Bonn UN (w)rap: Where are we on the Road to Copenhagen?

The UN climate talks in Bonn officially closed last Friday evening (12/6/09) with the bang of a hammer from the chair.

It sure has been a busy two weeks, with endless meetings, interventions, press briefings, plenary sessions and yet more meetings. But what has actually been achieved? While most country delegates will tell you in the hallways that there is a “positive vibe” and “a shared desire for moving forward” I would be pulling the wool over your eyes if I said we’ve moved anywhere over the past fourteen days.

So what have the delegates been busy doing? After two weeks what we have is a negotiating text – more than two hundred pages of ideas on how to address climate change – and don’t get me wrong, it is a necessary place to start and there are some great ideas in the draft text. But, what we haven’t had over the past two weeks is any real agreement on the crucial content of the text.

On the last day of the talks, I asked various members of Climate Action Network International (a peak umbrella body for more than 450 non-government organisations) ‘where are we after these two weeks of talks?’ The overwhelming consensus is that we are halfway down the road to dangerous climate change. The science is clear – we don’t have any time to waste if we want to avoid the worst predicted impacts of climate change. Yet, rich countries have continued to dodge taking leadership on the most important issues that are vital to any climate solution. Instead of focusing on what we needed to accomplish together, wealthy polluting nations have focused on what they think they can get away with. Rich nations have danced around any real discussion of:
- an aggregate emission reduction for developed (Annex 1) countries
- a commitment to establish a finance mechanism which will generate the huge scale of money
needed to support developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their emissions.

This game of dodge ball is not a symptom of the talks themselves, the UN negotiation process has been moving along just fine, it is a symptom of lack of political will in the capital cities in key nations around the world. World leaders are failing to take leadership and this is severely holding up not only the UN climate talks, but our also our chance to avoid runaway climate change.

So at the end of week two, where do we stand?

1. Emission reduction targets

Science tells us that in order to avoid dangerous climate change, we need at least a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020. These emissions reductions need to predominantly come from developed countries. Rich countries are home to less than 5% of the global population, but have caused over 75% of the emissions which cause climate change, and these same nations largely have control of both the wealth and technology needed to address climate change. Despite this an overall emissions reduction target from developed nations is missing in action, and what they have offered instead is dismal to say the least. Rich nations have refused repeated pleas from developing countries to commit to an aggregate emission reduction target of at least 40% by 2020. Instead, what they have put on the table are inadequate, and in some cases, entirely ridiculous reduction targets.

Overview of the emission reductions for some rich Annex 1 countries:

Country	Emission Reduction Target some rich Annex 1 countries have committed to (based on 1990 levels)	Fair shares of overall Annex I mitigation target (total across all - 40% below 1990 levels by 2020). #
Australia	-24% maximum*	-40%
Canada	-8%	-43%
European Union	-30% maximum	-44%
Japan	-8%	-56%
United State of America	Yet to give confirmed figure	-44%

NOTE * 24% - Australia has unfair conditions, and will only commit to this target in the context of an ambitious global agreement. See my earlier blog.

What’s wrong with this table?
The numbers of actual current commitments simply don’t add up. The UN Secretariat added up the pledges that have been made so far by wealthy polluting countries and they came to less than half of what is required to prevent catastrophic climate change. The total cut for rich countries adds up to, at most, 14% On the current trajectory mapped out by wealthy developed nations we, and our children, would face catastrophic climate change including rising sea levels, massive droughts and subsequent water and food shortages, increasingly severe hurricanes, cyclones and floods.

Of special note here is Japan: the eagerly awaited unveiling of Japan's midterm target for emissions reductions during week two turned into one of the greatest disappointments of the talks. Japan's Prime Minister Taro Aso announced that his country would cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. However, this only translates into an 8% cut from 1990 levels. Aso, however, asserted that the target was ambitious and pointed out that Japan was already the most energy-efficient economy in the world. But NGOs were quick to note that the target was only marginally above the 6% commitment that Japan had made under the Kyoto Protocol, making Japan’s rhetoric of action much stronger than any emission reduction. Japan’s weak target and lack of ambition makes reaching a good deal in Copenhagen even harder.

