WhathappenedinCopenhagenandwheretonext?

Presenta4ontoStellenboschSDstudentsandRSEForum

21January2010,SustainabilityIns4tute,Lynedoch

HaraldWinkler

EnergyResearchCentre

UniversityofCapeTown

? WhathappenedinCopenhagen?

CopenhagenAccord–whatwasagreedWHATWASAGREED•  2°Cgoal(butpledgesadduptomorethan3°C;doesnotstatepre‐industrial

levels•  BringingtheUSin:economy‐widebindingemissionreduc4ontargets,no4fy

by31January2010–howtobringin:scheduleof‘targets’•  Mi4ga4onac4onsbythemoreadvanceddevelopingcountries,alsoby31st

January2010–bringinscheduleofac4onsandmechanismtoregister•  Measurereportandverify‐resolvingakeydisputeoverreviewvs

transparency•  Finance:transparentlyaccountedfinance$10bnperyearupto2012,i.e.

approaching$30bnimmediatelyupto2012and$100billionperyearby2020–  Condi4onali4es–  ButallofGEFfrom1994to2009was$18bn

•  Technologydevelopmentandtransfermechanism,butcannotopera4onalisewithoutCOPdecision

•  Reviewby2015against1.5ºC–ifwhatispoli4callyagreedisnotenough,needtostrengthenlater

•  Dealamongkeyprotagonistsonmi4ga4on,withrepresenta4onfromregionsandinterests,minusone

CopenhagenAccord–whatwasnotagreedWHATWASNOTAGREED• Nonewtreaty,ormandatetoagreeone,orcon4nua4onofonewehave(had?)–Kyoto• Disagreementonacomprehensiveinterna4onaladapta4onprogrammeasapriorityorwhetheritshouldbeanadapta4onframework–ands4ll4edtoresponsemeasures• Lowlevelofambi4onofdevelopedcountriestargets‐14‐19%below1990levelby2020

– Andloopholesremainwideopen• Pledgesbydevelopingcountries,arerela4vetobusiness‐as‐usual(BAU)–beger,butalsonotenoughyet–andbaselinesuncertain• ForDCstodomore,orthefinancewillhavetobecomereal,uncondi4onalandinterna4onallyverified• Developingcountriesmoreambi4ousthendevelopedcountries–lessunambi4ous• Addedup,reallymorethan3°C• Droppedlongtermtargettocutemissions(thelanguageon50%reduc4onsby2050from1990levels

– Becausenoagreementonequitablysharingcarbonspace• Noagreementwheremoneywillcomefrom• Noconsensusamong193countries

Formalnego4a4ngtext •  CA‘noted’inveryshortdecision

–  Cannotopera4onaliseFundorTechnologyMechanism•  Officialnego4a4ngtextforwarded

–  L.7/Rev.1and9addenda–  Begerstructurefordevelopingcountries–  E.g.mi4ga4on:keptaclearfire‐wallbetweencommitmentsbydevelopedcountries,ac4onsbydevelopingcountries

–  Buthadnoagreementonfinancenumbers–  Process:agreedbyall,moreprotec4onforsmallercountries

•  Alsoforwardednego4a4ngtextforKP–  S4llalive,butin‘intensivecare’

•  ToJunenego4atorsmee4ngsandCOP/CMPinMexico,December2010

? Assessment:was

Copenhagenafailure,a

founda4onaleventoragreenwash?

Copenhagenreadinverydifferentwaysbydifferentpeople

NottheUSresponse

Brokenhagen,TokenhagenorHopenhagen?•  Copenhagenwasmanythings

–  butitwasNOTthebreakthroughtheweneeded–  DrSeuss:delegatesandleaders“blewit”–  Brokenhagen–failure–  Gapbetweenartofpossibleandrequirementsofscience;notFAB;dysfunc4onalprocess

•  Someobserversposi4veonCphAccord–  US:Newprocess,firststep–  Poli4caldealunlockedsomedifficultissues–  ALBA:victorythatCAwasnotimposed–  Hopenhagen:laidfounda4onforfuturework

•  Greenwash–Tokenhagen–  nolegalytreaty,thereforeplayuppoli4caldeal–  Yes,but:ignorestheques4onofwhichismoreeffec4ve

? Deeperques4ons:

whathappenedand

why?

