, a German friend, Prof. Schellnhuber, who advises Chancellor Merkel wrote with some news that made me want to say Ich Bin Berliner: “My spirits are fine, since the German cabinet will agree today on a policy package that will reduce national GHG emissions by 40% by 2020 (in comparison to 1990)!”
-China: China proposed a special provision to reserve a place to allow the US to join in post-Kyoto commitment discussions, should a future administration be so inclined.
-The UN bikes: 13 of the 200 complimentary bikes to wheel around the resort compound were nicked during the first two days of meetings. People are voting with their pedals for green mobility. Come to think of it, this climate change crowd really likes their bikes. My bike was involuntarily liberated in Toronto while I watched Al Gore deliver his Inconvenient Truth slide show. This kind of free-wheeling would never happen at an oil and gas or auto show.
-New Zealand: New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister announced a moratorium on building new fossil fuel power generation plants for the next ten years.
Who’s not?
-Security guards in UN tents at nighttime: The A/C was on so high last night that the poor bugger was shivering and wearing what appeared to be a light winter jacket.
-Saudi Arabia: Won top prize for Fossil of the Day Awards. Their citation read: First prize goes to Saudi Arabia for a long and rambling intervention this morning complaining that the Kyoto protocol has an unfair focus on CO2 (and then called for prioritization of carbon capture and storage, which is concentrated on CO2). And secondly, for saying that we "should not attach an economic element to the noble cause of fighting climate change"--when for years, Saudi Arabia has been trying to undermine the fight against climate change specifically by campaigning by alleging adverse economic effects! Saudi Arabia is presently classified as a developing country.” Climate Action Network is urging that the Saudis, along with South Korea and Singapore, should join the group of countries subject to deep binding targets (During the Fossil of the Day Awards, May Jeong was called in to represent Japan—she did a good job despite her North Korean roots).
-India: India said it is happy to agree to a binding target of not exceeding the industrialized world’s per capita emissions. This sounds perfectly fair. If China and India can both get their per capita emissions up to where we are in Canada right now, global emissions will triple overnight, ensuring that our grandkids have the sole option of visiting Bali on a scuba diving expedition. Meanwhile, both South Africa and Brazil have hinted that they would be willing to except binding targets by 2018.
Tidbits from Today:
-According to UN Climate chief Yvo de Boer, governments have agreed to set up a global fund to fight deforestation.
-Belarus, Russia and Ukraine were making a strong case to be able to cash in on the credits from their hot air, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev’s fumbling away the Soviet Union, which led to an economic implosion and did wonders for reducing greenhouse gases.
-The Africans seem especially keen on accountability and ensuring that countries that fail to meet their Kyoto targets are punished. I didn’t hear Canada’s reaction to this, but I can imagine it was similar to Japan’s as they are on the same page for almost all other issues. Japan said “we think it would be counterproductive to have legally binding punishment for countries that fail to meet their commitments.”
-The $64 million dollar question: Two per cent of clean development mechanism (CDM) financial flows are supposed to be levied to go toward adaptation. In the most recent year, about $5 billion worth of clean development mechanism projects were done, but only $36 million worth of adaptation funds were generated. So what happened to the other $64 million? I think there is a technical answer and I am hoping to find this out tomorrow.
-CANbiguity. The Climate Action Network International has a concise and sufficiently vague proposal to be supported by anyone who wants real action on protecting the climate in a fair way. The plan calls for developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050, from a 1990 base year. The plan also calls for 50 per cent GHG emissions reductions by 2050 globally. The plan is silent on required reductions for developing countries, including the giant tiger and elephant in the room. But meeting the 50 per cent below 1990 by 2050 will mean that developing countries have to reduce their emissions by 20 per cent, which is a huge gap from their business-as-usual scenarios. Give the recent UN Human Development Report that kudos for having the kahunas to say the 20 per cent reduction number of developing countries out loud.
-China called for a large technology transfer fund to be funded by developed countries.
-Rumour is that the US is hoping to use the trade ministers’ meeting this weekend in Bali to get a technology transfer fund that is outside of the UN.
Other Term of the Day: GNGO. I met a nice lady from the China Association for NGO Cooperation, which is a GNGO—a Governmental Non-Government Organization.
Who’s hot?
-Indonesian hospitality: The Balinese people, predominantly Hindu, are some of the most smiling warm people I have come across. Even their horns honk unobnoxiously. A couple of examples: I fell asleep at the Climate Change Conference 5-Star hotel in the lobby after filing a blog and drinking a beer, as a procrastination effort to avoid my two hour scooter ride to my sleeping quarters located a fairly well-priced but not-so-convenient 2 hour ride away, assuming my sense of navigation didn’t betray me. If this happened in Toronto’s downtown Hyatt, a rather burly security guard would wake you up with threatening questions and sweep you out onto the street like a happy wanderer. Not in Bali. In Bali, the small soft spoken man with a smile wakes you up gently to offer you a pillow. In the morning, it gets even better. A breakfast buffet fit for a king awaits. It was only free the first time as I discovered on my second try, if you come after it officially opens and there are people to get your room number or credit card in its absence. At 186,000 Rupiah (about $19), it isn’t cheap, so I stocked up on food including boxes of Muesli and loaf of bread to see me through the day. Noticing all the extra food I had, the nice Balinese waitress brought me a doggy bag to pack up.
