Copenhagen to Durban: straight road via Cancun

1. Copenhagen to Durban: straight road via Cancun D.Raghunandan Delhi Science Forum & All India Peoples Science Network INECC Workshop, Bangalore, November 2011

2. Rise in GHG Concentrations & Temp. (BAU) Year 1750 2005 2030 2100 GHG (ppmv)‏ 300 425 485 575 Temp.rise °C - 1 2.0-2.8 4.0-5.0 Main challenge remains: danger of runaway climate change • IPCC/AR4 asserted unequivocal reality of socio-genic climate change • showed problem had reached crisis levels • recommended targets for abatement Tipping Point

3. IPCC/AR4: Mitigation Recommendations • GHG concentrations must stabilize ≈ 450 ppmv • action required NOW to allow for time lag • drastic reductions in emission levels required: • global emissions to start declining ≈ 2015 • …to <50% todays levels (≈49 Gt CO2-eq) by 2050 • Annex-I to cut to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 • …and 90-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 NOTE: These are net “flow” based targets which do not reflect historical accumulations. These flows finally end up as accumulated “stocks” which actually determine climate change. A Carbon Budgets approach as evolved through the DSF-TISS Model would be more useful, even though annual emissions may still be required to monitor compliance

4. COP 15 at Copenhagen • huge expectations that COP15 would respond to gravity of climate crisis belied (or betrayed?) • no agreement for KP 2nd commitment period (2012- ) • shocking but not surprising • almost back to Square 1 in terms of basic issues: • no targets? US pushing for “pledge and review” • pressure on Developing Countries to cut emissions i.e. cut back on growth/development • basic ethical-legal UNFCCC principle of Equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibility all but abandoned

5. Copenhagen/Cancun Pledges • 2°C goal cannot be met • informal UNFCCC assessment (and other studies): • 3°C likely • peaking will not happen by 2015 • Developing Country pledges are about 3x that by Industrialized (A1) Countries’! • “bottom up” approach will not work: everyone will head to the bottom, following the US leader • “top down” target-based approach necessary because the upper limit (450 ppmv GHG conc. or Max. Carbon Load) set by nature! • $100b Fund is also up in the air: vague pledges, includes multilateral funds, loans, pvt. Investment!

6. Copenhagen Accord: content • minefield of dangerous formulations • no specifics; generalities favouring ICs… • blurs distinction between ICs and DCs…(Obama: “leave behind fault lines… that have prevented action for years”; “all major economies must reduce their emissions”) • … and opens window for abandoning KP altogether

7. Copenhagen to Durban: straight road via Cancun • despite some positives in Cancun (esp. in tone and conformity with UNFCCC COP processes) in substance Cancun Agreements closely follow the terms of the disastrous Copenhagen Accord • Cancun LCA and KP texts lay the foundation for Durban and belie positive expectations • Kyoto Protocol, deeply wounded at Copenhagen, has been fatally undermined at Cancun, and will be difficult to revive in Durban

8. Cancun Agreements legitimize the single framework long pushed by US and are set to replace KP’s dual approach for ICs and DCs • bottom-up pledge-and-review system initiated in Copenhagen Accord now formally part of COP • grave threat given low level of ambition and because upper limit of GHG concentrations or Total Carbon Load as determined by science requires top-down emissions control “This outcome advances each of the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord: they anchor the Accord’s mitigation pledges… and the US will continue building on this progress” --- Hilary Clinton

9. Cancun Agreements • repeat Copenhagen Accord formulations almost verbatim • emphasis on global targets, omission of crucial distinctions between ICs and DCs • calls upon all parties to take actions to meet specious 2°C goal, first time under UNFCCC; • lip service to “ambitious reductions” by ICs; also to CBDR, but not as a principle • de facto CA provisions now almost de jure • difficult to see this rolled back by Durban

10. Carbon Budget Approach • Central idea: atmosphere has finite limited carbon space beyond which possibly- irreversible climate change is inevitable • atmospheric carbon space is global commons: fair and equitable sharing is the issue • remaining available carbon space is global carbon budget: how to share the burden? • each nation has entitlement to a “fair share” of this carbon space/commons proportional to population

11. Carbon Budget (cont’d) • main problem today is over-occupation of atmospheric carbon space by Industrialised Countries (ICs) • therefore DCs are left with little carbon space required for development • ICs actually have negative entitlements but world is forced to live with some IC over-occupation

12. Carbon Budget (cont’d) • Global carbon budget = 1440 Gt CO2 (2000 – 2050) or 390 Gt C • if all countries reduce emissions after 2040, and fair share by 2050, global emissions trajectory is below danger levels for 2°C 2.37 °C* 1.65 °C*

13. Carbon Budget (cont’d)

15. Comparison of TISS-DSF Model with Copenhagen Pledges

17. Cancun Agreements: KP Text • just 2 pages (LCA text 30 pp. with most of the substance!) taking note of Copenhagen pledges • many qualifying statements, escape clauses • notes IPCC/AR4 call for A1 reductions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020: but A1 pledges together less than bottom of range, further diluted by offsets and CDM; so >> 3°C! Again, this can be viewed in terms of Remaining Carbon Budget as well.

18. Emissions Gap Report (UNEP: Dec. 2010) • total global emissions till 2020 ≤44 GtCO2e for 2°C • but CA pledges by 85 ICs & DCs ≈ 53Gt • gap ≈ 9Gt; temp. rise 3-4°C • if more ambitious and if no offsets, 5Gt gap, still only 60% of requirement for 2°C; • several other studies also say 3°C very likely

19. Escape Clauses in Cancun KP Text • all leniency scenarios feared by UNEP, and more, are present in Cancun KP • emissions gap likely to be closer to 9 Gt CO2e • A1 targets to include: • emissions trading • CDMs • carry-over of units: but now favouring some EU countries that have exceeded KP1 targets!

20. Cancun LCA Text • all substantive issues dealt here • likely to be the single framework with KP bottom-up pledges annexed! • REDD+, technology, Adaptation Framework, Green Climate Fund covered • funds not as reparations but as tied aid, and commitment only to “goal of mobilising $100bn” • fast-track fund transfer to include private and public, REDD+, offsets, project finances, multilateral funds, soft loans, all conditional upon “meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation by DCs”

21. Conclusion • Cancun has more or less stitched together major elements of a global deal for Durban • some may be satisfied that there is at last some global agreement • but this is likely to be a poor one from the viewpoints of both science and equity • market mechanisms dominate and planet’s ecosystem/global commons fully commoditized • UNFCCC process moulded to meet goals of US and Northern allies

22. Conclusion • big challenge facing those engaging the climate negotiations • requirement is equitable sharing of the global commons/ carbon space, UNFCCC principles, CBDR, science and GHG stabilization levels, sharp KP 2nd period cuts by A1… • …but trajectory from Copenhagen goes through Cancun… and on to Durban • how to square this circle?

23. Way Forward • re-focus on KP-II, top-down targets and deep cuts by A1, accountability for large DC targets • forge BRICSA/large DC + EU alliance taking along G77, LDCs and SIDS • remember KP was signed without the US!!! • accept stop-gap in Durban, go for meaningful KP-II in 2012

24. END! Please visit www.delhiscienceforum.net