1 / 20

Can a Copenhagen Protocol be Effective and Fair?

Can a Copenhagen Protocol be Effective and Fair?. Prof. Svitlana Kravchenko JELL Symposium September 11, 2009. Where are we now?. “Business as usual” is unacceptable: temperatures increase by 5 o C (9 o F) by 2100 IV PCC Report set 450 ppm as target

buckminster-haney
Télécharger la présentation

Can a Copenhagen Protocol be Effective and Fair?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Can a Copenhagen Protocol be Effective and Fair? Prof. Svitlana Kravchenko JELL Symposium September 11, 2009

  2. Where are we now? • “Business as usual” is unacceptable: temperatures increase by 5o C (9oF) by 2100 • IV PCC Report set 450 ppm as target • Leading scientists now say 350 ppm is the limit • We have already passed 350 ppm (385) • Only international consensus can lead to joint, effective action

  3. Bali Action Plan • Framework for negotiation – 2007 • U.S. rejected it, then accepted • Annex I parties are to agree on GHG cuts • U.S. refused to commit to any negotiations under Kyoto Protocol unless other major economies did • China and India would not commit unless developed counties did (40% by 2020) • But possible new bilateral agreement between U.S. and China this November

  4. Two-track approach • 1st: New treaty and second commitment under the Kyoto Protocol • AWG-KP: Annex I parties’ emission reductions beyond the 1st commitment period ending in 2012 including • LULUCF and the flexibility mechanisms • 2nd: Consultations on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG LTC) • Most recent meeting in Bonn, 10-14 August 2009 • Next meeting in Bangkok October 2009

  5. Road to Copenhagen • The 199-page Negotiating Text covers the key elements of the Bali Action Plan • a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, • mitigation, • adaptation and finance, • technology transfer and capacity building

  6. A long-term global goal for emission reductions • Based on science • Deep cuts in global emissions required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention •  Stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere below 450 {350} ppm • Temperature increase limited to below 2.0 {1.5} o C (4o F)

  7. For implementing this goal: • Parties should reduce global GHG emissions by at least 50 {71-85} % from 1990 levels by 2050. But how? • Developed countries: reduce by 20-40% from 1990 levels by 2020 ; 75-95% by 2050 • Developing countries: “deviate from baselines” (BAU?) by 15-30% by 2020 if supported by developed countries [and 25% from 2000 levels by 2050]

  8. Which scenario is “fair”? • All countries reduce current emissions dramatically • Would freeze economic development and increase disparity in the world

  9. Which scenario is “fair”? • Reduce according to historical emissions (for last 150 years)? • Actions by uninformed ancestors would lead to heaviest duties for the present generation

  10. Which scenario is “fair”? • All countries reduce to equal per capita emission levels? • Theoretically fair but politically unrealistic

  11. How should North and South share the atmosphere?

  12. Fairness of commitments • Commitments only for developed countries? • Developed are responsible for 72% of historical CO2 emissions • they have capabilities; • per capita emissions are much higher • Should developing countries have commitments? • In 2020 GHG emissions of developing countries will exceed emissions of developed countries

  13. Negotiation text • Does the pace of commitments respond to: • intergenerational equity or fairness to future generations? • Should we let future generations solve the problem we created? • Is it fair? Do we have legal and ethical obligations?

  14. U.N. Human Rights Council • On 25 March 2009, adopted Resolution “Human rights and climate change” recognizing that: • “climate change-related impacts have implications, for the enjoyment of humanrights… (right to life, the right to adequate food, the right tohealth, the right to adequate housing, the right to self-determination right to safe drinking water”)

  15. UN HRC Resolution • And OHCHR study and a summary of the Council’s discussions will be made available to COP-15 for its consideration • But will that have any impact on negotiations?

  16. Are human rights issues addressed in the negotiation? • Almost nothing in negotiating text • Under mitigation: “Indigenous peoplesand local communities shall be involved in implementation of actions and their rights respected” • To remove barriers to development and transfer of technology arising from the intellectual property rights

  17. International human rights standards serve as a guide for measures to tackle climate change, underscoring the fundamental moral and legal obligations to protect and promote full enjoyment of the rights

  18. Conclusions • Climate change is not only about corals reefs or polar bears, it is about human rights and people’s survival • Fairness and equity are human rights issues • They have to be reflected in Negotiation Text • Commitments should be enforceable through human rights mechanisms and courts

  19. Can we travel the road • to prepare a good Negotiation Text? • to reach a global consensus? • to sign a fair and effective treaty in December 2009 in Copenhagen?

  20. Not much time left Copenhagen 2009 Copenhagen 2050?

More Related