Jan 31

Really Green Transit

Chicago, transportation 4 Comments »

Chicago artist Joe Baldwin just received approval to deploy his conceptual project, mobile garden, on the city’s mass transit rail system.

Image taken from themobilegarden.org

Image taken from themobilegarden.org

The idea is to configure a Chicago Transit Authority rail car into a mobile garden, which would visualize the possibilities for enhancing green space in the city.  Additionally, Baldwin promises to plant native plants in the mobile garden, educating Chicagoans about varieties that have historically flourished in the region.

Baldwin’s project seems to be a kindred spirit to Park(ing) Day where citizens commandeer metered parking spaces, lay down sod, bring out lawn chairs, and literally remake the parking space into a park.

These are great examples of creative efforts to get city dwellers to reflect on the human-environment connection and explore the possibilities of using a city’s infrastructure to get us to think critically about nature and the urban landscape.

Jan 28

US Submits Copenhagen Accord Target

Climate 1 Comment »

After I wrote my earlier post on countries that submitted their emissions targets under the Copenhagen Accord, I visited the tally sheet maintained by the US Climate Action Network and noticed that they had a copy of the official US letter.

Dated today, the letter commits the US to a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020 “in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation.”

There was also no mention of the Copenhagen Accord fitting into a legal process or treaty-building exercise.

The letter does say that the US expects other countries to meet the 31 January deadline for reporting their emissions under the Accord, contradicting Yvo de Boer’s description of Sunday as a “soft ” deadline.

The US response is not a surprise.  The Obama Administration gives itself an “out” if Congress fails to pass legislation or passes a climate bill with a weaker target.

Failure to mention steps beyond the Accord suggests to me that the US is not enthusiastic about the viability of the UN process.  But the reiteration of the 31 January deadline means that the US doesn’t want other countries to delay and that they want to be able to point to positive steps towards addressing global climate change.

Like I said, none of this is surprising; but it shows us how the battle lines are beginning to solidify and what to expect in the way of points of contention as international negotiations continue over the next few months.

On the domestic front, assuming that major emitters (especially India and China) meet the deadline for reporting their targets under the Accord, the Obama Administration will surely use this progress to pressure the Senate into passing an energy bill.

Although Obama didn’t utter the words “cap and trade” during his state of the union speech last night, he did hit the “clean energy/jobs” angle pretty heavy.  Large emitter endorsement of the Accord will likely help the Administration in moving climate and energy legislation.

Tagged with: •
Jan 28

Countries Begin Offering Copenhagen Accord Targets

Climate 2 Comments »

With Sunday’s deadline fast approaching for countries to officially offer their emissions reductions targets under the Copenhagen Accord, we are starting to get a glimpse into how the parties to the UN climate convention are interpreting the rather vague document.

The Accord was a deal brokered in the final minutes of last month’s Copenhagen conference by the leaders of the major emitters.  It was nearly derailed in the formal session at Copenhagen.  The compromise which was hashed out at that session was not a full-fledged endorsement, but merely a reflection that the Copenhagen Accord was “noted” by signatories to the UN climate treaty.

I won’t get into the arcana of UN climate decision-making, but the significance of “noting” the decision has been unclear.  Is it a “legal” document?  Are countries under some obligation to meet its dictates?

Underscoring the uncertainty of the document, the head of the UN climate secretariat, Yvo de Boer, had to send out a letter to parties stressing that the Copenhagen Accord does “not have any legal standing in the UNFCCC process.”

Therefore, it will be interesting to see how countries themselves interpret the Accord in order to get a sense for its significance.

Meeting the Sunday deadline for submitting emissions reductions targets to the UN is one way to gauge the seriousness of countries.  Last week, de Boer called the 31 Jan. deadline “soft,” raising concern that it will be ignored.

As far as I can tell, the major emitters (aside from South Korea) have not yet presented their commitments to the UN.

What is interesting though, is that some of the smaller countries–e.g. Marshall Islands, Singapore, Samoa, Bangladesh –are insisting that the Copenhagen Accord be a step on the path towards a legally binding treaty.  We are seeing this in their pre-Jaunuary 31 communications.

