Julie-­‐Anne  Richards  Consultant  julieannerichards2008@gmail.com  +61  (0)420  308  625  @jar_climate  julie-­‐anne_richards  (skype)  hEp://confessionsofaclimategeek.blogspot.com.au/    

The  Interna4onal  Climate  Nego4a4ons  …  Is  there  Hope?  

…  and  what  does  it  mean  for  Australia?  

•  Durban  (2011)  agreed  to:  “launch  a  process  to  develop  a  protocol,  another  legal  instrument  or  an  agreed  outcome  with  legal  force  under  the  Conven4on  applicable  to  all  Par4es  …  no  later  than  2015”    

•  But  we  failed  at  this  task  in  2009  –  are  we  more  likely  to  succeed  in  2015?    

Interna4onal  Climate  Nego4a4ons  …  is  there  hope?        

1.  2008-­‐09  no  shared  understanding  of  who  would  do  what  and  who  would  pay,  and  no  genuine  nego4a4ons.  

2.  Nego4a4on  process  was  incredibly  complicated  and  confused.  The  “nothing  is  agreed  un4l  it’s  all  agreed”  approach  and  lack  of  a  process  plan  meant  nothing  was  agreed.  

3.  The  poli4cs  worked  against  a  deal  being  made.  

Is  anything  different  now?  

What  went  wrong  in  2009?        

Expecta4ons,  equity  and  cold,  hard  numbers  Lead  up  to  2009:  

–  Entered  Copenhagen  with  fundamentally  different  beliefs  about  who  would  be  taking  what  ac4on.  

–  Expecta4ons  on  scale  of  commitments  not  established.  –  Failed  to  enter  real  nego4a4ons.    Eg:  the  EU  were  ready  to  

go  to  30%,  and  Australia  to  15%,  but  *no-­‐one  asked*!  

Lead  up  to  2015:  –  Who  does  what  and  who  pays  star4ng  to  be  discussed  

(Equity).      –  A  different  understanding  of  who  should  take  what  ac4on  

underlies  discussions.  –  Broad  understanding  that  mi4ga4on  and  finance  numbers  

must  be  on  table  early  (in  2014)  in  order  to  be  reviewed.    –  Understanding  that  there  must  be  a  science  &  equity  

framework  to  review  ini4al  commitments.  –  NGOs  will  clearly  communicate  country  specific  numbers  

to  set  expecta4ons  end  2013/early  2014  (I  hope).    

Pathway  to  an  agreement  Lead  up  to  2009:  

–  All  decisions  pushed  to  a  final  package  (“nothing  is  agreed  un4l  everything  is  agreed”).  

–  Technical  +  structural  +  poli4cal  elements  all  being  nego4ated.  

–  Too  much  to  be  agreed  in  one  go  (200pp  nego4a4ng  text).  –  No  clear  tasks  for  Leaders.  –  The  Danes!!  

Lead  up  to  2015:  –  A  roadmap  has  been  agreed  (albeit  minimalist).  –  More  suppor4ng  architecture  exists,  or  is  close:  

•  Green  Carbon  Fund  (GCF);    •  Technology  Mechanism  –  Technology  Execu4ve  Commikee  (TEC)  established  and  Climate  Technology  Centre  and  Network  (CTCN).    

–  Role  for  Leaders  –  beker  understanding/planning.  

The  poli4cs  2009:  •  Unholy  alliance  of  US  and  BASICs  blocked  progress.  •  EU  was  locked  out  of  final  nego4a4ons.  •  LDCs,  AOSIS,  Africa  Group  –  not  effec4ve  enough.    Lead  up  to  2015:  •  EU  realises  it  needs  allies.  Established  the  Durban  alliance  with  

LDCs  and  AOSIS.  But  subsequently  this  alliance  has  withered.  •  Cartagena  Dialogue  established  –  but  opposi4onal  forces  seem  

strong.  •  US  and  China  increasing  bilateral  work.  •  China  has  compelling  domes4c  reasons  to  want  strong  ac4on.  •  China  in  par4cular,  and  BASIC  more  generally,  seem  to  be  

stepping  up  to  the  plate,  ie  taking  more  responsibility,  in  other  geopoli4cal  areas  (eg:  BASIC  bank).  

