Major challenges face Copenhagen talks

Thursday 13 August 2009

IT’S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME.

Will world leaders reach agreement on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are big enough to avert catastrophic changes to the world’s climate?
Negotiations come to a head in Copenhagen in December when agreement will be sought for targets and rules for the second Kyoto commitment period (CP2) starting in 2013.
NZFOA chief executive David Rhodes who attended UN climate change talks in Bonn in June, expects agreement to be reached but says achieving targets that in aggregate reach even the minimum
reductions sought by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be a big ask.
“There is space for movement at the three formal negotiating sessions between now and Copenhagen, but there is a mountain to climb to do it,” he says.
“The irony is that the final outcome is likely to be heavily influenced by two countries that aren’t formally part of the protocol talks – the United States and China. Whatever they nut out between
them will send a signal that both developed and developing countries won’t be able to ignore.
“While New Zealand has been successful in progressing forest-related issues (see front page story), this is meaningless unless the major economic players reach agreement on acceptable targets and the rules for achieving them.”
The aim of the exercise is to stabilise carbon levels in the atmosphere at below 450 ppm so that global warming is limited to no more than 2 degrees C. To achieve this, the IPCC says developed
countries need to reduce GHG emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.“On the latter target there is widespread agreement. For 2020, most developed countries have offered a commitment in the range of 16-24% – below the minimum set by the IPCC. So the question is, will they move further before, or at, Copenhagen?” ponders Rhodes.
Comparing commitments is difficult because, among other things, countries have tagged their commitments with conditions. Australia, for example,has committed 25% so long as other
countries do likewise. It is likely New Zealand will qualify its commitment when it is announced in August. New Zealand, along with Australia, Canada and the United States, has some of the highest per head GHG emissions in the world. They have also increased faster than most other countries since the Kyoto baseline year of 1990 ... in part a reflection of New Zealand’s rapid population increase in that period. in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Waxman Markey Bill (American
Clean Energy and Security Act 2009) was passed in late June by the US House of Representatives and has yet to go through the Senate. This will enable up to 50% of domestic emissions to be offset with offshore credits. Importantly, REDD units have been provided for in a big way in the US
Bill with a percentage of emission allowances being set aside “to provide“With business as usual emissions expected to be 40% above 1990 levels by 2020, targeting even a 20% reduction below 1990 levels will be a significant challenge for New Zealand,” Rhodes observes. Whatever target is offered will require compelling arguments to convince others that New Zealand is playing its
part.“Things like our population increase and the major part farming plays in our emissions profile will doubtless be used in the presentation of New Zealand’s case, but ultimately we will have to declare a credible target,” he says. The US has been participating in recent Kyoto Protocol discussions even
though it only has observer status and it is clearly interested in establishing a level of integrity around the inclusion of forestry in the convention. Nonetheless it is unlikely to join the Kyoto club in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Waxman Markey Bill (American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009) was passed in late June by the US House of Representatives and has yet to go through the Senate. This will enable up to 50% of domestic emissions to be offset with offshore credits.
Importantly, REDD units have been provided for in a big way in the US Bill with a percentage of emission allowances being set aside “to provide incentives to reduce deforestation in developing countries”.

“In theory a significant reduction in the cost of reducing emissions provided by REDD could allow the US and other countries to take on more stringent targets and keep the price of carbon about
the same, but the chances of this seem remote,” comments Rhodes.“ENGOs are concerned that if REDD credits are available en masse then developed countries will access this cheaper option ahead of investing in new emissions-reduction technology. The US on the other hand appears more
concerned that there won’t be enough of these credits available.“Clearly the relationship between the
US market and the EU trading system is very important and the proposed inclusion of forestry by the US can be expected to cause the EU to review its policy of not including forestry.”