Information from EEinformer
Not much expected, not much gained – except for a significant all-inclusive twist. The United Nations’ latest Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change, which was scheduled to end on 8 Dec 2011, followed the usual script. A couple of weeks of acrimonious debate leading to near failure, followed by heroic last minute efforts to save the conference from total ruin, just so the attending delegates could fly home in time for the holidays and report to their respective governments that they will be attending another event in a year’s time in Qatar.
The final communiqué, agreed after two extra and frantic days and nights of deliberations, while vague, provided sufficient verbiage to satisfy those who wanted to avoid the appearance of total failure at all cost. Even the UN’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, acknowledged that the final wording on the legal form of a future deal was ambiguous. To reporters who asked for clarifications on what the agreement actually said, she replied, “What that means has yet to be decided.”
 |
Fig. 1: A lot more carbon. Energy-related CO2
emissions by region and by sector, in billion tons.
(Does not include emissions from other sources.)
Source: 2012 The outlook for Energy: A view to
2040, ExxonMobil, Dec 2011.
China and the US, the two biggest global emitters, did not wish to be bound by any legally binding treaty any time soon, India and other developing countries did not wish to stymie economic growth while EU was pushing for more aggressive action. It was the usual cast of characters with their usual and widely different set of priorities.
 |
Fig. 2: Annual global emission targets
for a 50% chance of limiting global
temperature rise to 2°C by 2050, in
billion t of CO2 equivalent.
In the final hours, the word “legal framework” was changed to “protocol,” “legal instrument,” “legal outcome” and finally to “agreed outcome with legal force,” sufficiently ambiguous to allow more leeway for governments who prefer ambiguity to certainty. As best as we can decipher, delegates from nearly 200 countries attending the Durban event agreed to:
Negotiate, by 2015, a legally binding global agreement that will, for the first time, include all emitters including, most importantly, the US, China and India. This is said to be a highly significant step forward since never before had all major emitters had agreed to be included in a binding emission reduction scheme.
Establish a Green Climate Fund to provide $100-billion in annual funding by 2020 for clean energy investments and for climate change mitigation in the world’s poorest nations. Since this fund had previously been established, it is not clear how significant it is, nor is there much clarity on where the money comes from, especially during these fiscally difficult times.
Expressed “grave concern” that existing commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions are not enough to hold increases in global temperature below the 2°C relative to preindustrial levels that all countries have agreed is the common objective.
A generous interpretation of what was achieved in Durban is that all countries agreed to be bound by the same legal treaty – or rather “agreed outcome with legal force” – to be concluded by 2015 and going into effect by the end of the decade.
A less generous interpretation, perhaps closer to the truth, is that the agreement reached at Durban is nothing more than an agreement to work towards an agreement by 2015. It is as if an enormously obese person were to say that I promise to agree to a diet by 2015, and to go on the diet starting in 2020. It is better than nothing, but not very reassuring, especially given the UN’s past track record on such matters. “It’s certainly not the deal the planet needs – such a deal would have delivered much greater ambition on both emissions reductions and finance,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Lord Stern is puzzled by the contradictions in climate policy
Currently, we are annually emitting roughly 48-billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere. If we are serious about limiting increases in global temperature below the 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, we must reduce global emissions to around 44-billion per annum by 2020, and keep further reducing it over time, since it is the cumulative emissions that matter.
Writing in Financial Times (9 Dec 2011), Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the famous Stern Report that bears his name, now a Professor at London School of Economics, points out that to address the climate challenge, we must limit global greenhouse gas emissions to somewhere around 1200 – 1400-billion t between 2010 – 2050. That would result in a 50% chance of limiting average global temperature rise to 2°C by 2050. If we want more certainty, say an 80% probability, an even more stringent carbon budget is needed, say 500 – 600-billion t.