The  poli4cs  •  EU    

–  Realised  need  for  allies  –  Durban  alliance  with  LDCs  and  AOSIS  posi4ve  but  lapsed.  

–  EU  process  to  develop  2030  targets  for  ghge,  RE  and  EE  already  underway.  Expect  results  end  2013.    

–  Poland  will  con4nue  to  be  difficult.    Euro  crisis  will  con4nue  to  challenge.  •  LDCs,  AOSIS,  Africa  Group  

–  LDCs  have  been  very  well  organised  and  a  powerful  force.    –  AOSIS  were  driving  force  behind  geong  Loss  and  Damage  at  Doha.  –  Africa  Group  well  organised.  Sth  Africa  (also  BASIC  country)  make  

dynamic  interes4ng.  •  China    

–  Domes4c  reasons  to  take  strong  ac4on.      –  Growing  geopoli4cal  power.    Do  not  want  to  repeat  ‘blame  game’  that  

occurred  aqer  CPH.  •  US  

–  Obama  might  have  found  his  climate  mojo  –  but  recent  package  will  only  meet  exis4ng  17%  below  2005  (4%  below  1990)  target.    More  requires  Congress/the  Republicans.  

–  Not  clear  the  US  will  ra4fy  anything.  •  French  –  not  hard  to  be  beker  than  the  Danes.  •  Russia  –  wild  card.  •  La4n  American  countries  •  Canada  [&  Australia]  –  new  Petro-­‐States?  

Interna4onal  Climate  Nego4a4ons  …  is  there  hope?          

Yes!    UNFCCC  nego4a4ons  are  in  a  much  beker  space  than  in  lead  up  to  Copenhagen.    But…    S4ll  key  ingredients  to  be  put  in  place.  and  …  S4ll  plenty  of  chance  for  things  to  go  wrong.        

Ingredients  for  a  decent  2015  agreement:  In  the  nego4a4ons:  

–  Equity  (who  does  what  and  who  pays)  discussed  early  –  Numbers  (mi4ga4on  and  finance)  on  table  in  2014  so  that  we  enter  real  nego4a4ons  

–  Public  finance  (incl  innova4ve  sources)  roadmap  –  Understanding  that  wealthy  countries  must  do  FAR  more  

–  Agreement  to  a  “dynamic”  approach  –  ie  countries  move  to  higher  levels  of  ac4on  as  they  develop  

–  Understand  that  the  US  probably  won’t  ra4fy  anything  (non  party  mechanism  discussed  early)  

–  ?  Loss  &  damage,  as  a  ‘backstop’  in  case  mi4ga4on  is  not  high  enough.  

What  does  it  mean  for  Australia?  

–  Australia  needs  to  be  ready  to  put  decent  mi4ga4on  and  finance  commitments  on  the  table  in  2014.    

–  5%  or  15%  will  not  be  anywhere  near  enough.  

RCP3-­‐PD  

RCP45  

Source:  M.  Meinshausen,  2013  based  on  CMIP5.    

•  The  IPCC  AR5  might  conclude  that  RCP3-­‐PD  the  lowest  of  the  IPCC  climate  model  “representa4ve  concentra4on  pathways”  would  imply  a  likely  chance  to  stay  below  2°C.    –  Lower  carbon  budget  when  including  non-­‐CO2  gases.    –  Lower  carbon  budget  when  considering  higher  than  33%  likelihoods.    –  Lower  carbon  budget  when  considering  lower  temperature  targets,  like  1.5.    

!

! "#!