Shi8sinoveralldynamics:objec?veandsubjec?vefactors

•  Contextofobjec4veexternalfactors–  Recession–implica4onsforfinance–  increasingscarcity–food,water–  loomingpeakoil–  overconsump4on

•  Subjec4vefactors–  Greatexpecta4ons–butthenlowered–  USnotreadytonego4ate–  EUdecisiontoabandonKyoto–  IneptchairingbyDanishPM

•  exclusionoftheALBA•  Notpureobstruc4onism‐neededtodemonstratethatexclusionwon’t

work–  LackofresponsibilityinengagementbysomeindividualsintheG77

•  Clearlydis4nguishthisfromthelegi4mateconcernsoverprocess,especiallybysmallerdevelopingcountries

Processdominatessubstance•  Lackofpoli4calwilltodothedealtrumpedurgencyofac4onrequiredbyscienceProceduralequityiscri4cal

•  Butprocesscanbeusedtoblock•  Problems:

–  Processatthreelevels:official–Ministerial–summit

•  Par4esweretoofarapartandcouldnotproduceatextcapableofpoli4calsign‐off

•  Poli4caldealwasdisconnectedfromofficialprocess•  Climatenego4a4onshighlycomplex:toopoli4calforthetechnicians,tootechnicalforthepoli4cians

Theworldischanging

•  Geopoli4calshiqs:Rela4onsbetweenpowersnotwhattheywerein1992

•  Chinaastheworldpowerinwai4ng;hasfinancialresources,andabletonego4atefromstrength;deepfeelingofresponsibility;notyetusetonewrole(inthepast,muchmorereserved)

•  USseekingtoassertitsroleashegemon(whileitlasts)andseekstore‐writetherules;USnotfullyengagedinnego4a4ons,inabsenceoflegisla4on

•  EUnotabletoleadasinthepast•  StronginsistenceonCBDRbydevelopingcountries,despite

changingreali4esandbecauseconcernsofpoorandweaknotproperlyrepresented

•  Processhasnotyetcaughtupwithnewdynamics•  USopenlycri4cisingtheUNFCCC,EUabandoningKyoto

! Sohowdowemoveforward–bigpicture

FutureofUNFCCC?•  UNFCCCdidnotdeliver

–  lackofwillingnesstouseeveryopportunity–  BanKi‐moon’sface‐savingstatement:“Thisaccordcannotbe

everythingthateveryonehopedfor,butitisanessen4albeginning,”(UNFCCC2009)

•  WilltheUNFCCCbecomeapermanentnego4a4ngforum,–  alaWTO?(andas‘successful’);–  Oratalk‐shop,alaCSD?–  OralldoneinG20

•  Trendtoworkinsmallerfora(N‐20disarmament;C‐29climate;G20financeandall,aslongasyoudon’ttouchtheP‐5globalsecurity)

•  Willclimateac4onbedrivenbyna4onalpoli4cs,“inconformitywithdomes4claw”(USline)

•  Challengeistobringpoli4caldealreflectedinCphAccordbackintotheofficialUNFCCCtext

Futureofgroupings•  Playedoldgames–fightsbetweenextremes

–  OPECfailureissuccess–  AOSIShardline:1.5ºCand350ppmv;legaltreaty

•  Moreasser4veandnewgroupings–  AfricapushedhardforKyoto–  LDCsweremorevocal–  BASICsince2008,butmoreprominent,espondealonMRVwithUS–  MembersofALBA:

•  Leq‐leaningLa4nAmericans(withsomeOPEC)•  ‘rightsofMotherEarth’,climatejus4ce•  procedurallycorrect

•  SomecommentatorspredictendofG77,shiqtonewalliances–  “theG‐77maybespentasaunifiedforce”(Doniger2009)–  “groupingssuchastheG77/Chinawhicharenowdysfunc4onaland

anachronis4c”(Mehra2009)•  NewalliancesbetweensomeDCsandEU?

–  BUTsmallcountrisewillcon4nuetoseekprotec4oninunity(esponadapta4on)

–  G77willneedtofindwaysofbecomingmoreeffec4ve•  Ul4mately,poorcountriesandcommuni4esmostatriskfromtheimpacts

ofclimatechange

Wherewillclimateac4onbedone?

Scenariosofdifferentfora:

•  EndofUNFCCC•  ClingtoUNFCCCatallcosts•  Smallergroups:ShiqtoG20/MEF

•  Fragmentedmul4‐lateralism:AandMindifferentfora

•  Fragmenta4on:Noglobalprocess,domes4claw

•  S4ckwithUNFCCC•  Permanentnego4a4on/talkshop(WTO/CSD)•  Notbygovermentsatall:People’sSummit

WhatiftherewereNOglobalagreement?

– Doesthemovementforglobaljus4cehavewithinitthebasisforglobaldemocracy?

– Canwecountonbusiness?–  Ifna4on‐statesfailtoagree,areotherformsofac4oneffec4ve?