-Germany: Towards, the end of the day, a German friend, Prof. Schellnhuber, who advises Chancellor Merkel wrote with some news that made me want to say Ich Bin Berliner: “My spirits are fine, since the German cabinet will agree today on a policy package that will reduce national GHG emissions by 40% by 2020 (in comparison to 1990)!”
-China: China proposed a special provision to reserve a place to allow the US to join in post-Kyoto commitment discussions, should a future administration be so inclined.
-The UN bikes: 13 of the 200 complimentary bikes to wheel around the resort compound were nicked during the first two days of meetings. People are voting with their pedals for green mobility. Come to think of it, this climate change crowd really likes their bikes. My bike was involuntarily liberated in Toronto while I watched Al Gore deliver his Inconvenient Truth slide show. This kind of free-wheeling would never happen at an oil and gas or auto show.
-New Zealand: New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister announced a moratorium on building new fossil fuel power generation plants for the next ten years.
Who’s not?
-Security guards in UN tents at nighttime: The A/C was on so high last night that the poor bugger was shivering and wearing what appeared to be a light winter jacket.
-Saudi Arabia: Won top prize for Fossil of the Day Awards. Their citation read: First prize goes to Saudi Arabia for a long and rambling intervention this morning complaining that the Kyoto protocol has an unfair focus on CO2 (and then called for prioritization of carbon capture and storage, which is concentrated on CO2). And secondly, for saying that we "should not attach an economic element to the noble cause of fighting climate change"--when for years, Saudi Arabia has been trying to undermine the fight against climate change specifically by campaigning by alleging adverse economic effects! Saudi Arabia is presently classified as a developing country.” Climate Action Network is urging that the Saudis, along with South Korea and Singapore, should join the group of countries subject to deep binding targets (During the Fossil of the Day Awards, May Jeong was called in to represent Japan—she did a good job despite her North Korean roots).
-India: India said it is happy to agree to a binding target of not exceeding the industrialized world’s per capita emissions. This sounds perfectly fair. If China and India can both get their per capita emissions up to where we are in Canada right now, global emissions will triple overnight, ensuring that our grandkids have the sole option of visiting Bali on a scuba diving expedition. Meanwhile, both South Africa and Brazil have hinted that they would be willing to except binding targets by 2018.
Tidbits from Today:
-According to UN Climate chief Yvo de Boer, governments have agreed to set up a global fund to fight deforestation.
-Belarus, Russia and Ukraine were making a strong case to be able to cash in on the credits from their hot air, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev’s fumbling away the Soviet Union, which led to an economic implosion and did wonders for reducing greenhouse gases.
-The Africans seem especially keen on accountability and ensuring that countries that fail to meet their Kyoto targets are punished. I didn’t hear Canada’s reaction to this, but I can imagine it was similar to Japan’s as they are on the same page for almost all other issues. Japan said “we think it would be counterproductive to have legally binding punishment for countries that fail to meet their commitments.”
-The $64 million dollar question: Two per cent of clean development mechanism (CDM) financial flows are supposed to be levied to go toward adaptation. In the most recent year, about $5 billion worth of clean development mechanism projects were done, but only $36 million worth of adaptation funds were generated. So what happened to the other $64 million? I think there is a technical answer and I am hoping to find this out tomorrow.
-CANbiguity. The Climate Action Network International has a concise and sufficiently vague proposal to be supported by anyone who wants real action on protecting the climate in a fair way. The plan calls for developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2020 and at least 80 per cent by 2050, from a 1990 base year. The plan also calls for 50 per cent GHG emissions reductions by 2050 globally. The plan is silent on required reductions for developing countries, including the giant tiger and elephant in the room. But meeting the 50 per cent below 1990 by 2050 will mean that developing countries have to reduce their emissions by 20 per cent, which is a huge gap from their business-as-usual scenarios. Give the recent UN Human Development Report that kudos for having the kahunas to say the 20 per cent reduction number of developing countries out loud.
-China called for a large technology transfer fund to be funded by developed countries.
-Rumour is that the US is hoping to use the trade ministers’ meeting this weekend in Bali to get a technology transfer fund that is outside of the UN.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Romance, Bali-style.
Best Quote: “We are well past the first date. Rio was 15 years ago. We may not be married but we are at least at the prenuptial agreement.”
-Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists, commenting on Yvo de Boer’s suggestion that Bali is the first date on the road to a comprehensive climate compact.
