Filed under : Scitizen >> Earth & Environment >> Climate Change >> COP15 Primer : Developing Action to Reduce Global Warming Pollution
COP15 Primer : Developing Action to Reduce Global Warming Pollution
7 Dec, 2009 03:30 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeI'll discuss the willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.
 |
| "If only developing countries would take action to reduce their global warming pollution". |
That is the refrain that was heard in capitals around the world for years. This was driven partly by a concern over competitiveness in some places (e.g., the US and EU). And it was also driven by the reality that global emissions (both developed and developing country) need to decline if we are going to solve this challenge. And while developed countries need to take the lead in making deep emissions cuts (as I discussed in Part 2), we need to find a way for developing countries to pull millions/billions of people out of poverty while reducing global warming pollution. "We can't accept limits on our global warming pollution".
This is a refrain we used to hear from major developing countries for years. Almost anytime they were asked by a reporter (or anyone else for that matter) something like that came out. Usually this was read as: "we won't do anything to address our global warming pollution". Which wasn't exactly true in many countries, but perception is often as important as facts.
Well thankfully both refrains have much better answers now than a couple of years ago (and even a couple of weeks ago).
All the major emerging economies have outlined specific efforts that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution. These include:
China has just announced that they'll cut their greenhouse gas emissions intensity per unit of GDP by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (as my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here ). And they previously announced that they would have non-fossil fuels account for 15% of their primary energy consumption by 2020 and increase forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 ( as I previously discussed ).
Brazil has pledged to cut their deforestation rate by 80% from historic rates by 2020 ( as I discussed here ). They have been making pretty good progress on addressing their deforestation rates over the past couple of years ( as you can see here ). Brazil has also just announced that it will reduce emissions by 36-39% in 2020 below the projected level ( as released here by the Brazilian government )-a level estimated to cut their emissions to their levels in 1994 .
India has just announced that they are "voluntarily ready to reduce emission intensity by 20-25 per cent [below 2005 levels] within 2020" ( as reported here ). This target is based upon a new estimate of the impact of a number of measures which are part of a comprehensive National Action Plan on Climate Change, where they outlined commitments to national mitigation actions, including plans to generate 20GW of solar capacity by 2020 and cut energy consumption by 5% by 2015 (as you can see in this NRDC fact sheet ).
Indonesia has announced that they were devising an energy policy including land use and forestry which will reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from business as usual levels, eventually reducing emissions by as much as 41 percent with help from the international community ( as I discussed here ).
South Korea announced that they would cut their economy-wide global warming pollution to 30 percent below the projected 2020 levels — an estimated 4 percent cut from 2005 levels ( as I discussed here ).
Mexico is developing an emissions trading system to cut emissions from the electricity, oil, cement, and possibly steel sectors. In addition, President Calderon has committed to cut Mexico's emissions by 50% in 2050 ( as I discussed here ). Stay tuned as it wouldn't surprise me if Mexico firmed up that commitment in Copenahagen.
South Africa has outlined that their emissions "must peak, plateau, and decline". Specifically, this would mean that South Africa's emissions must stop growing no later than 2025 and must begin declining in absolute terms around 2030-2035 ( as I discussed here )
Copenhagen has been a driver for developing countries to bring forward commitments to action. These major emerging economies combined with the developed countries that are taking action (as I discussed in Part 2 ) account for over 80% of the world's global warming pollution. So all the major emitters have now signaled efforts that they'll take to curb their global warming pollution.
If you would have asked anyone just 2 years ago (or even 1 year ago), I wager that no one would have told you that all these countries would have come forward with such signs of actions. So Copenhagen has been an important driver in encouraging major emerging economies to bring forward commitments to curb their global warming pollution.
Hopefully this progress will get solidified in the international agreement in some manner (as I'll discuss in Part 6) and then next year we can focus on firming up these commitments and translating them into the final international agreement.
But either way, these are very positive signs that less global warming pollution will be going into the atmosphere from these key countries. I'm optimistic that more can be done, but let's not lose focus on the progress that has occurred on this front.
