|
download
briefing as rtf
Friends of the Earth International Climate Change Briefing
UPDATE ON CLIMATE POLITICS -
WHAT IS THE SITUATION PRE COP6?
Since 1997 Governments have tried to come to an agreement on the
rules for the Kyoto Protocol. Negotiations in the past years have
not resolved some major issues. The issues on the table for The
Hague are highly political and will be left to the final deal.
These are: (download briefing
on general issues as pdf)
- carbon sinks and the use of forests and other land use change
activities to meet the Kyoto targets
- the functioning of the mechanisms (Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), Joint Implementation (JI) and Emissions Trading (ET))
- "supplementarity", i.e. the cap on the use of these mechanisms
- compliance
- developing country issues (adaptation, technology transfer
etc.)
The "good" and "bad"
The EU has adopted a fairly good position on most issues, while
remaining silent or tactical about others. It is faily clear that
the EU wants to hold the USA on board and might therefore compromise
many issues. The message that has to come from European citizens
now is that the EU cannot come out of COP6 with an ineffective Treaty,
one that does not lead to any reductions.
The USA, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia are trying their
very best to water down the treaty. Their demands are clear: they
want other Governments to agree to rules that would allow them to
substantially increase their emissions of carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels. This would be achieved by, for example,
accounting for lots of forest and other activities as carbon sinks
and by allowing the CDM to fund dirty technologies and forest activities.
If these proposals come through emissions in Annex 1 countries would
be allowed to increase by 20% or more, rather than the 5% reduction
from 1990 levels as the Protocol requires by 2010.
The US (and Can, Aus, Jp) main objective is to make fulfilment of
the Kyoto targets as cheap as possible. That is why both carbon
sinks and maximum trading an in their interest: it brings the price
down while weakening the targets. The US presidential elections
are on Nov 7th, Canada hold general elections on Nov 27th. Russia's
internal politics are intransparant, they have abolished their Environment
Agency and negotiators keep changing. Therfore, three major emitters
and members of the Umbrella Group (USA, NZ, Aus, Japan, Russia,
Can etc) are difficult to negotiate with.
Japan has a strong interest for the Kyoto Protocol to enter into
force, but also has a very strong interest in flexible rules, mainly
because making domestic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are
very costly (compared to other industrialised countries).
The developing countries (G77) are divided on some issues, united
on others. China and India are major forces, and the Alliance of
Small Island States is trying to get the G77 to stick to strong
positions to preserve the environmental integrity of the Protocol.
Saudi Arabia and other OPEC Nations are playing their tricks, trying
to secure monetary compensation for any potential losses due to
fewer oil exports.
Carbon Sinks
These include all Land use, Land-use change and forestry activities
in industrialised countries (*see CDM below). Basically, the Protocol
says that Parties have to account for carbon emissions and take
up from afforestation, re - and deforestation. This in itself can
create perverse incentives for logging down old growth forests and
creating new plantations, as seen in Australia and elsewhere. To
illustrate this: Japan and Canada are trying to get rules that would
allow them to NOT count the emissions from cutting down forests
BUT count the carbon stored when plantations are grown back on this
land. Such definitions can substantially weaken the need for reductions
in fossil fuel emission to reach the Kyoto targets - the targets
could be reduced by up to 200 Mega tonnes of carbon per year.
On top of that, the USA, Can, Jpan are suggesting to use all sorts
of "additional activities" to meet their targets, such as "agroforestry"(which
could include the planting of genetically modified tress), "urban
greening" and "cropland management". The EU is against the crediting
of any of these activities.
Many of these activities would happen anyway, are thus "buisness
as usual". Umbrella Group countries also want to claim credit for
what would happen without human action, i.e. increased vegetation
through nitrogen or CO2 fertilisation. This madness would totally
negate the targets as negotiated in Kyoto. If, for example it has
been estimated that if the Canadian proposals go thorugh for all
Annex 1 countries, this could lead to over 2 Billion Tonnes of Carbon
dioxide per year being released into the atmosphere. Under the US
proposal, the US' target would be reduced by over 25%.