Worst Quote: “We were humiliated and our ancestors were bullied.”
-China’s spontaneous outburst during morning plenary squabbles over whether technology transfer should be a separate agenda item or not. This discussion lasted for the better part of the day, as the icebergs slowly melt away. Later in the evening, the parties to the conference came around to China and the G-77’s view that technology transfer should be a separate agenda item.
Term of the Day: Conservation refugee (A person who is made homeless or prevented from sustaining their livelihood because a forest they depend upon (for firewood, building materials, ect.) is made into a conservation zone and put off limits to them.
Who’s hot?
-Canada: The day didn’t start out so well for Canada. The morning press conference by Climate Action Network singled out Canada as part of an evil band of countries trying to derail the Bali talks, by infuriating China and India with calls for them to agree to emissions caps. I asked Stephen Guilbeault of Equiterre what was so bad about requiring fast-industrializing countries like China and India to bend down their emissions curves, given that that China’s business as usual emissions growth alone would put it on track to be emitting twice the total greenhouse gas emissions as the next 26 nations combined in the next 25 years, thus ensuring that global temperatures exceed 2 degrees Celsius increase regardless of what the industrialized world does. Guilbeault’s answer was that Canada is not being sincere. On one hand, Minister Baird tells the House of Commons that a temperature increase of 2 degrees is unacceptable and will bring severe hardship, on the other Canada is abandoning its modest Kyoto obligations. “So,” Guilbeault asked, “are these guys serious or are they just wasting our time?”
In the afternoon, despite being shamed with a Fossil of the Day Award by the Climate Action Network on Monday (and Tuesday), Canada’s lead negotiator showed up to a Climate Action Network side event on what a post-2012 framework should look like. He stuck around for most of the two hours, but I felt a little bad when he asked what the civil society groups were expecting to happen in Bali, and nobody really answered his question. First, he gets a lump of coal for during the wrong thing, and when he asks what is the right thing, no answer is forthcoming.
Canada’s delegation also met with the Youth Delegation (which at 32 members is the largest youth contingent from any country). One of the members of the older Canadian delegation took exception to Canada Youth Delegation coordinator Aiden Abram’s comments in the Canadian Press that it was up the youth to press for a breakthrough in Bali because young people would be stuck dealing with the consequences while most of the negotiators would not even be around in 20 years. As a point of clarity, nobody in Canada’s delegation is over 60, with the oldest clocked in at 57 years of age.
-Forests: Almost everyone it seems, including Canada, is in favour of including forests as an integral part of post-2012 climate agreement. This is good news as deforestation is responsible for 20 per cent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transport sector. Two important things to nail down first are measuring how much carbon is stored in forests (and peatlands!) and how to safeguard that a preserved tree not cut down today will not be cut down tomorrow.
-Yvo de Boer: The UN climate chief took a breather between puffs on his smoke break to chat with Corporate Knight May Jeong for almost ten minutes.
-The US Ghost of Christmas Future: According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the US-climate solution train is about to arrive at the station, no later than early 2009, when the new President is inaugurated. As Churchill said, “the Americans can always be counted upon to do the right thing--after they’ve exhausted all other possibilities.” Meyer also drew inspiration for a sea change in US attitudes from Exxon Mobil, which he classified as an “indicator species” for being willing to come to the table with the UCS to discuss climate change regulations design. I was personally more convinced by the Sports Illustrated cover story on climate change, with the picture of the New York Yankee being flooded.
Who’s not?
-Lichtenstein: For being the only holdout industrialized country keeping company with the US in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
-Japan: Japan won an unprecedented three Fossil of the Day awards Tuesday for proposing to shelve the Kyoto Protocol for a new agreement, without making mention of absolute emissions reductions targets. In Japan’s defense, they are on record calling for 50 per cent global emissions reductions by 2050, albeit from a base year of 2005, which is much less difficult to do than a base year of 1990 (interestingly, a lot of the current Canadian government’s modeling has been based on using 2005 as a base year).
-Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists, commenting on Yvo de Boer’s suggestion that Bali is the first date on the road to a comprehensive climate compact.
Worst Quote: “We were humiliated and our ancestors were bullied.”
-China’s spontaneous outburst during morning plenary squabbles over whether technology transfer should be a separate agenda item or not. This discussion lasted for the better part of the day, as the icebergs slowly melt away. Later in the evening, the parties to the conference came around to China and the G-77’s view that technology transfer should be a separate agenda item.
Term of the Day: Conservation refugee (A person who is made homeless or prevented from sustaining their livelihood because a forest they depend upon (for firewood, building materials, ect.) is made into a conservation zone and put off limits to them.
Who’s hot?
