Tag: Mitigation

Le Tour du COP

Bonjour and welcome to the 21st edition of Le Tour du COP!
Participants in Paris have two weeks to show the world what they’re made of. ECO welcomes the ADP’s early start and expects governments to treat COP21 as a turning point, where they agree to a transformation that is much faster;  just; and has the needs of the most vulnerable at its core.
~ECO’s ultimate guide for winning the race~
Well-built Cycles: As any bike rider can tell you, increasingly ambitious cycles are essential for reaching the finish line.
ECO urges countries to adopt a Paris Ambition Mechanism that ensures that the overall ambition across all elements is assessed and scaled up in 5-year time frames. Contributions should be regularly updated to be in line with the 1.5-degree C limit, on the basis of regular science and equity reviews.
Current INDCs should be reviewed and ratcheted up as soon as possible, and well before countries begin implementation in 2020.
Long-term Goal: To maintain the right speed and direction, you need to know your final destination. ECO expects governments to agree to a 1.5°C temperature goal and operationalise it with a long-term goal of full global decarbonisation and 100% renewable energy access for all by 2050.
Finance: Securing the yellow (or should that be green?) jersey requires teamwork. This kind of collaboration can be fuelled by establishing collective targets for financial support to be set by the CMA every 5 years, with distinct targets for adaptation and mitigation.
Developed countries and other countries that are in a position to do so (because their levels of capability and responsibility are comparable to developed countries) would commit to contributing to meeting these targets.
Adaptation: To stay in the race for a climate-safe planet, we must be resilient by scaling up adaptation action urgently.
The Paris agreement must adopt a global goal that advances adaptation and builds resilience for all communities and ecosystems. It should recognise that higher temperatures will require greater adaptation efforts.  Achieving the adaptation goal is a common responsibility, and will require support to developing countries.
Loss and Damage Action: A durable climate regime must be able to respond to the impacts of climate change that can’t be prevented through mitigation or adaptation. The Paris agreement must be equipped with a separate provision on loss and damage, with  robust institutional arrangements and financial support to vulnerable developing countries to address these kinds of impacts.
Pre-2020 Action and Support: If you stay too far back in the pack, at some point you can’t make up the distance needed to win the race. The future of our planet is too important to risk waiting too long to make our move. Immediate action is needed to address the ambition gap. ECO urges developed countries to implement, accelerate and strengthen their pre-2020 commitments, while all countries cooperate to do more.
Through a strong Workstream 2 decision, governments must also agree to create a menu of workable policy options to scale up action. To maintain momentum, two high-level champion positions should be created and filled with leaders with a profile capable of incentivising high-level cooperation built around the good ideas coming out of the TEP. The champions should also coordinate the development and scaling up of mitigation and adaptation initiatives by matching good ideas with necessary means of implementation. These initiatives should be presented at annual high-level meetings, which can also review future progress.
Crucially, developed countries must present a plan on how they are going to meet their $100 billion promise, how to improve the imbalance between mitigation and adaptation, and specifically how support from public sources will increase until 2020.
Transparency and Integrity: The Tour has seen its fair share of unsportsmanlike conduct. To keep all Parties on their best behaviour, the Paris agreement should contain a strongtransparency framework, including MRV, to maintain trust and ensure transparency of action and support.
The new agreement must also ensure emissions reductions are real, additional, verifiable, and permanent; avoid double counting of effort; are supplemental to ambitious national mitigation; contribute to sustainable development and ensure net atmospheric benefits.
Respect for Human Rights: Good team leaders look after their people. For the Paris outcome to promote effective climate policies that benefit those affected by impacts of climate change, it must include an operative, overarching reference to human rights.
On this road through many negotiations, we have made it through some difficult stages and the finish line for an agreement is in sight. The pieces needed for a strong outcome in Paris are within reach. It is now up to our leaders to finish strong and deliver the result our world so desperately needs.
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Play It Straight on Workstream 2 and Adaptation 

The dynamic, lovable beast we know as Workstream 2 is our best apparent opportunity to bend the emissions trajectory downward by 2020. It has also been a beacon of hope that Parties can work together to develop climate solutions. Also, some of these solutions, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, have massive co-benefits beyond emission reductions.
Over the past year, the scope of Workstream 2 has widened. It expanded beyond closing the pre-2020 emissions gap. Discussions now also include addressing the pre-2020 ambition gaps on adaptation and finance, and should include means of implementation. On the face of it, this is a good thing. There’s much immediate need for adaptation action, and an equally substantial need for support. Focus from Parties could help accelerate overall action in these areas.
Even so, some nights, especially after the Bonn intersessional, ECO has laid awake concerned that discussions on adaptation might be used by some to slow down overall progress on Workstream 2. Progress on both adaptation and closing the pre-2020 emissions gap are critical to the fate of the vulnerable. And, refreshingly, Workstream 2 largely has been a space where Parties have worked constructively, rather than played games. This should continue.
By avoiding duplication and properly placing the Adaptation Technical Examination Process within the decision text, Workstream 2 can provide an important contribution to adaptation in general, while also keeping our eyes on that looming emissions gap.
Topics: 
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

WS2 and Adaptation: The Talk of the Talks

ECO hears rumours that Parties have discussed the possibility of having a Technical Examination Process (TEP) on adaptation, and we’d be delighted if this was true. After all, there are more gaps in these negotiations than even ECO can keep track of, from gigatonnes to dollars. Adaptation appears to be one of the victims of process, and seemingly never has its time to shine. Finance for adaptation remains grossly insufficient, and more action is needed to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

An adaptation TEP might just be the match made in heaven to ensure that there is  both a technical conversation with concrete recommendations and political commitment, which would in turn increase adaptation actions. It’s high time to  kickstart  action on the ground.

