U.N. talks up pressure on Australia’s climate target | Reuters Green Business

(Reuters) – Australia’s fragile government is under increasing pressure to deepen its target to cut carbon emissions after U.N. climate talks in Mexico ended with an agreement to step up the fight against global warming. - By James Grubel and David Fogarty

Failure to harden the target would anger the Greens, whose support is vital to Australia’s ruling Labor Party, but risks enraging the powerful mining sector and conservative opposition.

The Greens have piled on the pressure since the end of the talks in Cancun at the weekend, saying Labor’s target to cut emissions by 5 percent from 2000 levels by 2020 is far too weak.

“Mexico put the mojo back into the U.N. climate talks,” said John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute think tank. “What came out of Cancun made it quite clear that we’re talking about beyond 5 percent because we are talking about a world taking action.”

Australia is the world’s top coal exporter, generates more than 80 percent of its electricity from coal and its per-capita emissions are among the highest in the developed world.

The government has said putting a price on carbon is the only way to cut carbon emissions growth from the A$1.2 trillion economy. But it has struggled to win backing from powerful industry lobbies and the issue has proven politically poisonous.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pledged to speed up a decision on how to price carbon, either by a tax, emissions trading scheme or a combination, by next year and the Greens are demanding tougher action to match Europe’s 20 percent cut and Japan‘s pledged 25 percent reduction.

“The Cancun agreement keeps the global negotiations alive on the understanding that everybody needs to lift their sights to stronger action if we are to deliver a safe climate,” Greens deputy leader, Senator Christine Milne, said in a statement.

She called for Australia to deepen the cut to 25 to 40 percent by 2020. The government in the past pledged to cut by up 25 percent if other big emitters such as China and the United States signed up to a tough climate pact.

FIRST CUT NOT THE DEEPEST

The mining industry, however, said Australia’s reliance on resource exports exposed the country to higher costs than other developed countries when it comes to curbing emissions.

“Even a 5 percent cut for Australia costs us much more in lost gross domestic product than a bigger cut in Europe,” Minerals Council of Australia deputy chief executive Brendan Pearson told Reuters.

He said government modeling found a 5 percent cut would cut economic growth by more than 1 percent, and would be double the impact of a cut of up to 20 percent in Europe.

But analysts say the government faces pressure to act.

“We can no longer assume the government will simply be able to proceed on its own terms, especially if that is a minus-5 percent target,” said Martijn Wilder, global head of Baker & McKenzie’s climate change practice in Sydney.

“We should also not dismiss the fact that if the government wants to get its legislation through the parliament, it may be the case that the Greens and the independents insist on having a higher target of 10 or 15 percent,” he told Reuters.

From July 2011, the government will need support from the Greens to pass laws through the upper house Senate. The government also relies on support from three independents and a Green lawmaker in the lower house, who want action on climate change and are part of a multi-party panel on carbon pricing.

Tough action on pricing emissions and a tougher target would pit the government against big polluters, such as miners.

“The real test for the government is whether the presence of the Greens, independents and experts in the Multi Party Climate Committee will give them the strength to stand up to the rent-seekers and commit to good policy with the ambitious goal to transform Australia’s economy,” Milne said.

The Cancun talks put off a decision on the final shape of an agreement but put the troubled U.N. negotiations back on track with a package of modest agreements.

Under the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, Australia was among the few rich nations allowed to increase its emissions during a 2008-12 first phase.

Emissions are now about 8 percent above 1990 levels and the government, and industry groups, say even a 5 percent cut by 2020 will be tough.

“Australia’s 5 percent minimum target is a big ask for a growing, inherently emissions-intensive economy,” said Heather Ridout, chief executive of Australian Industry Group, which represents manufacturers.

“The 5 percent cut to 2000 levels equates to around 21 percent below the business-as-usual projection for 2020. That means our economy would have to reduce, avoid or offset more than one in every five emissions it would otherwise make.”

Reflections on the Cancun Agreements | World Resources Institute

An excellent summary of the outcome of the COP16/CMP6 in Cancun by the World Resources Institute: Reflections on the Cancun Agreements | World Resources Institute.

In the opinion of the WRI, the reasons for the successful outcome include:

• Pressure to deliver and proving the effectiveness of the UNFCCC process;
• Transparency by the Mexican presidency as basis for trust to underpin negotiations;
• A focus on operational details, the “how”, not just the “what”;
• Common ground, balanced package, requiring everyone to compromise;
• China and the United States being in a more cooperative mode;
• India tabling proposals which became central to the aggreement; and
• The Cartagena Dialogue as an example of improved North-South cooperation.

In this article you will also find an assessment of the Cancun Agreements.

A recommended reading!

The Cancun Agreements

The COP16/CMP6 in Cancún, Mexico, ended on Saturday with the adoption of a balanced package of decisions that set all governments more firmly on the path towards a low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world – the Cancun Agreements.