-Canada: The day didn’t start out so well for Canada. The morning press conference by Climate Action Network singled out Canada as part of an evil band of countries trying to derail the Bali talks, by infuriating China and India with calls for them to agree to emissions caps. I asked Stephen Guilbeault of Equiterre what was so bad about requiring fast-industrializing countries like China and India to bend down their emissions curves, given that that China’s business as usual emissions growth alone would put it on track to be emitting twice the total greenhouse gas emissions as the next 26 nations combined in the next 25 years, thus ensuring that global temperatures exceed 2 degrees Celsius increase regardless of what the industrialized world does. Guilbeault’s answer was that Canada is not being sincere. On one hand, Minister Baird tells the House of Commons that a temperature increase of 2 degrees is unacceptable and will bring severe hardship, on the other Canada is abandoning its modest Kyoto obligations. “So,” Guilbeault asked, “are these guys serious or are they just wasting our time?”
In the afternoon, despite being shamed with a Fossil of the Day Award by the Climate Action Network on Monday (and Tuesday), Canada’s lead negotiator showed up to a Climate Action Network side event on what a post-2012 framework should look like. He stuck around for most of the two hours, but I felt a little bad when he asked what the civil society groups were expecting to happen in Bali, and nobody really answered his question. First, he gets a lump of coal for during the wrong thing, and when he asks what is the right thing, no answer is forthcoming.
Canada’s delegation also met with the Youth Delegation (which at 32 members is the largest youth contingent from any country). One of the members of the older Canadian delegation took exception to Canada Youth Delegation coordinator Aiden Abram’s comments in the Canadian Press that it was up the youth to press for a breakthrough in Bali because young people would be stuck dealing with the consequences while most of the negotiators would not even be around in 20 years. As a point of clarity, nobody in Canada’s delegation is over 60, with the oldest clocked in at 57 years of age.
-Forests: Almost everyone it seems, including Canada, is in favour of including forests as an integral part of post-2012 climate agreement. This is good news as deforestation is responsible for 20 per cent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transport sector. Two important things to nail down first are measuring how much carbon is stored in forests (and peatlands!) and how to safeguard that a preserved tree not cut down today will not be cut down tomorrow.
-Yvo de Boer: The UN climate chief took a breather between puffs on his smoke break to chat with Corporate Knight May Jeong for almost ten minutes.
-The US Ghost of Christmas Future: According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the US-climate solution train is about to arrive at the station, no later than early 2009, when the new President is inaugurated. As Churchill said, “the Americans can always be counted upon to do the right thing--after they’ve exhausted all other possibilities.” Meyer also drew inspiration for a sea change in US attitudes from Exxon Mobil, which he classified as an “indicator species” for being willing to come to the table with the UCS to discuss climate change regulations design. I was personally more convinced by the Sports Illustrated cover story on climate change, with the picture of the New York Yankee being flooded.
Who’s not?
-Lichtenstein: For being the only holdout industrialized country keeping company with the US in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
-Japan: Japan won an unprecedented three Fossil of the Day awards Tuesday for proposing to shelve the Kyoto Protocol for a new agreement, without making mention of absolute emissions reductions targets. In Japan’s defense, they are on record calling for 50 per cent global emissions reductions by 2050, albeit from a base year of 2005, which is much less difficult to do than a base year of 1990 (interestingly, a lot of the current Canadian government’s modeling has been based on using 2005 as a base year).
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A shirt for the Saudis?
Who’s Hot?
Australia: The definite highlight of the day occurred during the opening plenary when Australia announced it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The roomful of mostly jaded bureaucrats broke into a spontaneous outburst of intense applause unlike what I thought them capable. I think someone may have even hooted. This could bode well for the climate talks as it suggests that the bureaucrats have a heart.
Who’s Not?
The three Fossil Award winners of the day were in order:
1. Saudi Arabia: I felt it was slightly unfair for Saudi Arabia to get the number one Fossil Award for the first day as they were the only party to make a joke in their opening statement, commenting that they thought the UNFCCC policy of open neck shirts meant that they would be getting a nice new Indonesian batik shirt—but apparently only the UN climate chief Yvo de Boer (who was wearing his) got one. About five minutes after this Yvo came into the room and whispered something to the Saudi delegation. I asked them if Yvo was going to get them a shirt. The Saudi representative said “no, but he should.” Later in the afternoon, the Saudis were the only country to raise a red flag about giving a mandate to a contact group to seek out common solutions, citing that it was impossible for a consensus between developing and developed countries to be reached on the matter of commitments. Maybe Yvo should have given them a shirt after all.
2. US for being the only industrialized country not to ratify Kyoto. Enough said.
3. Canada insisted the all major emitters must be part of obligations in post-2012 agreement paying short shrift to the Orwellian gospel of “common but differentiated responsibility,” which didn’t sound so good, considering Canada has renounced its Kyoto obligations. It was a tough day for Canada, as China appeared to accuse Canada and Japan of trying to “sabotage” a future climate change agreement by talking about the need for large non-industrialized emitters (i.e. China and India) to agree to commitments as well.
