Mitigation Working Group

CAN’s Mitigation Working Group deals with a broad range of issues related to greenhouse gas emission reductions at the global, regional and national level. The group analyzes the current state of play, including country positions, and coordinates CAN's voice for ambitious actions to secure a safe climate. Some of its recent work has focused on developing and advocating CAN’s long-term goal; and championing ambitious pre-2020 mitigation action by developed countries. Given the wide range of issues to be covered, the group frequently coordinates with other CAN working groups, who occasionally take up some of the more focused debates. The group's role also includes crafting and implementing specific advocacy strategies.

For more information please contact:
Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, IndyAct, enriquegmk@gmail.com
Naoyuki Yamagishi, WWF Japan, yamagishi@wwf.or.jp
Rixa Schwarz, Germanwatch, rixa.schwarz@ceegermany.org

What Do We Want? Climate Action! When Do We Want It? NOW!

In Paris, 195 countries agreed to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C. Yet, current INDCs are setting us on a pathway to around 3°C. To make matters worse, the remaining carbon budget even to stay well below 2°C might be used up by the time NDCs really begin to take effect. What we want is greater ambition now.

Related Newsletter : 

From Promises to Delivery

The Paris Agreement sets a clear vision for the world to keep global temperature rise to 1.5°C, through a full decarbonisation of the global economy. It also provides a framework to improve action on mitigation, adaptation and finance through regular reviews and renewed commitments – for all countries simultaneously.

Related Newsletter : 

‘Round Midnight

As ECO went to press, the Committée de Paris had just resumed its work again. The outcome of the final round of negotiations is still uncertain. That need not stand in the way of a hard-nosed analysis of the new text, though, with the really big issues still left to be decided. Overall, ambiguity is the mot de vogue with several decisions still bracketed yesterday now ‘simply’ postponed. ECO makes a final plea to ministers and their heads of state, who will be asked to weigh in at the last minute:

Ambition

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure

Some countries (including Saudi Arabia) have questioned the scientific basis for the need to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C. ECO would like to remind everyone, but especially these countries, that Article 3.3 of the Convention (remember it?) states that ‘Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures’.
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 
Topics: 

Carbon Markets: All Cards on the Table

The new draft text still features brackets around the sustainable development mechanism provision. Decisions to be made in the next 24 hours include whether offsetting will be allowed (please, NO!), whether developed countries will be able to play the offset generation game, accounting rules, guiding principles and a share of proceeds for climate finance purposes.

ECO suggests:

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Response Measures: Lost in Transition

Developed countries in the Convention must ‘take into consideration’ the impacts of the ‘response measures’ [in 4-2-8(h) and 4-2-10]. An interpretation is that victims of mitigation measures such as energy efficiency or alternative energy policies in the North could be compensated for decreased sales. This idea, regularly put forward in the UNFCCC by the Saudi Arabia, is mostly seen as an insult to vulnerable countries such as SIDS, where impacts of climate change are of a much greater magnitude.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 
Topics: 

Pages