As we enter the second week of the world’s make-or-break UN climate conference, the elements of a new global climate agreement are falling into place. It will provide energy companies the world over with the certainty of a long-term climate goal and of a push from governments to make them pay for their greenhouse gas emissions. But it will also recognise that the world has changed since the Kyoto Protocol and that emerging economies like China have to do their share. Sonja van Renssen reports from Paris.
The atmosphere at the start of the second week of the UN’s big Paris climate conference, COP21, is surprisingly calm and constructive. It really feels like there will be a deal. Of course there is none yet – as Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister and officially the man in charge since France took over the reins of the negotiations at the weekend as COP21 host, pointed out – but the goal is still to finish by Friday. In practice, this requires a deal by Thursday, to allow time for legal checks and translation into the UN’s six official languages. Many journalists are still betting on a Sunday finish.
But it is hard to deny that this is a wholly different situation to the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009. For starters, the French have played down expectations right from the start, insisting that this will not be a deal to save the world. Second, the COP21 presidency has done a good job of spelling out the political stakes (e.g. getting heads of state in at the start, not just the end) and making every country feel it counts (e.g. through a lot of bilateral meetings). Third, some say the recent terrorist attacks in Paris relieved some of the pressure on the talks by putting an end to plans for many demonstrations and creating solidarity among delegates with France.
There will probably be a reference to aviation and shipping in the agreement, but no proposal for an emissions cap or climate levy
All this means that when ministers arrived to take negotiations to a more political level at the weekend, there was a smooth transition. Work was kicked off in four informal working groups, each headed by two ministers from different countries. The four groups are tackling the thorniest of issues: differentiation (the infamous principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” – who does what), implementation (financing and technology transfer), ambition (the long-term goal and a 5-year review mechanism to ratchet up ambition over the years) and pre-2020 action (including how to get to the famous US$100bn a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020).
Energy in the line of fire
There is a clear focus on the energy sector. UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres reminded journalists on Monday that the overall goal is to decarbonise the global economy meaning “certainly the energy sector” and deforestation. These are the two major causes of climate change, she said. There was no mention of transport.
Indeed it looks like international aviation and shipping – excluded from the Kyoto Protocol but part of the international climate talks in recent years – are likely to be put on the back burner. The EU has pioneered action in these sectors through its EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) but an EU source said on Monday: “We have to pick our battles.” There will probably be a reference to aviation and shipping in the agreement, but no proposal for an emissions cap or climate levy. Instead, simply a note that the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) are due to deliver climate action plans for these sectors.
EU climate and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Canete notably called for a “collective” review mechanism, “common” long-term goal, and “single set” of accounting standards on Monday
One notable change from previous years is a greater emphasis on going to 100% renewable energy. NGOs are calling more loudly for this and there has been a raft of announcements, from India’s Global Solar Alliance and Africa’s 300GW green energy target to a coalition of companies going for 100% renewables that give the issue greater prominence. There is also a powerful divestment movement that did not exist in the past, with more and more investors calling for better management of the risks of fossil fuel investments and some a shift away from fossil fuels altogether. Carbon capture and storage and clean coal are not off the table – negotiators have yet to discuss where future climate finance could flow to – but are certainly not in the limelight.
Getting to 2 degrees
The long-term decarbonisation goal remains the main barometer of ambition however. It is far from decided. Five different formulations were still in play on Monday. For many businesses, this target is crucial to provide long-term guidance. They want an emission reduction goal (not a target in degrees Celsius) and they want it for 2050 (not 2100) for maximum clarity and relevance. Of interest to note here is that 1.5 degrees is back. It will not replace the overarching goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius – that is hard enough as it is – but US negotiator Todd Stern said on Monday that they are working on inserting a reference to 1.5 degrees into the agreement. One NGO representative said any reference to it would be significant.
National climate action plans (or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, INDCs) submitted to the UNFCCC ahead of Paris put the world on track to 2.7 degrees warming. Rather than try to ratchet these up now, governments will agree a 5-year review mechanism to raise their ambition in future. The key question here is what happens when the aggregate analysis of these plans concludes that more climate action is needed? Who will do what? Negotiators have no answer to this question so far, much as the European Commission has no answer to the question of what happens if member state contributions do not suffice to meet the EU’s collective 27% renewables target for 2030.
What is clear is that there has to be a “progression” of some sort on ambition. But countries like China object to the idea of outsiders telling them what to do. Within the EU itself, countries like Poland could make it difficult to revise emission reduction goals upwards too. A likely compromise is that countries will be forbidden from backsliding on existing commitments at least.
Making a deal fit for the future
Financing – where the money to combat climate change will come from and who it will go to – is a difficult discussion in Paris. Much of the first week was devoted to climate finance and the related issues of adaptation, and loss and damage (or liability and compensation from rich to poor countries, for the climate change they have caused since the industrial revolution). But few people expect loss and damage to feature strongly in the final agreement. It will probably be mentioned, also as requiring further attention, but with no commitments on liability or compensation.
Both the EU and the US seem to accept that the US$100bn a year for 2020 is a floor, not a ceiling
On financing more generally, developing countries want a new collective target for after 2020, preferably a figure but at least agreement that one is needed. The EU and the US want the principle of a “broader donor base” enshrined in the agreement. The world has changed since the UNFCCC was created in 1992 they say, and will keep on changing. Developing countries in a position to do so – China is typically mentioned – should also contribute to climate finance in future, albeit on a voluntary basis. Both the EU and the US nonetheless seem to accept that the US$100bn a year for 2020 is a floor, not a ceiling, and would look for more money at home in future too. Most of this will ultimately have to come from the private sector, particularly for mitigation.
EU and US come together
There is a coherence to the EU and US narratives that was not there in the past. EU climate and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Canete notably called for a “collective” review mechanism, “common” long-term goal, and “single set” of accounting standards on Monday. With these words – and his push for countries like China to start contributing to climate finance – he has effectively aligned himself with the US position that most important of all, which is that the new agreement commits everyone to climate action.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Canete also suggested on Monday that the EU is open to “alternative approaches” to binding mitigation commitments if that is what it takes to get a deal. “We want binding mitigation commitments but we want the US on board,” Canete told journalists. Stern reiterated later in the day that the US has always envisaged a binding accountability framework, not binding mitigation commitments, as able to provide the necessary assurance of climate action.
The ministers in charge of the four working groups created by Fabius are reporting back to the minister every evening at 7pm. The goal is to draft a new draft text by Wednesday and another by Thursday, for final adoption on Friday. So far, the outlook is optimistic.