China won the award for being the having the most audacity of the day. After calling Japan and Canada saboteurs for even suggesting that countries like China be part of the post-2012 commitments, China proceeded to call for the principle of common but differentiated responsibility to be respected (i.e. no responsibility for them) for developed countries to agree to 25-40 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020, while developing countries like China could utilize “policy measures,” and while we’re at it, China said developing countries would need money and lots of it for adaptation and mitigation. Boiled down the Chinese message was: Don’t bugger with us and show me the money.
The Japan-Canada Connection
In the opening plenary, Japan announced that it had submitted a complete 7-point proposal, including mitigation (read: obligations) that would apply to all parties, particularly large emitters. I spoke with the Japanese Ambassador for Global Environment Kyoji Komachi right before his speech. As I was entering his number into my blackberry, I bragged that it was Canadian technology. This prompted him to pull out his Sharp PDA that had real-time TV and a built-in translator. So much for Canadian technology. Right after Japan, Canada was up next, and although our technology may be lagging, our support for Japan’s proposal was not. Canada unreservedly supported Japan’s proposal, which has not yet been made public. Canada also made the point that even if all countries that presently have Kyoto commitments were to take their emission to zero, it would not be enough (with the growth in developing countries) to avoid increasing average global temperatures by less than 2 degrees Celsius, widely considered to be the threshold where climate change gets dangerous.
Australia: The definite highlight of the day occurred during the opening plenary when Australia announced it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The roomful of mostly jaded bureaucrats broke into a spontaneous outburst of intense applause unlike what I thought them capable. I think someone may have even hooted. This could bode well for the climate talks as it suggests that the bureaucrats have a heart.
Who’s Not?
The three Fossil Award winners of the day were in order:
1. Saudi Arabia: I felt it was slightly unfair for Saudi Arabia to get the number one Fossil Award for the first day as they were the only party to make a joke in their opening statement, commenting that they thought the UNFCCC policy of open neck shirts meant that they would be getting a nice new Indonesian batik shirt—but apparently only the UN climate chief Yvo de Boer (who was wearing his) got one. About five minutes after this Yvo came into the room and whispered something to the Saudi delegation. I asked them if Yvo was going to get them a shirt. The Saudi representative said “no, but he should.” Later in the afternoon, the Saudis were the only country to raise a red flag about giving a mandate to a contact group to seek out common solutions, citing that it was impossible for a consensus between developing and developed countries to be reached on the matter of commitments. Maybe Yvo should have given them a shirt after all.
2. US for being the only industrialized country not to ratify Kyoto. Enough said.
3. Canada insisted the all major emitters must be part of obligations in post-2012 agreement paying short shrift to the Orwellian gospel of “common but differentiated responsibility,” which didn’t sound so good, considering Canada has renounced its Kyoto obligations. It was a tough day for Canada, as China appeared to accuse Canada and Japan of trying to “sabotage” a future climate change agreement by talking about the need for large non-industrialized emitters (i.e. China and India) to agree to commitments as well.
China won the award for being the having the most audacity of the day. After calling Japan and Canada saboteurs for even suggesting that countries like China be part of the post-2012 commitments, China proceeded to call for the principle of common but differentiated responsibility to be respected (i.e. no responsibility for them) for developed countries to agree to 25-40 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020, while developing countries like China could utilize “policy measures,” and while we’re at it, China said developing countries would need money and lots of it for adaptation and mitigation. Boiled down the Chinese message was: Don’t bugger with us and show me the money.
The Japan-Canada Connection
In the opening plenary, Japan announced that it had submitted a complete 7-point proposal, including mitigation (read: obligations) that would apply to all parties, particularly large emitters. I spoke with the Japanese Ambassador for Global Environment Kyoji Komachi right before his speech. As I was entering his number into my blackberry, I bragged that it was Canadian technology. This prompted him to pull out his Sharp PDA that had real-time TV and a built-in translator. So much for Canadian technology. Right after Japan, Canada was up next, and although our technology may be lagging, our support for Japan’s proposal was not. Canada unreservedly supported Japan’s proposal, which has not yet been made public. Canada also made the point that even if all countries that presently have Kyoto commitments were to take their emission to zero, it would not be enough (with the growth in developing countries) to avoid increasing average global temperatures by less than 2 degrees Celsius, widely considered to be the threshold where climate change gets dangerous.
Welcome to the Island of Gods.
Best quotes this morning:
“I hope the Bali warm weather will help this conference bring a fruitful outcome."
-Bali Governor welcoming delegates to Island of Gods
"Bali is one of the most beautiful places on the planet, but it is in danger of becoming a lost paradise. The outcome of this conference will determine whether Bali and other Island countries become lost paradises."
-Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Chief
The formal plenary launch of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change talks kicked off this morning. I stumbled upon the Canada delegation when I came in the main hall. They were among the minority that were wearing shirt and ties, but as the Cameroon delegation didn’t have anybody sitting beside them, they had extra room to air out. David McGovern from the delegation told me that Canada would be sending officials instead of Ministers to the Trade and Finance ministers’ meetings taking place in Bali December 8-11. He said a forty-hour return flight was a long way to come for a day and half meeting. When I told him I was surprised that US Trade Representative Susan Schwab was attending, he said, “We were too.”
The incoming President of the Conference, Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar notified the delegates that Indonesia would be issuing a special commemorative stamp to mark the conference. He called on delegates to “operationalize the adaptation fund,” meaning that rich need to pump some cash into it. He also called for combating deforestation to form a central element of the future climate agreement. He noted that the major stumbling block to take action on climate change was the perception that it would create economic hardship. While the costs are substantial, he said, they are affordable, and the costs of doing nothing will be far more severe than we can afford.
Yvo de Boer followed up noting what an incredible year 2007 has been for the acceptance of climate change as a major threat:
* EU has adopted GHG reduction targets of 20-30 per cent by 2020
* China and other developing countries have adapted national climate change plans
* The US initiated meetings to reach agreement by the end of 2008 on how the UNFCCC can proceed post-2012
* The UN fourth assessment report galvanized attention at the urgency of the problem and won the Nobel Prize
* 80 heads of state gathered for high level meeting this September by the Un Secretary General called for a breakthrough in Bali.
Yvo also emphasized that nobody can hide from climate change, all will be affected, and the poorest of the poor will be affected the most.
He made what seemed to me to be a slightly contradictory entreaty to respect “common but differentiated responsibility,” while requiring obligation from all. Most of the developing world understands “common but differentiated responsibility” to mean that they don’t have to take on any of the heavy lifting for climate change.
Yvo also said that the challenge of combating climate change was daunting, and would require “squaring the circle of conflicting interests,” which he said could be done by attending to four corners of climate policy:
1. Action requires a new low-carbon energy future underpinning economic growth.
2. Bold action in the North can fuel clean growth in the South.
3. Fossil fuels are here to stay we figure out ways to use them more cleanly, or we will be cutting our noses to spite our face.
4. Adaptation is a reality for all countries but unlike Yvo’s home country of the Netherlands which can afford to pay the adaptation bill, many countries cannot and will require financial assistance.
In closing, Yvo explained the meetings emphasis on tools rather than outcomes as akin to marriage, which is the culmination of much courting not the topic of discussion on the first date. Most people laughed (the only time during the opening plenary) but I thought we were further along (as in at least second base) than the first date.
“I hope the Bali warm weather will help this conference bring a fruitful outcome."
-Bali Governor welcoming delegates to Island of Gods
"Bali is one of the most beautiful places on the planet, but it is in danger of becoming a lost paradise. The outcome of this conference will determine whether Bali and other Island countries become lost paradises."
-Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Chief
The formal plenary launch of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change talks kicked off this morning. I stumbled upon the Canada delegation when I came in the main hall. They were among the minority that were wearing shirt and ties, but as the Cameroon delegation didn’t have anybody sitting beside them, they had extra room to air out. David McGovern from the delegation told me that Canada would be sending officials instead of Ministers to the Trade and Finance ministers’ meetings taking place in Bali December 8-11. He said a forty-hour return flight was a long way to come for a day and half meeting. When I told him I was surprised that US Trade Representative Susan Schwab was attending, he said, “We were too.”
The incoming President of the Conference, Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar notified the delegates that Indonesia would be issuing a special commemorative stamp to mark the conference. He called on delegates to “operationalize the adaptation fund,” meaning that rich need to pump some cash into it. He also called for combating deforestation to form a central element of the future climate agreement. He noted that the major stumbling block to take action on climate change was the perception that it would create economic hardship. While the costs are substantial, he said, they are affordable, and the costs of doing nothing will be far more severe than we can afford.
Yvo de Boer followed up noting what an incredible year 2007 has been for the acceptance of climate change as a major threat:
* EU has adopted GHG reduction targets of 20-30 per cent by 2020
* China and other developing countries have adapted national climate change plans
* The US initiated meetings to reach agreement by the end of 2008 on how the UNFCCC can proceed post-2012
* The UN fourth assessment report galvanized attention at the urgency of the problem and won the Nobel Prize
* 80 heads of state gathered for high level meeting this September by the Un Secretary General called for a breakthrough in Bali.
Yvo also emphasized that nobody can hide from climate change, all will be affected, and the poorest of the poor will be affected the most.
He made what seemed to me to be a slightly contradictory entreaty to respect “common but differentiated responsibility,” while requiring obligation from all. Most of the developing world understands “common but differentiated responsibility” to mean that they don’t have to take on any of the heavy lifting for climate change.
Yvo also said that the challenge of combating climate change was daunting, and would require “squaring the circle of conflicting interests,” which he said could be done by attending to four corners of climate policy:
1. Action requires a new low-carbon energy future underpinning economic growth.
2. Bold action in the North can fuel clean growth in the South.
3. Fossil fuels are here to stay we figure out ways to use them more cleanly, or we will be cutting our noses to spite our face.