!""#$%%$"&'(&)$*+$,)-,$$#-,)&*./-*,%&/0!/&-,/$#1$,$&-,&2!#3-,)4&5*#&$6!3.7$&'(&#$"89-,)&/0$&%*7!#&#!"-!/-*,&-,.8/&-,/*&/0$&:!#/0&%(%/$3;&&&&

&&!"#$%&'(')*+'&,"--"./-'"/'0'1234)'-5&/0%".-'.6&%708'9":;'0'+4)'-5&/0%".'$/:"7':;&'+<=<->'?$:'%&@$"%&'A&&8&%'%&A$5:"./-'"/':;&'%&-:'.B':;&'+1-:'5&/:$%C2'

&

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

Adequacy  and  feasibility  of  the  1.5oC  long-­‐term  global  limit.    CAN  Europe  &  Climate  Analy4cs.    July  2013.  hkp://www.climnet.org/resources/latest-­‐publica4ons/571-­‐adequacy-­‐and-­‐feasibility-­‐of-­‐the-­‐1-­‐5-­‐c-­‐long-­‐term-­‐global-­‐limit    

24 Point of No Return The massive climate threats we must avoid

section four

Climate change impactsThe impacts of various levels of global warming

Adequacy  and  feasibility  of  the  1.5oC  long-­‐term  global  limit.    CAN  Europe  &  Climate  Analy4cs.    July  2013.  hkp://www.climnet.org/resources/latest-­‐publica4ons/571-­‐adequacy-­‐and-­‐feasibility-­‐of-­‐the-­‐1-­‐5-­‐c-­‐long-­‐term-­‐global-­‐limit    Point  of  No  Return:  The  massive  carbon  threats  we  must  avoid.  Greenpeace.  January  2013.  hkp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/Coal/PointOfNoReturn.pdf    

Why  bother  staying  below  1.5oC?  1.5oC  •  Serious  challenges  worldwide,  especially  in  LDCs,  SIDS  

and  Africa  •  Increased  water  stress  in  regions  already  drought  

affected  today  •  Coral  reef  ecosystems  extremely  adversely  impacted  

by  ocean  acidifica4on  &  warming  &  sea  level  rise  •  If  temps  drop  below  1.5oC  sea  level  rise  might  stabilise  

below  1.5m  in  long  term,  ~75cm  by  2100  (sea  level  rise  of  45cm  =  10%  of  Bangladesh  lost)  

2oC  •  Severe  &  widespread  droughts  in  next  30-­‐90yrs  

including  southern  Europe,  Australia,  Africa,  Americas  •  Nega4vely  affected  crop  yields  put  pressure  on  food  

security  •  Drought  disaster  frequency  in  major  crop  sowing  

areas  expected  to  double  •  7-­‐27%  damages  sub-­‐Sahelian  crop  damages  •  Substan4al  forest  retreat  in  Amazon  •  Coral  reef  growth  impeded  •  Greenland  ice  sheet  irreversible  melt  es4mated  at  

1.6oC,  long  term  sea  level  rise  of  3m  by  2300.  

14  

What  does  this  mean  for  Australia’s  targets?  

The  2040  phase  out  date  is  JAR’s  wild  guess  I  understand  others  have  calculated  2035.  It  is,  broadly  speaking,  in  line  with  the  domes4c  reduc4ons  for  Australia  under  a  GDR  approach  (see  Dr  Ian  McGregor’s  calcula4on  of  same:  hkp://consulta4on.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/climate-­‐change-­‐authority1/submissions/33/akachment      Trajectories  are  JAR’s  rough  calcula4ons,  they  do  not  fully  take  into  account  the  ‘carbon  budget’  (area  under  the  graph).  Source:  historical  emissions  &  emission  trajectory  to  2020  for  5%,  15%,  25%  pathways:    www.climatechange.gov.au.    