However, while Workstream 2 can be a great vehicle to get adaptation off the ground, it needs to be done in earnest. An adaptation TEP has a lot to offer to vulnerable people by engaging experts and catalysing action. But it must not become a topic that slows down the good pace of WS2 that has been evident this past week.  Nor can it become a delaying tactic for the remaining thorny bits, including the many pivotal mitigation elements.

Even with the prospect of happy union between TEP and adaptation on the table, these precious elements should not fall by the wayside. Parties need to stay engaged with the issues at hand: accelerating the implementation of mitigation in the pre-2020 period, appointing high-level champions, and ensuring the necessary support is provided. Only after we’ve locked down these essential elements of WS2 should we export other possibilities.

Related Newsletter : 

ECO: Your Wingperson

Setting up a first date is a nerve-racking process. ECO has been there: spending hours overanalysing the details of what your crush did or didn’t say, writing vague texts that don’t express what you really mean, trying to play it cool by acting non-committal…

Always keen to give out relationship advice, ECO couldn’t help noticing that Parties’ discussions on the first date of the global assessment (still called a “stocktake” for  the moment) are in dire need of a helping hand—not to mention their caginess around further developments for the ambition mechanism. Here are ECO’s top tips for Parties on setting a date with destiny for a long-lasting relationship based on mutual understanding and trust:

Dont delay! It might seem scary, but someone has to initiate and suggest a clear date for your first get together. Why wait? You’re only delaying making your dreams of a fossil fuel-free future a reality! Don’t let all the intensity that’s been building up before Paris go to waste. ECO reckons the first date for an assessment to raise ambition should happen well ahead of 2020. Who’s going to seize the day and suggest 2018? Don’t forget, you need agreement on this in Paris to avoid being stood up!

Be clear about your intentions. If you want things to progress, don’t be shy about these ambitions! Put it down, in writing, that you’re keen to take things to the next level with each successive date. Having the confidence to say how quickly you’ll kick your dirty habits (like that fossil fuel addiction) is a true sign of commitment.

Make a good impression. Don’t be shy in showing your wide range of interests in adaptation and finance at these assessments, too. This will show you can make informed decisions and plan for all eventualities. What a keeper!

Regular communication. Make time for regular check-ins to communicate how you’re feeling about your current level of commitment. Be forthcoming about your expectations for robust transparency and MRV, but don’t be afraid to ask for support. Global assessments to review and raise ambition should take place every 5 years. It’s important to put this in your diaries now. Could there be a more romantic location than Paris to seal the deal?!

Look for your match. Learn about each others’ needs. Are you a developed country looking to support greater decarbonisation? Are you a developing country with a conditional INDC just needing some support? Try establishing a match-box where Parties with reciprocal needs can achieve common goals.

Related Newsletter : 

The European Illusion

Delegates, you well know that ECO has lamented, time and time again, that the EU’s reduction targets for 2020 and 2030 are inadequate, below business as usual, and in general an embarrassment to the continent that once was the leader in global climate action.

This week’s news from the European Environment Agency has again proven our point: the latest EU numbers show that greenhouse gas emission fell 4% between 2013 and 2014. This brings the EU’s domestic emissions down to 23% below 1990 levels, and will most likely lead to below 30% by 2020. ECO reminds delegates that the EU’s current 2020 reduction commitment is 20% below 1990.

Done. Many years ahead of time.

“What should the EU do now?” you may ask. As far as ECO can see, the only action the EU is taking in response is to engage in self-praise and nothing more. We all know that there is more to be done, so, EU, listen up:

  • Commit to implementing your conditional 30% by 2020 target (which will happen without any extra effort).
  • Cancel the vast surplus of emission allowances weighing down your carbon market to ensure that the 2030 target will not be made meaningless with carry-over of old reductions.
  • Do more! We need to phase-out global emissions by 2050 and the EU could be the ones to lead the way.
Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Bring Back Full Decarbonisation by 2050

There’s one particularly valuable piece of mitigation text that got lost in the co-chairs’ pressure cleaning of the text. Namely, the text that called for full decarbonisation by 2050.

ECO urges Parties to bring it back into the first paragraph of Article 3.

Why?

Because the Paris agreement needs to be a phase-out agreement, rather than another emissions management agreement.

In light of the latest IPCC findings and the carbon budget it outlines, fossil carbon emissions must simply be phased out. And that needs to happen fast, by mid-century at the latest, if we are to have a good chance of staying below 2°C, not to mention 1.5°C.

Those who believe we have more time for the phase out, even until the end of the century, are betting on  hypothetical and highly problematic ”negative emissions”.

That’s not a plan. That’s just reckless gambling with our future.

A goal of full decarbonisation by 2050 would reflect the true urgency of the situation. It would make it increasingly difficult for businesses to justify investing in high-carbon emitting infrastructure, because the energy systems we’ll need to have in place by 2050 are being built now.

On the other hand, a long-term goal of decarbonisation by end of the century would have the opposite effect. It would create the dangerous illusion of having all the time in the world to change.

The solutions are already here. The renewable energy revolution has already started. What the world needs from Paris is a clear signal that the age of fossil fuels is coming to an end and that the direction is now towards a world powered by renewable energy for all.

ECO therefore urges Parties to make this message clear in the draft agreement and is happy to help with inspirational text.

Your task, dear delegates, is not to foresee the future, but to enable it.

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Mitigation