I spoke with Mr. Hirofumi Aizawa of the Japan delegation yesterday after the plenary meeting about Japan’s view on “common but differentiated responsibilities” and Japan’s commitment to mitigation targets and its financial commitment to aiding developing countries. Mr. Aizawa said that Japan’s financial commitment will be announced next week, before the end of the negotiations.
Tags: aid, COP15 Resources, Financing, japan, mitigation
The Kyoto 2 Copenhagen group started out our interviewing process with a bang on Saturday. While waiting for a temporary lockdown to lift, we found ourselves stuck in a crowd with John Pershing, the Head of the US Delegation! The group all crowded around as Dickinson student Kelly Rogers asked Mr. Pershing what differentiations should be made between the responsibilities of developed and developing countries, and how the debate over responsibilities is affecting the negotiations.
John Pershing is now the Head of the US Delegation at Copenhagen
Mr. Pershing was also friendly enough to answer a few questions about his background, as a geologist, researching prehistoric climates in Svalbard. He explained that his education and career have always been focused on environmental law and science, and he debated whether to seek his PhD or to become an environmental lawyer. Today, he holds a PhD and works on the most pressing environmental policy issues of the times, leading the US Delegation here in Copenhagen. This interaction of science and policy will be one of the most important relationships influencing the negotiations, and bridging that gap is essential in order for delegates, scientists, and other parties to cooperate successfully at Copenhagen.
Transportation accounts for 20% of global energy demand and 23% of energy related CO2. Between 2005 and 2030, the emissions from transportation are predicated to increase by 57%. Pretty crazy… especially for us in the United States where transportation isn’t just helpful… its indispensable. We often take mobility for granted, but we value it so much that we’ve built our society around it. This is problematic to say the least. The side event Bridging the Gap: Pathways for the Land Transportation sector in a post 2012 world, featured several men and women who have spent a good deal of time figuring out how we might remedy this situation.
Two important ideas were discussed during this event: avoid-shift-improve policy and whole systems change. The first is the idea that we should firstly avoid the need to travel, then shift to lower carbon modes of transportation and finally improve vehicles and energy consumption. The second refers to the idea that climate change is only one of the problems within our current transportation structure and reformation of the system will provide many co benefits such as noise reduction, cleaner air, less congestion and accidents.
I was excited to hear about this last push because of all our current challenges, climate change is unfortunately one if the most ethereal. However, by discovering and focusing on the connections and relationships between the multiple issues we face, we can develop solutions that address more than a few of these changes. And we can frame them around some the concrete problems that people face everyday- poverty, lack of freshwater, lack of access to transportation, air pollution, social and political unrest, gender issues… the list could go on for pages.
Nearly all the presenters were adamant that urban design is an important mitigation strategy that should be and will be used to decarbonize our transportation system. Designing urban systems that are less dependent on vehicles and more focused on public transportation is the way of the future. Urban design however, can also address issues such as health, access, social and cultural wealth, and economic issues… You probably get the picture. Frame changing around this ideas will arguably be more successful then purporting them as climate change solutions.
On a side note, there is a group here from India who is wearing aprons that say, “Change systems not climate”… Look for their interview in the coming days!
Must. Run. To. Next. Event…
Tags: adaptation, climate change, Danielle Hoffman, mitigation, sustainable development, transportation, US Energy Policy
UNFCC negotiations at the COP15 this week include debate about the potential for strengthening and developing carbon market mechanisms. Country delegations can draw on lessons from the development of climate neutrality planning in higher education for successful implementation on an international scale.
The development of a Climate Action Plan (CAP), an obligation for signatories of the ACUPCC President’s Climate Commitment, requires institutions to create documentation for mechanisms to reduce emissions and reach climate neutrality. Creating such a plan requires planning for and creating: a) an accurate calculation of baseline emissions, b) mechanisms for reducing and/or offsetting those emissions, and c) a feasibility plan including a time-line, project-priorities, and culture-change which ensure the longevity and success of the CAP. The success of this self-created, (largely) self-monitored system relies on participation from a majority of American institutions and peer and public feedback mechanisms to act as self-regulating and self-policing systems.
These are the same needs required of a viable carbon market which can reduce global emissions. The international negotiations can learn from the success of the ACUPCC in creating peer incentive for participation in the President’s Climate Commitment, and creation of individualized but effective CAPs.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel
A major proposal for reducing global carbon emissions is the creation of a market which would create financial and developmental incentives for both nations and private sectors to achieve the same goal as the CAPs and ACUPCC – reduction of carbon emissions within a particular sector, higher education – at an international level. One proposal for the creation of a carbon market, the “baseline and crediting” model, only creates an incentive structure for individual sectors when national caps are set. (This proposal would be analagous to colleges and universities having only being asked to participate in the creating of a CAP when the federal government required it – if the ACUPCC had waited for such a top-down incentive structure, the success of the current signatory percentage could be long in the future instead of strong at its 622 signatories today.)
The creation of the ACUPCC perpetuated its own incentive structure – a similar circumstance on an international level would require the immediate creation and participation in a market which included a majority of both Annex 1 and developing countries. Much as the President’s Cliamate Commitment balanced requirements with flexibility to allow for participation from small colleges and large universities, a functional carbon market would need both strict goals to keep carbon reduction on track while allowing for flexibile participation to ensure nations and private sectors being participating immediately. The reporting system for CAP’s, in combination with the participation of public media in reporting timeliness and quality in the reporting system, has ensured that the ACUPCC system has peer-feedback conduits and constant quality control.
An international market must not only provide flexibility and high standards similar to the ACUPCC system, but provide the same peer-incentive structure as well. Institutions of higher education are arguably the only functioning system of carbon reduction which uses peer-incentives and flexible reductions and monitoring systems which could act as a model for international systems. The continued support of college and university administors, and successfully implemented projects, can provide a model from which the international community could learn.
Read more tomorrow on “Lesson for a Carbon Market: Part Two.”
How can you ensure sustainable development from CDM projects?
I just sat in on a side-event on the EU and China’s perspective on CDM projects in China. One of the main issues identifie
d, was that the CDM projects in China did not contribute enough to sustainable development. The CDM has two main objectives: the help Annex 1 countries meet their emissions targets in a cost-effecient way, and to contribute to sustainable development. The problem with a world-wide objective of sustainable development under the CDM is that sustainable development is defined so differently to by each country. For instance, China might value carbon reductions more highly than preserving biodiversity, so it could justify large-scale hydropower projects. However, the EU might value biodiversity higher than China. In this case, the two parties do not agree on the definition of sustainable development, as each country is dealing with different priorities. CDM has not cleary defined sustainable development, and what kinds of projects should be allowed. In order to achieve sustainable development world-wide, a more international perspective will need to be developed. What is sustainable development to the international community? Is it development that achieves carbon-neutrality? or should we take a more humanitarian perspective, by investing in projects such as those that bring clean water to developing countries?
These are the questions that will need to be negociated by those parties concerned with the CDM in order for the CDM to better achieve its two objectives for the next committment period.
Tags: China, Clean Development Mechanism, developing countries, Flexible Mechanisms, Grace Lange, interconnectivity, kyoto, Kyoto to Copenhagen, poverty, sustainable development
Your Comments