Global Deal for China & US Leaders

It might be ultimately down to the US and China leaders, but Nick Rowley thinks what is the most likely outcome is an “agreement on the parameters of a more effective global climate treaty and the process for agreeing the rules”. David Hood reports from Copenhagen that having aviation and maritime emissions included raises big attribution issues, particularly for “flags of convenience” nations.

Special Report for ABC Carbon Express from David Hood, Brisbane engineer and Chairman of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (11 December):

Literally thousands have gathered here in Copenhagen for the UNFCC Conference of Parties (COP) 15.    Last figures put the total registrations at over 35,000 from NGOs, Parties to the Convention, negotiators, media, and a world of other observers.    It is now being claimed that next week, Thursday and Friday, will see the biggest ever in history gathering of world leaders in one place.  

Seems that some think we might just have a little problem to solve.    The Bella Centre where it is all happening only holds 15,000.   But worse – the main plenary hall only holds 2,000, so getting close to the real negotiations is difficult indeed.    

The mornings are cold (around 4C), and the foggy wetness of Copenhagen can be depressing, but once inside the mood is changing – there is a sense that something big is about to happen.

To get close to the happenings you have to wait to pass quite thorough security lines, and registration checks, then scan the daily agenda that is stretching up to 50 pages as the delegate numbers grow, then wander bewildered, through the vast halls and meeting rooms, wondering where we are supposed to be, and how we can best “make it happen”.   

But it does have a warming family feeling – we are here for a purpose.  On the buses, in the lines, over dinner, we mix and chat, negotiators and NGOs alike.  With no protocol, we can simply walk up to senior officials, Ministers, CEOs, and executive directors to chat about issues and concerns, and the response is welcoming. 

So far I’ve said “Hi” to Penny Wong, chatted with Tim Flannery, Greg Bourne, and met with, and been briefed by a number of Australian officials, and been welcomed at Al Gore’s Climate Project office.  

However, beating all of them is Brisbane’s Anna Keenan now in her 36th day of fasting for Climate Justice which is starting to show as weight loss and tiring, but she is amazingly happy, full of fight and spirit.  I just hope that our leaders realise her commitment and respect her and our concern with a serious outcome next week.   See Anna at www.climatejusticefast.com

Each evening, our business groups meet at Copenhagen’s NASA Club for Climate Spark’s presentation by CEOs from some of the world’s leading sustainability businesses (and some who just think they are), swapping notes and networking over a red wine or two.   It is all quite inspiring, if you put aside the fact that the energy consumption and greenhouse output from the event itself would most likely exceed that of some small evolving nations.

So, what’s been going on so far?    The “Danish Text” has caused a stir that you’ve no doubt read about as “having split the Conference”.   It is all part of the game, and now the UN and parties in a closed session this morning have negotiated and released a revised alternative text on which a response is due to be debated this weekend. 

There’s naturally disagreement from many parties on parts of both texts – for instance Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is proposed to be included in the new protocol, and Brazil is strongly opposing.   Measurement, Recording and Verification still has very problematic areas that Australia is particularly concerned over and is seeking greater transparency.   

Aviation and maritime emissions are going to be included (no more “fugitive emissions”), and these are raising big attribution issues, particularly as most of the world’s shipping is registered in evolving nations (the so called “Flags of Convenience”), unlike the airlines which “belong” to the big polluting nations for reasons of “national pride”. Interesting.

Attended a very good session today on Denmark’s sustainable buildings industry – they have been doing energy efficiency for years, and leaving us for dead!

Their energy efficiency regulations and voluntary uptake of simple things like insulation, double glazing, and thermostats on gas heating, as well as centralised precinct heating have reduced annual average energy across the built environment (commercial and residential) from 140kWh/sqm to less than 35kWh/sqm in recent years. Interesting to note a comment on growing research in Denmark on the integration of cars and buildings, as cars will more and more become mobile energy storage devices.