Elements of the Cancun Agreements include:

• Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.
• Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries. Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.
• Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.
• The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.
• Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.
• A total of $30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise $100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.
• In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.
• A new “Cancún Adaptation Framework” is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.
• Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.
• Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network

For more information on the decisions by COP16 and CMP6, please see here.

Was Cancun a success? Has it delivered on expectations, or is it another disappointing outcome? Has a “balanced package” (the buzz word of the conference) been achieved? Not according to Bolivia, which was sidelined by Mexican President Espinosa when the Cancun Agreements were adopted. While the concerns were noted, President Espinosa said ““The rule of consensus doesn’t mean unanimity, and even less the possiblity that a delegation can expect to impose a right of veto on the will that has been reached by so much work.”

There appears to be some disappointment among commentators and observers, however, one needs to understand the purpose of this COP. It is important to note that Cancun was never primarily about agreeing on a new legally binding global agreement on the fight against climate change. Rather, it was meant to lay the foundation for this to happen next year in Durban, South Africa. Progress was made, and one of the key points is that the UN negotiating process did not fall apart – in part due to the work done in Tianjin and Bonn earlier this year.

There was a lot of talk about Japan, Russia and Canada not willing to support a second commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. As was mentioned numerous times during press conferences, these positions were not new in Cancun, but have been know for a couple of months now. The argument links back to making legally binding reduction commitments from all major emitters, including China and India. Under the current form of the Kyoto Protocol, these two countries, classified as developing countries under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are not subject to such reduction requirements, instead they are even eligible for support from developed (Annex I) countries. This issue will have to be subject to further negotiations.

Also, agreement was achieved on making the Copenhagen Accord emission reduction pledges part of the official UN negotiations and making them more stringent. As it stands, pledges made by parties are inadequate to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5-2°C. One may remain confident that at least something has been achieved to allow for a positive, desired, or even necessary outcome next year.

UNEP Presents Emissions Gap Report | COP16 Press Center

Scientists say global reduction targets must be ambitious to take effect.

Ambitious global targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could potentially keep the Earth’s temperature from rising to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, said a panel of scientists working with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) on Thursday.

The group presented its “Emissions Gap Report,” a study by scientists from 25 leading institutions in 15 countries and headed by UNEP, the European Union’s Climate Fund and Mexico’s National Institute of Ecology (INE). The report aims to examine various emissions reduction targets outlined by 85 nations in the Copenhagen Accord drafted last year to influence discussions at the COP16/CMP6 conference in Cancun.

UNEP’s chief scientist Joseph Alcamo, said that emissions need to be around 44 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020 to prevent global temperatures from breaching a dangerous level of warming. Failure to act could raise levels to 56 Gt, creating a gap between actual levels and targets equal to the total amount of GHG emissions from the world’s energy supply sector.

“On one hand, the glass is half empty, in that there is going to be a gap the size of the Grand Canyon between temperature targets and expected emissions if we do not act immediately,” he said.

“On the other hand, the glass is also half full, because we found in our study that issues being considered on the negotiations have to do with low versus high ambition pledges and rules for complying with pledges have the potential to greatly narrow this gap, to considerably narrow this gap.”

Australia Takes 5% Target to Cancun

Australia has committed to an uncoditional greenhouse gas reduction target of 5% below 2000 level by 2020. There is now disagreement (again) about the appropriateness of such a weak target.

As discussed in a previous post, not only is a 5% (15% if there is global agreement) reduction by 2020 is unlikely to unleash the technological innovation and commitment that is necessary to shift towards a low carbon economy, but it is also well below those recommended by the IPCC and the Garnaut Review. In fact, GHG reductions of 5-15% are equivalent to a stabilisation at about 510-550ppm, not the 450ppm the Australian Government is lobbying for.

The question is whether taking the same level of commitment to Cancun that was demonstrated in Copenhagen will actually be a catalyst for change both domestically as well as for international negotiations.  Already in 2008, Australia’s targets have been deemed insuficcient. Australia has repeatedly voiced a desire to take a leaderhsip role in tackling climate change, but a 5% target and the lack of a clear climate change policy fall extremely short of a leadership role.

Now with a number of trade partners implementing emission trading schemes or carbon taxes, Australia really need no longer fear of “going it alone“. The time has come for serious commitment and action. Excuses are running out, clean tech is being developed elsewhere and imported into Australia. Other countries and companies are already gaining valuable experience and expertise in dealing with a price on carbon. Think Change!

In this context, Fankhauser, Sehlleier and Stern (2008) have published an interesting article on the topic in Climate Policy (8), titled “Climate Change, innovation and jobs“, in which they state that the biggest effect of (proper) climate policy will trigger widespread structural adjustment, innovation, job creation and growth. A recommended reading!