federated states of micronesia proposition of policy 1.necessity 2. practicability (feasibility) ;...
TRANSCRIPT
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIAProposition of
Policy1. Necessity 2. Practicability
(Feasibility) ; 3. Beneficiality
Necessity: Why must we do it?• Let me tell you a Story•Burning house, fire truck 200 kms away, with a flat tire, no water, driver and firemen still asleep•Volunteer fire brigade right next door: • or will we grab pails of water and start dousing the fire in whatever way we can?
• Also , HFCs ODS substitutes – with very high GWP ; if uncontrolled •HFCs -- 20% of GHGs by 2050- We caused this mess, we clean it up
• Who: All Parties (Article 2 and Article 5 countries) phase-down HFCs
• When: Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility
• Article 2 Parties: Sooner:
Article 5 Parties: Later
Who? Will do what?
Article 2 Parties: “Sooner” From baseline: 2013 - 85% 2016 - 70% 2019 - 55% 2022 - 45% 2025 - 30% 2028 - 15 % 2030 - 10%
Baseline = Average of HCFCs + HFCs (2004-2006 ) x GWP
When and How:
Article 5 Parties: “Later”
• Beginning in 2019 and Ending in 2036 (6 YEAR GRACE PERIOD)
• Baseline = Average of HCFCs (2007 - 2009) x GWP
HOW: TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
• CONGRATULATIONS to TEAP for its recent report
• More low-GWP alternatives to high-GWP HFCs available TODAY than alternatives to CFCs at the time we agreed to CFC phase-down
• For example, low-GWP alternatives in MAC and Foams (equal to 50% of HFC use) will be available within 5 years
• HCFC–22 Resulting in HFC-23 (14000+ GWP) • ALL PARTIES MUST be required to meet
ACHIEVABLE efficiency standards to minimize HFC-23 by-product
• ALL PARTIES MUST destroy their HFC-23; • with assistance from the MLF in Article 5 Parties
HFC 23:
• If HFC-23 destruction will no longer be covered by the CDM, the MLF WILL assist to destroy the HFC-23 in the same manner as it will fund the destruction of all other HFC-23
• NO DOUBLE FUNDING
PARTIES WITH HFC-23 UNDER CDM
EXISTING HFC-23 destruction projects covered by the CDM – MP WILL NOT interfere.
MULTI-LATERAL FUND
• To Cover the FULL INCREMENTAL COSTS to assist Article 5 Parties to comply (including considering SAFETY AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS)
• GUIDELINES AND FUNDING MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE IN A TIMELY MANNER;
CHALLENGE for the MLF ExCom
• WE WANT TO DO IT, and we WILL do it• WE Challenge you to make the resources
available • TO SAY THAT THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH MONEY
IN THE ENVELOPE is not acceptable. FIND ANOTHER ENVELOPE
• COMPLIANCE IS CONDITIONED ON FULL INCREMENTAL COSTS
• Trillions of dollars to bail out multi-millionaires who did not need it, and who caused their own financial problems in the first place.
• Few billions – literally loose change – to bail out the Earth made up of people who had nothing to do with creating the climate change problems they now face.
• Where there is a will, there is a way.
Challenge to Industry
• Develop the appropriate substitutes
• Make them available to all at a fair, and most reasonable price
A challenge to all countries• Leapfrog HFCs• HPMPs must
anticipate future HFC phase-down
• Otherwise, we will have to two transitions costing twice as much – both financially and environmentally
• Complementary and not alter commitments made under these convention
• Helping them in the manner that we can to lighten their load.
• Copenhagen - they need our help very badly
Relationship to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
• From 2013-2050 our proposal will reduce HFC emissions by up to 100+ BILLION TONNES OF CO2 eq.
BENEFICIALITY
Invitation
• Invite other countries not just to support but to co-sponsor the proposal
• Act with a sense not just of urgency but with a sense of EMERGENCY
Ten, fifty, a hundred years from now, and many Ten, fifty, a hundred years from now, and many generations hereafter, generations hereafter,
DURING OUR WATCH
Let it be said that during our watch …
While gifted with intelligence & insight, with privilege and position, with the wealth of wisdom,