Sinks (forest activities) in the CDM
This is very important as it could offer cheap and temporary carbon
credits to industrialised countries (hundreds of Millions of Tons
each year, with a likely estimate being about 300 MtC) while allowing
them to increase their fossil fuel output. Moreover, we are likely
to see plantations and not nice forest conservation projects in
the South if this comes through. The EU is against this, so are
the small island states (AOSIS) China, India and some African countries.
The Umbrella Group, Latin American countries (except for Brazil
and Peru) are fiercly pro such activities as they envisage money
flowing from the North.
Nuclear
Under the current arrangements and without proper rules it would
be possible for nuclear porjects (new reactors or life cycle extensions)
to generate carbon credits that could be trade and counted against
Annex 1 targets. Nuclear Power is not the solution tro climate change,
it is an unsustainable and extremely risky technology that needs
to be stopped altogether . The EU has position against nuclear in
the CDM (positive list approach) but no open statements to underpin
this. France and the UK are a problem - they really want to keep
the issue open. There is absolutely no open opposition against nuclear
in JI except from Hungary.
Norway says it is against nuclear, but failed to say this so far.
The USA assures its nuclear industry that "nuclear projects will
be able to receive funding under the protocol". Other countries
remain silent, the main argument being that countries should decide
themselves how they want to produce energy. Meanwhile, Finland and
Japan have already announced that they will extend their nuclear
capacity to meet Kyoto targets.
donwload special
nukes briefing as pdf
Supplementarity
The EU has a position that would ensure action at home to a certain
extent. This is important to actually change emission trends in
the North and to overcome the inequity of people in the North polluting
so much more than people in developing countries.
The EU "supplementarity" proposal comes down to ca. 50% action at
home, the rest through the mechanisms (trading and CDM, JI). China
and India and the African Group also strongly support a quantitative
cap (70% at home), while the Umbrella group refuses to discuss it
at all. Again, the USA and the rest of the umbrella group want unrestricted
"flexibility".
"Hot Air"
If nothing is done to exclude hot air, which results from the breakdown
of the economies in the East, OECD countries can buy about 150 Mega
Tonnes of Carbon per year from countries like Russia and the Ukraine.
There is not one godd proposal out there to limit or exclude hot
air, except for the general supplementaity proposals by the EU and
others. The USA and the rest of Umbrella wants to have unlimited
access to hot air. However, this would mean than there is much less
incentive to change to more energy efficient production methods
or to more renewable energy sources in Annex 1 countries.
Compliance
It is important that countries that do not meet their targets are
held accountable and that the obligations are enforced. There must
be an agreement on legally binding consequences for countries that
do not comply with the treaty, otherwise the targets and the entire
Protocl lose its credibility.
Japan and Russia are currently opposing binding consequences altogether.
The USA and rest of Umbrella want "borrowing "- that means that
countries that do not fulfil their obligations, i.e. do not meet
their Kyoto targets will just decuct the missing tons from their
next commitment period budget - without any more sanctions. This
is clearly unacceptable as it means there is less action for the
atmosphere.
The EU suggests a "compliance fund" which would mean that countries
have to pay money into a fund which would then be used to either
buy credits abroad or to implement real reduction projects.
Developing Country issues
The G77 have an interest in getting industrialised countries to
agree to new and additional funds, both for adaptation and for emission
reduction projects - both of which involves capacity building and
technology transfer. They want all the flexible mechanisms to contribute
to a special fund, set up under the CDM for adaptation. Additional
funding must be truly additional, i.e. not divert ODA funds. OPEC
countries place their demand for compensation in every possible
forum, and this is in stark contradiction to the financial needs
for adapdation as presented by AOSIS. The USA is promising money
through a lot of CDM projects, i.e. only against credits, while
the EU has so far not offered anything in particular. None of the
industrialsied countries have presented the developing world with
an acceptable, let alone adequate proposal.
|