4. Adaptation is a reality for all countries but unlike Yvo’s home country of the Netherlands which can afford to pay the adaptation bill, many countries cannot and will require financial assistance.
In closing, Yvo explained the meetings emphasis on tools rather than outcomes as akin to marriage, which is the culmination of much courting not the topic of discussion on the first date. Most people laughed (the only time during the opening plenary) but I thought we were further along (as in at least second base) than the first date.
It's getting hot in here: Bali day 1.
Challenges of the Day: The goal for the international community should be to find ways to move away the International Energy Scenario where global emissions go up by 50 per cent by 2050 and toward the IPCC scenarios where emissions go down by 50 per cent by 2050.-Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Chief
“If we give nothing, we get nothing. We need to figure out what little can we give to maximize our return. Right now, we have no plan. The other side has lawyers, economists and a plan. We need one too.”
-Papua New Guinea
Who’s Hot:
* Indonesia (literally—it’s a humid 29 degrees Celsius here)
* Yvo de Boer and low A/C Policy: The UNFCCC climate chief was sporting a stylish batik Indonesian shirt which his assistant said he brought with him; he hasn’t had a chance to go shopping. The UNFCC has amended the dress code to exclude formal wear and ties to “allow participants to conduct discussions in a more comfortable environment, as well as limit the use of air conditioning and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
* HRH Prince Charles: Made the following call to action, “Let us all join them by stiffening the sinews and summoning up the blood to overcome this unprecedented [global warming] challenge.”
* Myanmar: For challenging G-77 + China to open up and be more transparent with the press.
* Papua New Guinea: For challenging G-77 + China to come up with a plan and be willing to make sacrifices to get benefits in the form of adaptation funds and for preserving forests.
* Australia’s PM Kevin Rudd, who will attend meeting and for being the first head of state to defeat a sitting head of government by taking leadership role on fighting global warming. His new cabinet includes a Minister of Climate Change and Water.
* UNDP Human Development lead author Report Kevin Watkins: For having the courage to admit that the current cap-and-trade approach is not producing results and that a global carbon tax should be considered, “Long-term investment needs predictability of price, and a tax is the way to do that. Cap-and-trade is not particularly working. We need to develop the strategy into a carbon tax.”
Who’s Not:
* Global economy: For scuttling the cold war global cooling dividend. After the economic implosion the former Soviet Union in the early nineties, global emissions in 2005 finally climbed back to a level greater they were in 1990.
* USA: According to Yvo De Boer, the US will not likely accept binding targets even under a new President, because the Senate is opposed unless China is involved as well.
Bali, the Indonesian island of the Gods, kicked off global climate change talks today meant to draw out a roadmap and policy toolkit for a global warming agreement in time for a smooth transition when the first Kyoto period expires at the end of 2012. Over 12,000 of the globe’s leading climate power-brokers (including some people with some real sway like the Trade and Finance officials for the first time ever) from 187 countries are gathering in beautiful Bali, including a cohort of 1500 accredited journalists to keep tabs, or at least run them up on the Bali cocktails, as we struggle to meet filing deadlines accentuated by a 13-hour time difference from EST.
Two things struck me about Bali right away. First, with sweltering temperatures of 29-plus degrees Celsius it is much more amiable climate to focus the mind on doing battle against global warming. At least compared to Montreal. When Canada--with Stephane Dion presiding over the talks as meeting President--hosted the UN’s global climate change meeting in December, 2005, I remember standing outside the Palais des congrès at a rally where Elizabeth May (Sierra Club Executive Director at the Time) was challenging world leaders to demonstrate the political will required to avoid dangerous global warming. People were waving placards all around that had a url at the bottom that read itsgettinghotinhere.org, and it was so cold I could not even feel my toes.
The other thing I learnt is that Bali is pretty big, so if you are planning on covering the climate change conference at the Nusa Dua resort’s Weston Hotel, and you got a great deal on a villa in the Uban district of Bali, you better be prepared for a 4-hour round-trip commute daily on your scooter, which is the preferred mode of transport among the Balinese, who despite the traffic density are surprisingly courteous drivers who could teach a thing or two to horn-happy New Yorkers.
Two official things of note happened on the first day of the two-week long climate talks: the closed door first meeting of G-77 plus China group in the Sunflower room, which is actually a big white tent, and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) chief Yvo de Boer’s press briefings to outline the goals of the conference.
I decided to implausibly feign interpretation of “closed door” to mean that the door would be closed to ensure that the air conditioners did not have to work overtime, in the spirit of energy efficiency.