Since over 2/3rd of GHG emissions are attributed to burning of fossil fuels, principally coal, oil, and natural gas, one would expect some rationalisation or acknowledgement of this carbon liability by major energy companies, their auditors or rating agencies. Yet, Sir Stern sees no indication of this by the companies themselves or those who determine the companies’ market valuations. He rhetorically asks, “So are they (the energy companies) assuming (that) countries will not meet their pledges for reducing emissions, and that we will carry on with ‘business as usual?’”
Lord Stern says, “There is therefore a profound contradiction between the declared public policy and the valuations of these listed (energy) companies, based on their fossil fuel reserves, which appear to assume that the world will not get anywhere near its targets for managing climate change. It means that the market has either not thought hard enough about the issue or thinks that governments will not do very much – or somewhere between the two,” he says, adding, “It points to a logical contradiction between what many governments are saying and what markets appear to believe.”
Could the vague language of the Durban communique, and those of preceding 16 UN-sponsored conferences, be the logical explanation? The depressed price of carbon in the few markets where it can currently be traded suggests that we are far from anything resembling a binding agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Symbolically, Durban extended Kyoto Protocols until the end of 2017, providing some measure of continuity since Kyoto’s first phase – which imposed limits only on developed countries – is due to expire at the end of 2012. Legal experts must now reconcile those dates with existing EU legislation. The US, which never ratified Kyoto, said it would only do so if all countries agreed to limit their emissions.
The Kyoto extension, however, rings rather hollow. Russia and Japan have indicated that they do not wish to be parties to Kyoto, Australia’s position appears ambiguous, and Canada has announced that it will withdraw from Kyoto. Dealing a symbolic blow to the moribund protocols, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent declared, “As we’ve said, Kyoto for Canada is in the past. We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto”. This leaves Europe as the only significant block hanging on to what is left of Kyoto.
By mid December 2011, carbon prices traded within EU had plunged to a new low record of €6,5/t ($8,50/t). Canada’s withdraw was the straw that broke the camel’s back. At such low prices, it could be argued that the European emissions trading (ETS) scheme has degenerated into a mere accounting nuisance!
Environmentalists, who were not generally pleased with what little was achieved in Durban, complained that delegates wasted so much time on a handful of specific words in the final communique while failing to set ambitious targets to cut emissions fast enough to avoid the worst consequences of climate change – which is now a forgone conclusion.
Canada’s departure delivers symbolic blow to Kyoto
Barely had the delegates returned home from Durban that Canada, a major energy producer, declared that it was abandoning Kyoto, complaining that the protocols were unworkable because they excluded so many significant emitters. Canada, which is nowhere near meeting its obligations, would have technically been subject to penalties of around $13,6-billion for not cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by the required amount by 2012.
In making the announcement, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent, said, “To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of removing every car, truck, all-terrain vehicle, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle off every kind of Canadian road,” conveniently failing to mention that there were many other ways to cut emissions, such as making adjustments in the country’s energy intensive mining and processing industries.
Why did he not speak up in Durban? Canada kept quiet so as “not to be a distraction,” Mr Kent explained. Very considerate of him. The environmental community was not pleased. “It’s a national disgrace. Prime Minister Harper just spat in the faces of people around the world for whom climate change is increasingly a life and death issue,” said Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada.
Green groups awarded Canada their Fossil of the Year award for its performance in Durban. “Our government is abdicating its international responsibilities. It’s like where the kid in school who knows he’s going to fail the class, so he drops it before that happens,” said Megan Leslie of the opposition New Democrats.
Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the US and is keen to boost its production of crude from Alberta’s oil sands, which are acknowledged to be highly energy-intensive. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the country’s main oil lobby, said all major emitters had to agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, otherwise Canada would be at a disadvantage. It is a rather tired excuse, often used by the US and other major emitters.
Canada, like Australia, is not in the big league among the global emitters, but it is near the top in per-capita terms, as is Australia. As a rich country, it can afford to do more, as Australia is attempting to do with its recently passed carbon tax law.
Acknowledgement
This article was first published in the January 2012 edition of EEnergy Informer and is reprinted with permission.
Contact Dr. Perry Sioshansi, EEnergy Informer, fpsioshansi@aol.com
