270 likes | 457 Vues
Building on the Building Blocks: Possibilities and Pitfalls on the Road to Durban. Andrew Light Director, International Climate Policy, Center for American Progress & Associate Director, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, George Mason University. Building on the Building Blocks
E N D
Building on the Building Blocks:Possibilities and Pitfalls on the Road to Durban Andrew Light Director, International Climate Policy, Center for American Progress & Associate Director, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, George Mason University
Building on the Building Blocks • Climate Diplomacy • to Cancun • 2. Paths to Governance? • Kyoto vs. Copenhagen • 3. An Agenda for Durban
Climate Diplomacy • to Cancun • The first Climate Treaty: UNFCCC, 1992/1994. 194 parties – consensus model. • - “Common But Differentiated • Responsibilities” (CBDR) • Kyoto Protocol, 1998/2004. • - Annex 1 (5.2% below 1990 by • 2012) vs. Non-Annex 1. • July 1997, US opts out. Byrd-Hagel Resolution on KP, 95-0. • Bali Action Plan, 2007 • - NAMAs. Emission reductions • from emerging emitters in • exchange for finance • and technology. • - Creation of AWG-LCA.
Climate Diplomacy to Cancun • Dec. 2009: The Copenhagen • Accord. • - First part of intended “two • step” proposal by Danes. • - Aspiration to limit • temperature increase to 2C. • - $30B fast start climate • financing, 2010-2012; • $100B annual fund by 2020. • - Outline of an agreement on • Measurement, Reporting, • and Verification (MRV). • - Requirement that parties • associated with accord submit • emission reduction plans by • end of January 2010.
The Cancun Agreements • Dec. 2010: Against all expectation achieve political consensus on building blocks from Copenhagen Accord expanding agreements on mitigation, adaptation, MRV, technology, forestry, finance. • - Creation of “Green Climate • Fund.” Specification on • transitional committee. • - Agreement on MRV for non- • supported developing • country actions: “International • Consultation and Analysis.” • - Creation of “Climate Technology • Center” -- hub and spoke model. • - Showdown with Bolivia • challenges consensus process – • extended to Mexico-PNG proposal • on ¾ voting rule.
Presumed Open Paths to Governance Kyoto Path “Copenhagen Path” - Build out from existing - Build out from alternate treaty architecture. path in AWG-LCA. 8
Presumed Open Paths to Governance Kyoto Path “Copenhagen Path” - Build out from existing - Build out from alternate treaty architecture. path in AWG-LCA. - Focus on legally binding - Legally binding or mechanisms (expectation not. of low ambition). 9
Presumed Open Paths to Governance Kyoto Path “Copenhagen Path” - Build out from existing - Build out from alternate treaty architecture. path in AWG-LCA. - Focus on legally binding - Legally binding or mechanisms (expectation not. of low ambition). - Treaty obligations drive - National interests drive mitigation goals. goals (savings, energy security, etc.).
Presumed Open Paths to Governance Kyoto Path “Copenhagen Path” - Build out from existing - Build out from alternate treaty architecture. path in AWG-LCA. - Focus on legally binding - Legally binding or mechanisms (expectation not. of low ambition). - Treaty obligations drive - National interests drive mitigation goals. goals (savings, energy security, etc.). - Enforcement through market - Enforcement through exclusion. “shame and blame.”
Deadlock from Bonn intersessional negotiations over past two weeks: Focus on second commitment period for Kyoto or focus on building out Cancun building blocks.
Presumed Open Paths to Governance Kyoto PathCopenhagen Path - Build out from existing - Build out from alternate treaty architecture. path in AWG-LCA. - Focus on legally binding - Legally binding or mechanisms (expectation not. of low ambition). - Treaty obligations drive - National interests drive mitigation goals. goals (savings, energy security, etc.). - Enforcement through market - Enforcement through exclusion. “shame and blame.” - Covers ~35% of emissions.* - Covers ~80% emissions.
Problem: While emission commitments go to 2020, finance commitments only go to 2012, resuming in 2020.
Copenhagen Pledge (billions) Minimum Gap Additional $60 billion over three years Assume doubling in real terms (includes emissions permit auction revenues) Ramp-up urgently needed International Offsets Assumes delay of non-EU carbon markets Midpoint Maintain “Fast Start” level (includes inflation) Traditional Climate Foreign Aid Increase Climate Foreign Aid Fast Start Funding “Ramp-up” Period
No traction without finance – more important up to 2020 traction than new emission pledges.
No traction without finance – more important up to 2020 traction than new emission pledges. But this won’t happen unless South Africa sets an aggressive agenda from the COP presidency. 20
No traction without finance – more important up to 2020 traction than new emission pledges. But this won’t happen unless South Africa sets an aggressive agenda from the COP presidency. Opportunity: US-EU dispute over extension of ETS to air travel in January 2012. Next step: July 5th hearing in Luxembourg in suit by three US air carriers against EU.