And  then  there’s  finance  …    

–  Finance  commitments:  •  $2.4bn  per  year  by  2020  (Australia’s  share  of  $100bn  by  2020)  World  Vision  

 •  One  expects  this  to  increase  beyond  2020:    In  developing  countries  mi2ga2on  could  cost  $140  to  $175  billion  a  year  over  the  next  20  years  (with  associated  financing  needs  of  $265  to  $565  billion);  over  the  period  2010  to  2050  adapta2on  investments  could  average  $30  to  $100  billion  a  year.  World  Bank  

 

World  Vision:    hkp://www.worldvision.com.au/libraries/finance_report/finance_report_-­‐_climate_change.pdf      =  0.1%  of  Australia‘s  projected  GNI  at  2020  World  Bank,  World  Development  Report  2010,  Chapter  6  hkp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-­‐1226014527953/Chapter-­‐6.pdf    

What  does  it  mean  for  Australia?  The  Australian  Government  needs  to  be  ready  to  put  this  level  of  commitment  on  the  table  by  September  2014:    

–  Mi4ga4on  targets  •  2025  -­‐42%  to  -­‐55%  •  2030  -­‐61%  to  -­‐70%  •  Substan4al/Majority  domes4c  reduc4ons  

–  Finance  commitments:  •  $2.4bn  per  year  by  2020  (Australia’s  share  of  $100bn)  

How  do  we  change  the  poliTcal  situaTon  to  make  this  possible?    If  not  –  then  which  country  should  make  up  Australia’s  shorXall?  

Finance  commitment  source:    hkp://www.worldvision.com.au/libraries/finance_report/finance_report_-­‐_climate_change.pdf      =  0.1%    projected  Gross  Na4onal  Income  (GNI)  at  2020.    Australia’s  aid  budget  2013  =  $5.7bn.  

Quick  thoughts  on  ac4on  •  Time  to  win  back  ‘hearts  and  minds’  on  climate  change.  

Con4nue  to  talk  about  the  technocra4c  and  specific  fixes  eg  targets,  carbon  pricing,  renewables,  within  a  framework  based  on  values  and  emo4on.  

•  Talk  about  the  seriousness  of  the  problem  whilst  offering  hope.    Accentuate  the  posi4ve  whilst  recognising  the  risk.  

•  Ensure  the  solu4on  is  on  the  same  scale  as  the  problem.  The  problem  is  global  and  affects  everyone.    The  solu4on  has  to  be  global,  with  fair  na4onal  levels  of  ac4on,  and  links  to  local  and  personal  ac4on.    A  complete  solu4on  package.  

•  Na4onal  targets  needs  to  be  incorporated  into  messaging  and  campaigns  really,  really  soon.  

•  A  global  agreement  is  important,  but  we  need  ac4on  on  this  scale  anyway.    Locking  in  local  ambi4on  is  the  best  way  to  get  a  global  agreement.  

•  Success  on  this  scale  will  need  civil  society  collabora4on.  

Addi4onal  opportuni4es  /  challenges  •  G20  

–  Summit  (HoG)  –  15-­‐16  November  2014,  Brisbane  –  Australia  G20  President  next  year.  Coali4on  have  big  plans  for  the  G20.  And  no  doubt  Rudd  will  want  to  be  seen  to  be  doing  something  *important*.  

–  Climate  Finance  opportuni4es:  •  Fossil  fuel  subsidies  •  Interna4onal  coal  levy  –  por4on  of  which  goes  to  GCF  

•  Pacific  Islands  Forum  3-­‐6  September  2013  –  Marshall  Islands  wants  climate  change  declara4on  hkp://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-­‐07-­‐29/an-­‐marshall-­‐islands-­‐calls-­‐on-­‐australia-­‐to-­‐tackle-­‐climate-­‐change/4851434    

 Thanks!  

Julie-­‐Anne  Richards  Consultant  julieannerichards2008@gmail.com  +61  (0)420  308  625  @jar_climate  julie-­‐anne_richards  (skype)  hkp://confessionsofaclimategeek.blogspot.com.au/