I’ve also connected usefully with a group promoting greater understanding of earth system science and how human activity is, and is not working with, what James Lovelock calls Gaia.  They had not thought of the significant links with engineers and how we consider systems in our artefact designs.  As most will know I believe that Environmental Engineering needs to more definitively link these two areas of learning and practice.     More to come, stay tuned.      – David A Hood FIEAust CPEng

Lenore Taylor in Copenhagen for The Australian (12 December 2009):

The first week in Denmark points to a mistrustful relationship between the US and China

THERE are 32,000 people at the Copenhagen climate change conference, but in the end its success will depend largely on just two: US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

The leaders of the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters have both promised substantial emission reductions: Obama, a 17 per cent cut from 2005 levels; and China a reduction on business-as-usual emissions of about 10 per cent.

Both superpowers have been reluctant to bind those commitments into an international agreement and neither is prepared to do its bit if the other does not.

China’s preference would be for the US to join in with a second round of pledges under the legally binding Kyoto Protocol while it was left to its own devices to make good on any promise.

The US could not be any clearer that this idea is unacceptable. “The United States is not going to be part of the Kyoto Protocol, so that is not on the table. And if you mean taking the Kyoto Protocol and putting a new top on it, then we are not going to be part of that either,” US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern said this week.

That China is still clinging to hopes of such an outcome was flushed out in the posturing and pre-positioning at the Copenhagen talks.

First China and the Group 77 organisation of developing nations reacted with rather over-dramatised fury after one of their own number leaked a draft document formulated by the Danish government as a possible political deal for a single new binding treaty covering all countries. This would kill the Kyoto Protocol, they fumed, and was a plot by rich countries to avoid their responsibilities.

But when Ian Fry, a Queanbeyan-based Australian who works for the Tuvaluan government, demanded the Copenhagen meeting actually talk about one of the things it was supposed to be talking about — a new, legally binding Copenhagen Protocol to cover developing countries, to sit beside the Kyoto Protocol’s rich country pledges — China and the G77 hyperventilated even more.

China’s reluctance appears to be partly an issue of sovereignty, an unwillingness to have outsiders scrutinising what it does, and partly a fear that signing on to an agreement and failing to meet its targets could leave it exposed to the kind of carbon border taxes advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and contained in the US House of Representatives’ Waxman-Markey legislation.

The US is stuck in a political catch-22. The way it could build trust with China and the G77 is by offering deeper domestic emission cuts. But its legislation has not yet passed the US Senate, so it cannot put more on the table than the 17 per cent cut in the House of Representatives bill. If the Copenhagen deal fails to secure an agreement that includes China, the chances of passing strong domestic laws diminish.

The US has gone all out to prove it’s bona fide in Copenhagen in other ways, including the attendance of the President on the final day, the attendance of four cabinet secretaries and an information centre to explain all the emission-reducing things the US is doing.

But the first week of climate change talks became hopelessly mired in the debate about the form of any agreement, a debate that was really a proxy for the mistrustful stand-off between the US and China and other developing countries.

Possible outcomes include a new set of rich country pledges under a second stage of the Kyoto Protocol and another legally binding agreement containing the pledges of the US and developing countries or — Australia’s preferred option — a clear agreement for a single new treaty for everyone.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says more important than the form of the agreement is what it contains, and that has to be verifiable commitments from all large emitters. Nick Rowley, director of Australian-based consultancy Kinesis and former climate adviser to British prime minister Tony Blair, thinks the outcome is likeliest to be a single agreement similar to the much maligned Danish draft.

“The leaked Danish text is a very early draft of what is likely to form the outcome of this meeting: agreement on the parameters of a more effective global climate treaty and the process for agreeing the rules within that treaty,” Rowley says.

“Kyoto has long been viewed as the sacred cow of international climate policy, yet it has serious flaws,” the most obvious being that it does not require anything of China and is unacceptable to the US.

But this week in Copenhagen has proven that Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen was right when he decided months ago that the negotiations were never going to result in a final agreement unless political leaders stepped in and took over.

If you look at how many leaders are turning up wanting desperately to report home that they have played their part in making history, there is reason for optimism. If you look at the mistrust and lack of progress on display in the Danish capital, there is not. And, with several thousand observers on hand to scrutinise the outcome, it will not be possible for the leaders to issue a statement of fine-sounding words and spin it as an earth-saving outcome.

That’s why this meeting is such a high-stakes game.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au