Even a major emitter like the United States ostensibly wants a legally binding treaty.  But how this plays out within the context of the existing UN framework is extremely uncertain.

One thing that has never been resolved–although it was supposed to have been dealt with in Copenhagen–is the future of the Kyoto Protocol.  Fast-growing developing countries like  China and India have been reluctant to give up on Kyoto since its architecture does not obligate them to reduce emissions.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord is that it does ask these emergent economies to plan for some commitment to reductions from business-as-usual levels.   Earlier this week the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India & China) released a statement indicating that they want the Kyoto discussions to continue, while simultaneously expressing their interest in signing on to the Copenhagen Accord.

At some point a different architecture is going to have to be developed.  Kyoto is binding (for those who have ratified it) but ineffective.  Copenhagen is voluntary, but it is still too early to judge its effectiveness.  Thus, these early communications from countries could be key in determining the ultimate efficacy of the Copenhagen Accord.

If we see a large number of smaller, developing countries highlighting in their communications that the Copenhagen Accord is part of a process leading to a legally-binding treaty, one way of interpreting it would be that these countries are seeking to maintain the Kyoto architecture since Kyoto is the main legal expression currently in force.

It will be interesting to see how some of the larger emitters respond.  For instance, it is not clear whether South Korea mentioned anything about their commitments being part of the effort to forge a treaty.

If you get key countries like the US, Mexico, Indonesia, the EU, Japan, excluding mention of a treaty in their communications, it may not bode well for the UN negotiations later this year in Mexico.

Tagged with:
Jan 26

Key Developing Country Environment Ministers Meet in India

Climate, Copenhagen No Comments »

Environment ministers from the BASIC countries–Brazil, South Africa, India, China–met in New Delhi over the weekend to coordinate their responses to international climate change negotiations in advance of the 31 January deadline for parties to communicate their emissions reductions strategies to the UNFCCC.

The meeting ended with a joint statement that reasserts their support for both the UN process and the Copenhagen Accord which has a tenuous and uncertain relationship to the global climate regime.  The countries call on the Prime Minister of Denmark to convene five meetings leading up to the big, COP 16, meeting in Mexico.   But they also indicated their intentions to submit emissions reductions targets by Sunday’s deadline.

Perhaps more significantly was their emphasis on the Accord’s immediate $10bn annual pledge for adaptation in developing countries.  In news reports several of the environment ministers pointed to that pledge as a test of developed countries’ seriousness.

On related note, the Guardian reports today that the United Kingdom is contemplating reallocating money from existing overseas aid budgets to finance climate change adaptation.  This, of course, is objectionable to developing countries who insist that climate assistance should be above and beyond existing aid.

Things aren’t much better in the United States where the climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said yesterday that the government is “currently looking at the financing in the budget” suggesting that the “fast track” funding is far from immanent.

Jan 22

Climate Outlook 2010

Climate, Copenhagen 2 Comments »

It has been a month since the UN summit in Copenhagen ended amidst discord and uncertainty about the state of global climate policy.  The dust has settled somewhat and we’ve had some time to reflect.  So where do we stand at the beginning of 2010?

For the two years leading up to Copenhagen, the expectation was that the meeting would culminate with a solid framework for a new climate treaty based on the latest scientific evidence and poised to reform the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol.

Instead, the meeting ended with little substantive progress and a vague, last-minute, face-saving political document (the “Copenhagen Accord“) on which key countries appear to be relying for action in the coming year.

The Accord asks countries to submit their voluntary emissions reduction targets for the year 2020 by 31 January.  Unlike the Kyoto Protocol which only called on developed countries to reduce their emissions, the Copenhagen commitment will include reductions from “business as usual” by key developing countries.

On the issue of insuring that countries stick to their commitments and engage in measurable and verifiable reductions, the accord asks countries to develop domestic procedures, eschewing an international standard.

The accord also discusses a financial mechanism by which the rich countries responsible for atmospheric greenhouse gas buildup can help poorer countries meet the immediate challenges they face in adapting to a changing planet.