Originally published on Global Warming is Real
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Although apparently brief, the suspension of the Copenhagen climate conference after a walkout by the Group of 77 developing countries confirms that the talks are as much about money as about healing the world's climate. It's not just that the G77 wants the Kyoto limits on the emissions of developed countries enforced, while leaving their own emissions uncapped; it also wants the developed world to kick in sizable sums--much bigger than the 2.4 billion Euros per year offered by the EU--to cover the improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy that would enable them to tackle the growth of their own emissions. There's a solid argument there, though it is not the guilt-based logic of "carbon debt" that I explored a few weeks ago.
In spite of the recent weeks of roller coaster-like expectations for a positive outcome from the COP15 climate conference that got underway Monday, the sense of urgency is keenly felt here at the Bella Center, home of the climate negotiations and exhibitions for dozens of NGO's and observer organizations.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 17% by 2020. Time to stop fixating on 450 ppm vs 350 ppm. As UN climate talks kick off today in Copenhagen, Denmark, there's only one number really worth the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That's the additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
Have you heard that we're getting new neighbors? Demographers expect that the number of people living on earth - now about 6.8 billion - will grow to between 8 and 11 billion by 2050. Whether population tops out at the high or the low end of those projections will have a huge impact on climate change. So population control is again claiming a place on the environmental agenda.
Last Thursday, an editorial in the Wall St. Journal referred to a paper in the latest issue of Science entitled, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error", which concludes that the manner in which the greenhouse gas impacts of biofuels are currently assessed fails to account for significant emissions that occur outside the envelope normally drawn around an ethanol or biodiesel plant and the farms that supply it with feedstock. And if that omission weren't glaring enough, I ran across another instance in which regulators appear to be turning a blind eye to the full impact of another popular option for addressing climate change, electric vehicles.
The two-week global warming negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand are just wrapping up. There are five key elements to the Copenhagen Agreement.
Even "moderate" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, says new MIT study. But only if those moderate cuts start now, not in 2020, where many emissions targets take initial aim. Without swift action, even more aggressive cuts may not be enough to stop extreme climate disruption.
I feel like an idiot for not seeing this one coming from either China or India. It's so painfully obvious, in hindsight, that I have to wonder how anyone who follows energy and environmental issues closely could have failed to predict it. What am I babbling about? China is now saying that the endlessly discussed target of keeping global warming below 2°C is not such a big deal.
Yvo de Boer closes Bonn talks with stark warning that the current pace of the Copenhagen negotiations remains far too slow.
A recent survey found that there was a significant interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that investment decisions were made without close attention in the emissions trading scheme market. Rather, investment decisions were guided by expectations about the long term development of overall energy costs.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported late last week that research by Australian National University scientist Andrew Macintosh indicates that, based on most industrialized nations' stated mid-term commitments, limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius simply "won't work."
Researchers working on a joint World Agroforestry Centre-United Nations Environment Programme project suggest that integrating agroforestry in farming systems on a massive scale would create a vital reservoir for carbon storage. No less than a billion hectares of developing country farmland is suitable for conversion to carbon agroforestry projects, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.
An important recent paper looked at the links between economic prosperity and carbon footprint.[1] It compared the average emissions per head in 73 different countries at all different stages in development. Unsurprisingly, it showed that richer countries have much higher greenhouse gas outputs. The interesting and somewhat depressing finding is that a country with 10% higher GDP per head than another will generally have emissions about 8% higher. The correlation is strong - very few countries diverge much from the norm for their level of income.
Proposals to reduce global warming through giant engineering projects or so-called geoengineering abound. Almost all are in the idea stage. But even if they were ready to deploy today, they would be dangerous for the planet, counterproductive for our energy future and unfair to the public.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released their much anticipated (and previously leaked) World Energy Outlook 2008.
-
25/02/10
Sacks gardening in urban and rural areas
-
25/01/10
Good News for Himalayan Glaciers, Bad News for the IPCC
-
11/01/10
Microalgae Producing Energy Through Emissions
-
31/12/09
Ecosystem Shift Accelerating From Changing Climate New Research Says
-
28/12/09
Google, Jane Goodall, forests and the cloud
Read more