Despite my white shirt and skin colour, I attempted to conspicuously blend in with the Bengali delegation. I realized that I must be sitting next to someone of importance as a person kept fetching water for him. He later introduced himself as the acting head of mission for Bangladesh. I told that my father was a city councilor for an area in Toronto, in which Bengalis comprised the largest ethnic group, and we instantaneously struck up a rapport. He told me that he supports a global carbon levy, with a portion being directed to developing countries to finance the preservation of forests and adapt to climate change, with the WTO playing a role.
The delegates seemed torn on whether to support “future commitments” or “global action” for post-2012, after the first phase of Kyoto expires. South Africa said, “we are facing a global challenge and global approaches are needed.”
Algeria said we can agree to global action, as long as we’re clear that global action doesn’t mean commitment.
India, which along with China, were the two countries that were in the room that really matter from an emissions point of view, said “we have to be extremely careful about the unintended consequences of agreeing to global action or commitments. 50 per cent by 2050? What does that mean?”
Papua New Guinea made one of the shortest and most pointed speeches, calling for a reality check: “If we give nothing, we get nothing. We need to figure out what little can we give to maximize our return. Right now, we have no plan. The other side has lawyers, economists and a plan. We need one too.”
Myanmar, that not-so-likely bastion of press freedom and transparency, stood up to suggest that the G-77 needs to be more transparent with the media and that the G-77 spokespeople should do media briefings so that the G-77 do not get such a poor shake in the news as has been the case on climate change.
There was a general consensus in the room for the rich countries need to pony up some serious funds for adaptation rather than the symbolic amount (US $36 million) presently flowing.
Near the end of the meeting, someone whispered in the Chair’s ear. I swore he was looking at me when he said, “I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this is a closed-door meeting for G77 plus China. So if you are not a representative from a member country, I would ask that you please vacate the premises.” In case the intruders didn’t hear, the Chair, added, “I would also like to ask all of the delegates to assist in identifying any non-representatives in the room in finding their way to a more convenient location. I took this as my cue and waved bye to my new Bengali friend before discreetly exiting out the back of the tent.
The other main meeting was Yvo de Boer’s press briefings. The main thrust of this meeting according to Yvo, who was clad in a climate-friendly (comfortable open necked shirts require less A/C than with a suit and tie) Indonesian Batik shirt, is to decide on a toolbox for how we can take on global warming. This toolbox, in Yvo’s view, will almost certainly include a carbon market (presently carbon trading is at US $30 billion/year), but could also include carbon taxes, sectoral targets, and product standards (favoured by the US, but not necessarily to the exclusion of other tools).
The Reuters correspondent asked if there wouldn’t be a bland result from focusing on the toolbox as opposed to firm GHG targets. Yvo used the metaphor of a marathon, saying that the Reuters reporter would not want to predict his marathon time (which Yvo guessed would be in around six hours—a bit unoptimistic as the Reuters guy looked pretty fit) until he knew if he would be allowed to wear shoes and what kind of surface he would be running on (sand vs. asphalt). The main reason, according to Yvo, for why we need a toolbox before we agree on targets (or maybe just one global target) is that countries’ ambition to adopt targets is a direct function of what tools they have at their disposal to meet those targets. Yvo cited his home country of the Netherlands as being able to take on targets that were twice as stringent as they otherwise would have because they had the option of purchasing international credits to meet halve of their obligation. The idea here is that if tools allow countries to get a bargain price on carbon credits, then countries will be apt to agree to stricter reductions. Sometimes though, I think, you get what you pay for and bargain hunting may fall short of scaling global efforts up to the annual trillion dollar scale the IPCC says is necessary to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate.
Yvo also said that it will be possible for the group of industrialized countries (which I assume included Canada) to meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. I wonder if he and Stephen Harper--who is being sued by Friends of the Earth Canada and ecojustice for explicitly saying Canada will not meet nor is it realistic for Canada to meet its Kyoto targets--have talked recently.
Yvo also singled out adaptation as a top priority of the meeting. Presently, there is a two per cent levy on all Clean-Development Mechanism (CDM) projects that is set aside for helping countries adapt to climate change. To date, $36 million has been dispensed, but Yvo said that the current pipeline of CDM projects could result in $1.6 billion for adaptation funds, without specifying the time period. Yvo did say that this amount of money would still pale in comparison to the funds needed to help countries adapt, offering that a significant chunk of funds would also need to be leveraged from the private sector. Yvo predicted that adaptation funding, if done near a scale which is necessary, would dwarf overseas development assistance. Yvo identified another big focus going forward as providing funds for preserving forests, as deforestation contributes 20 per cent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. To do this, he outlined the need to get trial projects going that could delineate exactly how much carbon trees save, and how to ensure the safeguards for preserved trees so they are not cut down at a future date.
Emil Salim, the head of the host Indonesian delegation, summed up the goal of the Bali climate talks with his own metaphor: "We hope this meeting will be like an engagement, where everyone agrees to get together, next year's conference in Poland will be the marriage and in Copenhagen the child will be born."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