While the accord is commendable to the extent that it gets countries–including the emerging economies of India, China, and Brazil–to offer mid-term emissions reduction targets, its voluntary, non-binding nature makes the entire enterprise quite precarious.

Thus, as we move forward in 2010, there will be some key things on which to focus to see if adequate global solutions to the climate problem can be developed.

First, it will be key to see which countries formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord, if they sign on by the 31 January deadline, and the nature of their commitments.  On Wednesday, UN climate chief, Yvo De Boer called the 31st a “soft deadline,” suggesting that some of the countries which pushed for the accord may not even be willing to meet this modest provision.  Last week in a speech in Washington, US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said countries were working on their commitments, including the US; but he gave no indication as to whether the US will meet the deadline.

Much of the holdup in the US brings us to the second key process to watch out for in 2010: the climate bill in Congress.  The Obama Administration has used the need to get a comprehensive climate bill through Congress as an excuse for its coyness in its failure to agree to bold emissions reductions targets.  The logic on the surface made sense: Kyoto has been ineffective because of US lack of participation and the lack of participation was due to Congressional rejection of the Clinton Administration’s targets which were presented to the international community without Congressional approval.

Obama’s representatives have said that they want to be able to stand by any numbers they put on the negotiating table.  However, at this point, passing ANY significant legislation through the US Senate is looking to be difficult.  Although Obama’s Democratic party has majorities in both houses of Congress, they don’t appear willing to exert any political muscle on potentially controversial legislation.  As I write this, the future of the year-long effort at health care reform appears in doubt solely because the Democrats lost one seat from their Senate majority.

If the Democrats aren’t willing to push through their health care bill, there is even less hope for climate legislation given the fact that there are key Democrats who are not excited about reducing emissions.  I’m not sure where this leaves us on the international side of the negotiations; but where ever it is, it is not a good place.

Thirdly, over the next few months we will begin to see where the UNFCCC fits into this uncertain environment.  In last week’s speech, Pershing was quite dismissive of the UN process.  He seemed to push the idea that the “major economies forum” might be where the action is in getting things done.  On the one hand this makes sense, given that we need key developing countries to make reductions from business-as-usual to stay within the global warming limits that the science demands.  However, the major economies forum leaves many important constituencies out of the process.  Small island nations, poor African nations, indigenous peoples, NGOs, and global civil society have no seat at this exclusive table–while the UNFCCC, with all its flaws, does offer a modicum of accessibility.

In his news conference yesterday, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer looked positively exhausted.  While he did his best to put a positive spin on the Copenhagen Accord, it was not convincing.  In the immediate weeks prior to Copenhagen, people were hoping at the very least that a specific timetable for a binding agreement would come out of the talks.  What actually emerged was a political agreement with a loose time line and voluntary targets.

Many of the key players behind the Copenhagen Accord–including President Obama–have said they view the accord as a step towards an agreement.  But the question that needs to be answered is what kind and size of step?

There are many other loose ends stemming from Copenhagen that need to be scrutinized–the whole financing scheme, for example.  But for now, these are just a few things we’ll be keeping our eye on over the next few months.

Dec 20

Copenhagen Summit Ends in Failure

Climate, Copenhagen Comments Off

The UN climate change talks in Copenhagen ended in a dramatic flurry of activity, diplomacy, and negotiation early Saturday.  The activity, however, did not translate into any significant momentum towards resolving the major impediments to a truly global response to the climate crisis.

The main takeaway from the talks was the “Copenhagen Accord,” [.pdf] a document largely negotiated by the large emitters, including the United States, China, India and Brazil.  The details of how the accord was negotiated are still sketchy, although some the initial reporting suggests that world leaders were actually going line-by-line through the text–an activity normally reserved for lower level diplomats.  Interestingly, it seemed as if China & India were savvy in keeping the EU and the US at bay.  Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao sent his underlings into meetings with Western leaders and apparently rejected both the EU offer of reducing its emissions by 30% by 2020 from 1990 levels and the general developed country commitment of an 80% reduction by 2050 under the questionable guise that by 2050 they will be considered “developed” and subject to reductions.