On the last day of the talks, over forty developing countries – led by South Africa and China put forward a proposal that outlines how much individual rich countries must cut their emissions by in order to deliver an overall reduction in emissions of at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020. It is this kind of proposal, and real discussion from rich countries on an aggregate target, that we need in order to move these talks forward. A key report # “Hang Together or Separately” on this issue was released during the meeting. To read the report click here http://www.oxfam.org.au/media/article.php?id=588

2. Financing

Of equal import – and even more obvious in absence from these two weeks – is agreement on financing. A crucial part of an agreement at Copenhagen will be ensuring that wealthy polluting nations who have caused the climate change to date, take responsibility for funding developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change and provide enough funding for developing countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions. We will all benefit from developing countries reducing emissions but they can’t afford to do it alone. We urgently need rich countries to agree to the scale of funding required – at least $150bn each year – and the mechanism, or method, for delivering the funding. This mechanism MUST be based on an automatic method of generating finance, like the proposal (outlined in earlier blog posts) of selling permits that countries currently receive for free from the UN.

3. Notable policy announcement from Australia during Bonn

On the penultimate day of the Bonn talks, Australia called for bunker fuels – emissions from international aircraft and shipping – to be dealt with under the UNFCCC and for reduction targets for these sectors to be agreed at the Copenhagen climate talks in December. This is a good step in the right direction, for too long, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – the two peak bodies for bunker fuels – have failed to adequately address the huge emissions that are caused by their industries. Since Kyoto, aviation and shipping emissions have grown rapidly while many other
sectors have reduced theirs. Australia’s proposal is positive contribution to moving the UN climate talks along, however unfortunately, their proposal as it currently stands, makes no reference to differentiation (how this proposal will affect countries in different ways, eg remote and vulnerable countries) nor does it make reference to the possibility of raising finance. Any revenue raised from a levy on these fuels should be directed to developing countries to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. In short, Australia’s proposal is a good start but it must include reference to differentiation and how a levy will be used to generate finance for developing countries for this proposal to be just and equitable and make a real difference in tackling climate change.

4. Looking towards Copenhagen

The oft quoted ‘Road to Copenhagen’ is dotted with international meetings, meaning we still have a few chances to get some real movement on climate change from our political leaders. There are more meetings similar to the one we have just had in Bonn, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC, but perhaps of even more importance are the number of meetings coming up which key heads of state should be attending, including the G8, the Major Economies Forum (MEF), United Nations General Assembly, the G20 and more. Last year, our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd attended both the MEF and G20 – we need to ensure that Rudd not only attends these meetings, but takes a clear mandate from the Australian public that we want our country to be a global leader and take strong action on climate change, at least a 40% emission reduction target by 2020 and commit to fund developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Australia is in a unique position to take strong action, unlike the European Union we do not need to negotiate within a block of diverse countries and unlike the USA we have ratified Kyoto. The time has come for Rudd to step up to the challenge and seize the opportunity to switch to a clean energy future, one that fuels the economy and protects the climate. Rudd simply will not achieve this without strong support from all sectors of the Australian public. The time has come for creative and powerful activism that will really change the face of the debate, and show our leaders that we want them to act in such a way that will secure a safe climate future for all countries and all peoples.

On a more personal note, I think that many of you know that this was the first time I had ever attended UN climate change meetings – it has been a huge learning curve for me, but also a really valuable experience to be a part of. Although I often felt frustrated by the lack of movement during these talks, I have consistently felt inspired by civil society, the international youth movement and my non-government organisation colleagues amongst others. There is a real sense that although there is a tough battle ahead of us, it’s not an impossible one. Thank you to everyone who has read and contributed to this process so far – I am thankful for your engagement and look forward to this project continuing en route to the Copenhagen meetings in December!! Right now, I am looking forward to a few days off before my long flight back to Sydney.

I thought I’d leave you with this image… On the last day on the UN climate talks more than 40 members of the international youth climate movement rapped at the close of plenary one in front of hundreds of government delegates, to make sure that world leaders left with this message: