By Stefan Seum

Stefan Seum attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali last month. The following report on events and proceedings at the conference was written especially for Energy Advantage Inc.

From Kyoto via Bali and beyond

December 3 – 14, 2007 delegations from 187 countries met in Bali to set a framework for the ongoing response to the challenges of global climate change. Bali 2007 marks the beginning of a two-year negotiation period, for a renewed international agreement following the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, Bali negotiations were to set the targets for the second commitment period of emission reductions by developed countries under the existing Kyoto protocol. While negotiations for the renewed protocol includes all countries (Conference of the Parties [COP]), the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol are limited to countries that have ratified the protocol, which excludes, for example, the United States.

What is at stake? The scientific evidence

The scientific evidence on the cause and effects of man-made climate change as well as the urgent need to act has reached an overwhelming level of certainty with the adoption of the fourth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is without doubt the most credible body providing a policy assessment of existing literature and research on climate change. On December 10 the IPCC and Al Gore received the Nobel  Peace Prize for their work.

The assessment of the fourth IPCC report is bleak and exceeds worst fears: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels.” [IPCC 2007a, page 5] The evidence today is clear that the effects of climate change are largely anthropogenic. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. The total temperature increase of the planet earth since industrialization is now at 0.76°C. [IPCC 2007a] Moreover, the emissions of greenhouse gases have accelerated threefold between 2000 and 2004 compared to 1990 and 1999. The current emissions thus follow the upper limit on IPCC’s most energy intense scenario: Forecasting an increase in temperatures between 3 - 4°C by the end of the century.

Figure 1: Global mean temperature1850 – 2005 and global temperature trends 1979 – 2005. [Solomon, S. et.al., 2007]

An increase of this extent would have devastating effects on global ecosystems. Even at what is seen on the lower side of temperature increases at 1.5-2.5°C, approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. “The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification), and other global change drivers (e.g. land use change, pollution, over-exploitation of resources).” [Parry, M.L. et.al. 2007, page 37]

Figure 2: Projected Eco-System Risks. [Parry, M.L. et.al. 2007]

The fourth assessment report also provides guidance on the needed emission reductions in order to stabilize the earth's warming. According to the report, stabilization at 2-2.4°C plus, responding to a CO2 equivalent concentration of 445-490 ppm, would require CO2 emissions to peak by 2015 and then to be reduced by 50-85% globally by 2050. This projected warming, already at dangerous levels, had set the bar for CO2 reductions for politicians in Bali to draft a policy framework.

Figure 3: Global Warming Projections. [IPCC 2007b]

The Key Issues in Bali and the Reality of International Negotiations

Several issues were key to the success or failure of the negotiations in Bali:

• Agree on a level of ambition based on the findings of the IPCC fourth assessment report both for the second Kyoto commitment period and the preamble of the Kyoto-follow-up negotiations.
• Increase the efforts of developing countries to contribute to a low carbon future at the same time as allowing for economic development.
• Provide rapid support for adaptation for the most vulnerable countries.
• Establish mechanisms supporting the transfer of clean technologies to countries of the Global South.
• Start designing mechanisms that would reduce emissions from deforestation.

Due to public pressure and the belief that non-action would be more costly than action [Stern, N. 2007], European nations in particular aimed for an agreement with ambitious and numeric targets.

Economic development, capacity building and technology transfer remained corner stones for developing countries, whose greenhouse gas emissions per capita are a fraction compared to developed nations.

However, managing the rapidly growing developing country emissions, in particular from China and India, was a major aim of developed nations. Agreement on financial aid through an Adaptation Fund paved the way to receive limitation commitments form large developing countries. Finally, adequate financial sources to mitigate for deforestation, as well as good mechanisms to account for it, were important items on the agenda.

Figure 4: Regional Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita. [Barker, T., et.al. 2007]

The countries response to the climate challenge

Based on the key issues, pivotal countries were the European nations, Canada, the United States, China, India and the large number of developing countries known as Group of 77.

The European Union (EU) had decided in March 2007 to base its goal on a maximum acceptable global warming of 2°C. It decided that European countries would reduce their emissions by 20% unilaterally and 30% in accord with other developed countries, by 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. The EU further committed to reduce emissions by 60-80% by 2050.

Far-reaching policy measures that may serve as an example for Canada came from Germany, whose parliament had decided to reduce emissions by 40% in 2020 and 80% in 2050. The measures include the increase in energy efficiency, in particular in small and medium size companies and households, the extension of combined heat and power and the massive increase in wind power generation to provide 25-30% of Germany's electric energy by 2020.

China, India and the Group of 77 signaled cooperation early on. Their commitment to “mitigation actions (...) in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner” represents a step forward. [UNFCCC 2007]

In contrast, Canadian, US and Japanese positions were poised to derail the negotiation process. Canada disagreed for most of the conference with the numeric targets proposed for the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol. Both Canada and the US demanded simultaneous reduction targets by large developing countries. The insistence on those issues would have ended negotiations. Japan surprised when it announced a “move beyond Kyoto to a new framework” (…) likely referring to the US Major Economies Meeting.

Canada's position must be seen in the context of the certain failure to meet its Kyoto targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% in the 2008 – 2012 period based on 1990 levels. John Baird's statement that “regulations will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute 20% from current levels by 2020” disappointed. Today Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are 32.7% above the Kyoto Protocol target. [Environment Canada 2007] The Sierra Club of Canada describes the period 1997 – 2007 as a decade of “procrastination, half-measures and delays” by the Canadian government and commitments to an five-fold increase in tar sands oil production as driving up emissions. [Sierra Club 2007]

The possibility to reach consensus in Bali emerged when European countries threatened to boycott the upcoming US organized Major Economies Meeting. Pressure on the United States came from Al Gore when he accused the US of obstructing progress as well as from many other national statements.

The US joined consensus only in the last minute of the conference after successfully removing clear numeric targets from the Bali Action Plan The plan further recognizes “differences in national circumstances” of developed nations, a sentence that reflects Canada's desire to base its goals on its position as an oil exporting country. Canada's last minute consensus gave birth to the agreement for the second commitment period, although with rather weak word choices describing the reduction targets.

What began in an impasse when ministers arrived ended about 24 hours delayed in a roller coaster decision-making process. The near road kill of Bali ended with a set of injured documents that will, if nothing else, give breathing room to post governmental changes in North America that are expected to pave the way for more ambitious results in 2009.

Internet Sites:

IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

UNFCCC Bali Conference: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

Report on Canada's Performance under the Kyoto Protocol http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&xml=C0210A58-A1A9-45F4-B02A-5E9CA4C9471

Climate Action Network Bali Observations: http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco

Stern Report: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

References:

Stern, Nicholas (2007): The Economics of Climate Change, The Stern Report. Cambridge University Press.

Barker, T. et.al. (2007): Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press.

Environment Canada (2007): A Climate Change Plan for the Purpose of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act – 2007.

IPCC (2007a): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of the Workinggroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds)]. Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (2007b): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press.

Parry, M.L. et.al. (2007): Technical Summary. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. Van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press. 23-78.

Sierra Club (2007): Kyoto Report Card 2007 – Stopping Global Warming: Towards a Low Carbon Canada. The Sierra Club of Canada.

Solomon, S. et.al. (2007): Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of the Workinggroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds)]. Cambridge University Press.

UNFCCC (2007): Decision -/CP.13: Bali Action Plan. Advanced unedited version, Bali, December 15, 2007.