After the accord was endorsed late Friday night by the few countries engaged in its drafting, it needed to be presented to the larger “conference of the parties” to the UN climate treaty.  The floor debate began around 3:00am and was quite rancorous.  There was significant opposition from Latin American countries and small island nations who were cut out of the accord’s drafting.

Decisions under the climate treaty generally require consensus from all participating countries and at one point it seemed as if the conference would break up without considering the accord.  Apparently the head UK climate negotiator, Ed Miliband stepped in to defend the accord and the conference wound up “noting” the accord as opposed to “supporting” or “endorsing” it.

Such a tepid response sullies the accord’s significance within the context of the UN decision making framework.

So, what does the Copenhagen Accord say?

First, it is a political agreement, so there are no legal obligations on the part of signatories to follow its directives.

Second, the accord does say that “the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius.”  This is in keeping with other political proclamations over the past year by developed countries–in particular the G8.  However the use of the word “should”–rather than “shall”–doesn’t imply a significant level of commitment.

Third, instead of a timetable for a globally-binding treaty, the accord simply says that “we should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible.”  Again, no “shall,” and more significantly, no mention in the accord of translating its framework into a legally-binding treaty–an outcome of Copenhagen that was hoped for by many before the talks began.

Fourthly, the accord asks both developed and developing countries to submit their own national emissions targets by 31 January 2010 to include in the accord.  Significantly, developing countries’ mitigation targets “will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting, and verification” procedures.  This represents a strike against the US position, which had insisted throughout the talks that China and India–in particular–needed to be subject to international “MRV” procedures.  The accord does say, however, that if a developing country is receiving international financing for a specific mitigation action then that particular action needs to be subject to international monitoring.

Fifth, the accord does recognize the importance of forest conservation and endorses an “immediate establishment of a mechanism” to provide financing for stopping deforestation.

Sixth, the accord provides specific numbers for financing from developed countries to developing countries to deal with adaptation and mitigation.  The commitment is collective–meaning the specific breakdown of each country’s share has not been established–and will be $30 billion for three years.  By 2020, the number should rise to $100 billion per year.  These aggregate numbers are lower than amounts discussed before the conference and the specific mechanisms on how money will be allocated are unresolved.

The accord discusses setting up a “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” that will monitor climate aid and should be accountable to the parties to the UN convention.  Although I’m not a lawyer, it is not clear to me what the significance of the parties’ lack of clear endorsement of the Copenhagen Accord might have on the governance of this fund.

Finally, the accord calls for its implementation to be completed by 2015 and a future “consideration of strengthening of the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”  This, obviously, was a rather torpid attempt to placate small island states and the growing body of scientists and activists who argue that the risks of accepting a 2 degree rise in global temperature are too great.

The summation of the Copenhagen Accord has been best expressed by Kim Carstensen of the World Wildlife Fund, who calls it “half-baked and unclear.”

It doesn’t really resolve anything, but brings up even more questions about how the problem of global climate change can be addressed.

Some of these questions include:  If the signatories to the declaration really want to keep the planet from warming 2 degrees, what are they going to do to see that goal realized? What will happen if/when, at the end of January after countries present their mitigation goals, it becomes apparent that the voluntary commitments will be insufficient to stave off harmful global warming?

The accord says that it should be fully implemented by 2015.  This is also the year that IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri said that global emissions need to peak in order to stay within the 2 degree warming threshold.  How can can emissions peak by 2015 given the leisurely timeline for implementation?

What is the future of the UN climate change convention?  If the Copenhagen Accord is the product of a backroom deal that fundamentally eclipses the Kyoto Protocol and the larger UNFCCC process, does this mean that the effort for a legally binding treaty is effectively over?  Regardless of what happens to the UNFCCC, how can differences in the US, EU, China and Indian positions be resolved if we are to live on a planet safe from the risks associated with escalated global temperatures?

