The Copenhagen Accord - a liberal emissions regime for the USA and China

The Copenhagen Accord will maintain the Kyoto divide

The prospects of achieving a consensus agreement in Copenhagen, with nearly two hundred nations having spanned two years arguing word by word over draft texts for a new climate change treaty, were never good. The diversity of perceptions of equity and self interested agendas make it remarkable that the UN process has got as far as it has.

The  proactive move by a group of countries led by the USA and China, whose  leaders agreed between themselves the text of a 'Copenhagen Accord' to be presented to other COP15 parties, led to cries of 'undemocratic' and 'outside the UN process'. These objections sound hollow in relation to the urgency of the need for nations to cooperate to address the threat of climate change, and the slowness of the UN process which has failed to place a draft negotiating text on the table at COP15 after two years of effort.

The worst features of the Copenhagen Accord* are that it contains few of the elements considered to be important for an effective climate deal. There are no quantified emissions reduction targets or timescales for peaking emissions, no reference to a legally binding agreement, and no detail on how targets or actions might be monitored or independently verified. Although finance from developed countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries is set at 100 billion US dollars a year by 2020, there is vagueness about the sources of such finance.

The nations that devised the Accord (USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) are all outside Kyoto Annex 1. In other words they did not take on binding emissions reductions targets under the Kyoto protocol (in the case of the USA as a result of non ratification)

The Accord maintains the Kyoto divide prescribing that Annex1 countries should.... 'commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 to be submitted ...... to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation', and that 'Non-Annex I Parties ......will implement mitigation actions...' The intention is that national commitments from both groups will be added as appendices to the Accord. 

Thus if the Accord is adopted as a legal agreement, since it incorporates the Kyoto structure  the USA  would need to clarify its status.

The EU and Japan have apparently endorsed the Accord but indicated that it falls far short of the type of agreement that they had hoped would be concluded. Some nations find the Accord unacceptable so the final COP15 session merely 'noted' the Accord.

Where the path from Copenhagen will lead now is uncertain and there must be doubts about whether the UNFCCC process can continue. 

The new grouping of USA, China, India plus Brazil and South Africa includes the worlds' two largest CO2 emitters. Under the Accord, when/if transformed into a legal treaty, the developing nations would undertake 'actions' not binding emissions targets and 'will undertake domestic measurement, reporting and verification' which will be reported under 'guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected'. The USA might need to ratify Kyoto but potentially could remain outside.

Figure 21.1   Percentage of world CO2 emissions - 'Copenhagen Accord' group of nations

Because the combined CO2 emissions of the 'Accord' group comprising USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa were the source 49% of world emissions in 2008, (excluding land use and forestry emissions LULUCF) their performance in reducing their CO2 emissions under the liberal regime suggested by the wording of the Copenhagen Accord will be the major determinant of the worlds' CO2 emissions trajectory.

The potential effectiveness of the Copenhagen Accord as an instrument for mitigating climate change looks questionable because it does not contain strong constraints that would make the worlds largest CO2 emitters fully accountable. 
 


*All quotations in italics refer to Copenhagen Accord Draft decision -/CP.15 FCCC/CP/2009/L.7 18 December 2009   

India, Coal and Global Warming - A Postscript

Indian Prime Minister's Speech

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday addressed a conference of the State Ministers of Environment and Forests. He spoke about climate change and the need to adopt an environment-friendly growth strategy.

'Our growth strategy can be and should be innovative and different' he said. 'For this India needs access to new technologies that developed countries already have' but 'We must also make our own investments in new environment-friendly technologies'

Recently sceptical comments have been emanating from various Indian ministries about India's development path and climate change strategy; this speech may be seen as reiterating the importance of the Indian Climate Change Action Plan (NAPCC).


See below

India, Coal and Global Warming

India's rhetoric in Bonn is at odds with its Climate Change Plan

In 2008 India was the world's fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide and looks determined to follow a path leading to higher CO2 emissions by substantially increasing the use of coal to meet the growing demand for power and industrialization.

The choices made by India, and the help given by developed nations to support progress towards lower emissions path, are critical to combating global warming.

India's UNFCCC submissions, and recent pronouncements at the August UNFCCC meeting in Bonn by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh that India will not accept emissions targets, must be interpreted as India presenting emissions mitigation as a problem solely for developed countries to solve.

To justify its own 'no emissions targets' position, India cites historical rights to the atmosphere as it propounds Indian economic growth first, maybe targets later.

At the same time India is berating developed countries for their failure to reach their Kyoto GHG mitigation targets, and is asking that they provide finance for adaptation, waive I.P.R. on technologies and that they reduce their emissions by "more than 25-40 percent by 2020"

AFP reports that Ramesh has suggested that developed countries give 0.5-1.0 % of their GDP annually to enable developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

However India's combative rhetoric is likely to be counter-productive since equity would be best served by a collaborative ethos within which developed countries willingly supported developing countries along low carbon development paths with both finance and new technologies.

Those developing countries seeking to place blame on developed countries might pause to consider that the latter were unaware of their impact on climate at the time that they were industrializing. If developing countries recklessly seek to follow high GHG emissions paths under the prevailing global conditions, they do not do so in ignorance. Global warming science is now unequivocal and all countries will be affected.

Since it is clear that India understands the significance of the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, the language used in Bonn is disingenuous, and contrasts with that used by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in introducing India's 2008 Climate Change Action Plan (NAPCC). The plan is focused on sustainable development and has many positive features.

"Achieving national growth objectives through a qualitative change in direction that enhances ecological sustainability, leading to further mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions" is the second of seven guiding principles laid down in the NAPCC

But actions speak louder then words. At the same time as climate negotiators were in Bonn, Reuters and the Times of India reported (11August 09) that the Indian government was taking steps to promote private investment via competitive bidding for new coal mines to supply industries like steel and cement and to increase the supply of coal to the power sector.

India has 7.1% of world reserves of coal, in particular 54,000 million tonnes of anthracite and bituminous coal which is comparable with those of China, whose larger reserves include more lower grade coal and lignite. Demand for coal, already high in India, is currently partly satisfied by imports and India has secured funding for more coal fired power stations. It was also reported that Coal India intended in the future to acquire interests in coal mines overseas in Indonesia and South Africa and other countries.

This surely signals that India's has already made up its mind to expand use of coal very significantly in future with consequent impact on CO2 emissions.

India's position may appear totally disconnected from the reality that global warming is driven by CO2 emissions. Recent actions and rhetoric are difficult to reconcile with the India's 2008 Climate Change Action Plan. But, while the pressures due to the aspirations of a massive population are understood, and to use coal to meet these aspirations might seem the obvious path, it is extremely shortsighted.

Coal fired plant has a life of forty years at least and once in place a change to more sustainable infrastructure will be challenging. The window of opportunity to take a low carbon development path is now.

In Summary

India's rhetoric in Bonn is at odds with its Climate Change Plan published last year. Indian leaders are aware of the opportunities offered by a sustainable technology path, and that evolution towards non-coal-based distributed energy systems would offer better long term prospects for their citizens than a centralised coal based economy.

However in practice, it seems, they choose not to opt for sustainability and look set to increase their use of coal.

An intransigent stance on emissions targets is a tragedy, not just for the Indian people but for the entire world.

For developed nations to be willing to fund clean technology and adaptation measures, India's proposals need to be consistent and lead to a more sustainable future.

A new, more constructive dialogue is needed.


.