– Howcouldwedesignamul4‐lateralismthatismoreeffec4veandmature(inthewayinwhichwenego4ate,e.g.showingrestraintandseriousnessaboutsubstance)?Howcanwedothatwhileremaininginclusive?

? SinceCopenhagen

AIsubmissionsby31January2010

•  US: “emissions reduction target” of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 –  As little as 2% below 1990 levels –  conditional on others notifying –  “in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate

legislation” – will Obama spend political capital on climate •  Canada

–  "17%, to be aligned with the final economy-wide emissions target of the United States in enacted legislation."

•  Annex I in aggregate 14-19% below 1990 levels by 2020, well below range of 25-40%

Developing countries: less unambitious

•  China: reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 –  In climate plan, aligned with 5-yr plan

•  India: reduce emissions intensit of GDP by 20 to 25% by 2020

•  Brazil 36% plus NAMAs, mainly avoided deforestation in Amazon

•  SA numbers as announced by the Presidency before Copenhagen, now internationalised

•  Several others

Which is more likely to happen

•  – the US target or China’s actions on intensity? My bets are on China – what is planned will get done. If the US passes its law, that will also be given effect – but that’s still a big if.

SA’sNAMA–31Jan2010•  “ThecommitmentofSouthAfricatoplayitsparttoaddressclimatechange

hasalreadybeenreflectedinPresidentZuma’sannouncementmadeonthe6thofDecember2009.SouthAfricahasconductedaninterna4onallyreviewedstudyofitsmi4ga4onpoten4alinthecontextoflong‐termmi4ga4onscenarios,whichhasinformedthena4onallyappropriatemi4ga4onac4onthatmaybetaken.InaccordancewiththeprovisionsofAr4cle12paragraph1(b)aswellasAr4cle12paragraph4andpursuanttotheprovisionsofAr4cle4paragraph1oftheConven4on,SouthAfricareiteratesthatitwilltakena4onallyappropriatemi4ga4onac4ontoenablea34%devia4onbelowthe‘BusinessAsUsual’emissionsgrowthtrajectoryby2020anda42%devia4onbelowthe‘BusinessAsUsual’emissionsgrowthtrajectoryby2025.InaccordancewithAr4cle4.7oftheConven4on,theextenttowhichthisac4onwillbeimplementeddependsontheprovisionoffinancialresources,thetransferoftechnologyandcapacitybuildingsupportbydevelopedcountries.Therefore,theaboveac4onrequiresthefinalisa4onofanambi4ous,fair,effec4veandbindingmul4lateralagreementundertheUNFCCCandits’KyotoProtocolatCOP16andCMP6inMexicotoenablethedeliveryofthissupport.Withfinancial,technologyandcapacitybuildingsupportfromtheinterna4onalcommunity,thislevelofeffortwillenableSouthAfrica’sgreenhousegasemissionstopeakbetween2020and2025,plateauforapproximatelyadecadeanddeclineinabsolutetermsthereaqer.”hAp://unfccc.int/files/mee?ngs/applica?on/pdf/southafricacphaccord_app2.pdf

SA numbers based on LTMS, adjusted for electricity

•  Long-term mitigation scenarios (LTMS): peak, plateau and decline agreed by Cabinet mid-2008

•  Now ‘internationalised’ by Zuma Presidency •  LTMS numbers formed basis of calculating

‘deviation below BAU’ – Based on rigorous modeling combined with strategic

stakeholder inputs – Adjusted for near-term electricity plans

•  Even with adjustments, possible to slow the growth of emissions significantly – if take aggressive action elsewhere

Association

•  Notallcountriesmen4onAccord•  Developingcountriesnotusedformatoftable

•  Storminatea‐cup– Substan4velyassocia4ngthroughnumbers– Others:nonumbers,butstatementofassocia4on–  Albania,Bahamas,Bangladesh,Belarus,BosniaandHerzegovina,Cambodia,Central

AfricanRepublic,Chile,Colombia,Democra4cRepublicofCongo,Fiji,Ghana,Iceland,Lesotho,Malawi,Mali,Montenegro,Namibia,Nepal,Palau,Panama,PapuaNewGuinea,Peru,Philippines,Rwanda,Samoa,Serbia,TrinidadandTobago

Focusonna4onalac4on–andlocal

TheEnd

Furtherinforma?on

•  Copenhagen decisions, Accord and submissions h4p://unfccc.int  

•  Na;onal policy processh4p://www.ccsummit2009.co.za/  

•  Taking ac;on on climate change (book) h4p://;ny.cc/m5Awt