Is the financing adequate to help the most distressed peoples of the world avoid catastrophe?  The numbers in the accord don’t seem to add up and are not nearly ambitious enough to deal with the crises many less developed countries are experiencing right now in their struggles to adapt to changing climatic conditions.

These questions were the ones that were supposed to have been resolved at Copenhagen.  The fact that nothing has been resolved is testament to a failure in leadership of many countries involved and especially those who pushed through the accord, namely the US, China, and India.

The next few weeks will be crucial.  Pressure from civil society on national leaders will be essential if actual progress can be made on mitigation.  If the numbers presented on 1 February don’t hold up to scrutiny, each of the signatories needs to be quite explicit on how the international community will actually address the reality of the science.

That leaves the last unresolved question which comes out Copenhagen, namely the future of civil society in pushing for a fair, binding, and ambitious deal.  The UNFCCC and Danish government’s failure to adequately accommodate civil society in Copenhagen leaves a bitter taste for many who had hopes for the talks.  Expelling civil society observers from the Bella Center for the last days of the conference undoubtedly made it easier for the major emitters to push through a “half-baked” accord.  It will be difficult, but the many civil society groups involved in climate policy will have to regroup and redouble their efforts to pressure national leaders to develop an actual deal.

Tagged with:
Dec 18

Obama Addresses Climate Summit

Climate, Copenhagen Comments Off

Barack Obama gave a pretty stern speech to other leaders at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen a few minutes ago.

Unfortunately, he yielded no ground that would make a fair, ambitious, and binding deal forthcoming from the deliberations over the last two weeks.

The main sticking point for Obama is Chinese resistance to agree to any specific cuts that will be verifiable to an international body.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao preceded Obama and basically said that China will make cuts from business as usual, and that they should be taken at their word.

President Lula de Silva of Brazil was sandwiched in between Obama and Wen and was quite impassioned in expressing frustration about the little progress seen thus far.  As a way to show constructive action, Lula even indicated that Brazil would provide financial assistance to low income countries to develop in a low-carbon manner–a move unprecedented given Brazil’s position as a developing country itself.

These early speeches continue to dim the hope that anything substantive will come out of the negotiations

Tagged with: •
Dec 18

World Leaders Arrive in Copenhagen, Talks Continue Behind Closed Doors

Climate, Copenhagen Comments Off

As world leaders poured into Copenhagen, negotiations continued Thursday in an effort to salvage some type of agreement from the UN-sponsored climate talks.

No new negotiating drafts were officially released, although a leaked document from the UN Secretariat has been circulating amongst NGO observers suggests the current policies on the table will only limit global warming to 3 degrees centigrade from pre-industrial levels.

This, obviously, means that much more work needs to be done if the pledge by developed countries to limit global warming to 2 degrees is to be realized.

Given the non-public manner of the negotiations–nearly all NGO observers have been kicked out of the conference venue–it is difficult to ascertain precisely how the negotiations are developing.

Some countries, however, are beginning to show their cards on key issues. Most notably, yesterday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged that her country would contribute to the $100 billion/year aid fund for developing countries that was first introduced by Gordon Brown earlier this year.

Key issues about the actual amount each developing country should contribute and how the funds will be distributed remain unresolved.

Aside from the financing pledge, very little else was revealed yesterday. This is highly problematic since the consensus of observers suggests that something will have to be produced from these meetings given the fact that over 100 heads of state are now at the negotiations. Simply in order for world leaders to save face, some document will be produced. The real problem is that any document or agreement at this point is not likely to seriously address the pressing policy issues at hand.

The New York Times is reporting that upon arriving in Copenhagen, Obama immediately went into a closed door meeting with the leaders of major economies instead of giving his planned public address to all delegates. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this meeting and how–in particular–the smallest, poorest nations that are likely excluded from the backdoor meeting react. Nations like Tuvalu have been steadfast in pushing for transparency and a strong deal. If a weak deal emerges from behind closed doors, I would expect Tuvalu and other small island nations to continue their vigorous objections.

Tagged with:
Dec 16

Negotiations Stall as Ministers Address the UN Climate Change Talks

China, Climate Comments Off

Negotiators in a key sub-group of the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen worked through the early morning today which culminated in the release of a draft text that is supposed to serve as the basis of an agreement for world leaders to sign when they arrive here on Friday.

As the iteration which appeared on Saturday, the latest text makes little progress on key issues of mitigation for developed and developing countries while saying little about financing schemes for developing countries to adapt to climate change and shift to low-carbon technologies .

The consequence is that the high-level ministers will now have to get involved in the heavy lifting aspect of the negotiating process if any sort of agreement is to be signed by world leaders on Friday.

In other developments, Senator John Kerry addressed the conference in what amounted to a campaign speech for the US position.  My impression has been that Kerry has a lot of respect amongst delegates for his long-standing interest in the climate change issue.  However, his speech was a bit troubling for the negotiations.

He spent quite a bit of time dispelling climate skeptics–which was clearly geared towards domestic consumption.  When you’ve been at a climate change conference in Europe for over a week, it is pretty easy to forget that skeptics actually exist!  His impassioned plea for following the science wasn’t really needed inside the COP, so what it told me is that his Senate bill must be in at least a little trouble–although he equally forcefully said at the end of his speech that the US would pass climate legislation by the end of next year, with the Senate taking up the issue in the spring.

I would have to concur with Tan Copsey at China Dialogue, that the most troubling part of his speech were lightly veiled attacks at the Chinese position in the talks.  He expressed a bit of protectionism by talking about “dumping high carbon” products into the US market.  Additionally, he focused heavily on the idea that countries must have “measurable, reportable, and verifiable” emissions targets.

This is another swipe at China.   The US seems quite skeptical about China’s recent pronouncements that they will reduce their emissions from business-as-usual projections and want to have some assurance that emissions mitigation can be quantified.  China, of course, is hesitant to commit to reductions in the first place and wants to maintain as much flexibility as possible in the negotiations.

Thus with Kerry’s rather hard line speech and the minimal movement on the negotiating text, the only thing clear about the next couple of days is that they will be unpredictable and probably contentious.

Tagged with: •
Dec 16

Demonstrations at UN Climate Talks As Copenhagen High-Level Meeting Begins

Climate, Copenhagen Comments Off

Prime Ministers, Presidents, and other leaders descended on Copenhagen’s Bella Center today to try and develop some sort of agreement as part of the UN-sponsored climate talks.

The high-level segment, however, began at the expense of the “low-level” delegates. Yesterday, despite knowing for months that upwards of 35,000 delegates were registered to attend the negotiations, the UN climate change secretariat instituted a reduced-access policy for NGO delegates. Most NGOs received one third of their original allocations for Tuesday and Wednesday, with NGOs essentially shut out of the conference for the final two days. People generally understand the enhanced security measures needed for when heads of state arrive, but the restrictions were the culmination of a week of rather poorly-organized logistics. Our group arrived on December 6th and had a relatively painless experience getting accredited. However, on Monday–before the restrictions were introduced–new registrants had to wait hours before getting their badges.

Although the reduced allocation seemed to function on Tuesday, for some reason the secretariat shut out ALL NGOs from entering the building beginning around noon. This was preceded by a selective “deactivation” of NGO badges from the environmental groups Avaaz and Friends of the Earth. This is really significant–not only because it is unjust to de-accredit specific groups and that the text of the treaty that serves as the basis of the talks specifically “encourage[s] the widest participation in this process,” but also because civil society groups tend to act as a supportive voice for many of the smaller countries.

Many small countries can’t afford to bring a huge staff and rely on NGOs to monitor action, manage media access, and explain their positions to the greater global public. Youth activists, especially, coordinate rapid response actions in the hall so all participants remember the justice issues at stake in the negotiations. When these groups are arbitrarily excluded from the process, time and resources are spent assailing the process instead of being used to help push for substantive measures to be included in a deal.

The culmination of these decisions is not pretty. After the UN restricted NGO access, activists and others marched to the Bella Center where they were met with police violence, which was filmed by CYDCopenhagen:

Tagged with: •
Previous Entries
preload preload preload