COP 17 in Durban: Breakthrough or Spin?

The UNFCCC Climate talks in Durban (COP17) have ended.  The 194 participating nations agreed on four main elements of a global strategy to combat global warming. Although prior to the conference fairly gloomy predictions of the likely outcome were common, the outcome is better than many predicted.

The four agreed elements are:

• A second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The second commitment period will run for five years from January 1, 2013 (when the first period expires) until the end of 2017.
• The establishment of a Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries make the shift away from fossil fuels and undertake climate change adaption measures. Delegates made progress on the design of Green Climate Fund to channel up to $98 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but achieved little on establishing where the money will come from to fill it. The current instability of the global economy must cast doubt over the actual delivery of the finance necessary for the operation of this fund. A proposal to generate cash from charging international shipping for the carbon emissions it generates faced such opposition it did not survive in the final text.
• Agreement that all countries will commence negotiations next year aimed at delivering a legally binding agreement in 2015. This agreement will commit them to cut emissions no later than 2020. The details of this have yet to be worked out. Delegates agreed to define new market mechanisms under a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but delayed the decision to develop rules for them until next year.
• A work plan for next year. The delegates agreed to launch a work plan to identify options for closing the gap between countries' current emissions reduction pledges for 2020 and the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. They agreed to define new market mechanisms under a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but pushed forward a decision to develop rules for them until next year.

Amber Jamieson at Crikey has penned a piece useful as an aid to understanding the implications of the Durban conference entitled How legally binding is the Durban Deal?

Whether or not the talks are seen as a success depends on the expectations against which the talks are measured. Australia's Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet sees them as a success because he is focused on the complexities of the negotiations and the degree of acceptance of  Australia's goals for the talks. Combet enthusiastically hailed the outcome as a 'Breakthrough'. In a media release he stated:

"The Australian Government went to Durban with three key objectives: building on emissions reduction pledges made at last year's UN conference in Cancun; taking the next steps towards a legal framework to cover all major emitters; and promoting market mechanisms to cut emissions in the lowest cost. Durban has delivered on each of these objectives."

Well, he would say that wouldn't he? On the other hand the climate spokesperson for The Greens Senator Christine Milne has criticized the Government for failing to do more in Durban. She says the Australian delegation 'drove loopholes into agreements and weakened targets' during the talks. Milne, who is using the environmental imperative as her measure (Can there really be any other?) says Australia has lost any credibility it had gained from introducing a carbon price.

"Australia could have done a lot more and played a much more constructive role. First of all, we had increased credibility in the talks because Australia had just passed a clean energy package. The whole world was incredibly excited about that. People came up to me all over that place saying how encouraging it was that Australia was now back in the fold on climate action."

The assessment of the outcome from the talks made by Giles Parkinson at Climate Spectator is closer to Combet than Milne.  Parkinson commented:

"The United Nations ended their annual climate change talks in Durban on Sunday in much the same way they have done for the past 17 years – after all-night sittings and amid a cloud of conspiracy theories, accusations, frayed tempers, backflips and compromise. Only this time they managed to go into a second day of overtime and pluck from apparent failure an agreement that is being hailed as the most significant since Berlin in 1995."

Writing for the Crikey blog Rooted Clancy Moore summed up the talks as a qualified success.  He writes:

"The EU took an important step by signing onto a second period of the Kyoto Protocol, the bedrock of international efforts to fight climate change, and a key demand of African countries. But the new round of Kyoto falls short of what was needed and opens loopholes that weaken it.
The failure to seal an ambitious deal will have painful consequences for poor people around the world. A four degree temperature rise could result in utter devastation for the poor — particularly those reliant on agriculture — who will face increasing hunger and poverty."

Writing for Inside Story Fergus Green notes that irrespective of the Gillard government's Clean Energy legislation and/or the outcome of the Durban talks Australia has a massive task in front of it and delay is not an option. He writes:

"Even if the government adopts caps equivalent to the emissions reduction target of 80 per cent by 2050, Australia’s emissions are projected to be about the same as they were in the year 2000 – around 550 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – according to Treasury’s modelling of the impact of a carbon price."

Noting the complete climatic inadequacy of this outcome Green suggests a number of strategies that could be adopted but concludes:

"Yet a reform package along these lines is nowhere near the political radar of the two major parties. Now that we have overcome the trauma of the facile carbon price debate, the climate movement and the community at large must put such a package, and the vision that underpins it, on the national agenda and campaign for it vigorously – without compromise. The Australian movement for truly transformative climate action must start now."

Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth speculates on the usefulness of the apparently endless UNFCCC process. He writes:

"Once again, it’s worth considering whether this process is worth sustaining. I believe — just barely — that it is, despite the profound problems I see with the terms of the core treaty on climate and current efforts to update it.
The talks may seen “incremental forever” — a phrase I first heard in connection with climate research from the retired climate scientist Jerry Mahlman).
I think it’s important to recognize that this process is indeed incremental, perhaps not forever, but certainly through this century. While there is eagerness for breakthroughs and great ambitious leaps — either diplomatic or scientific — accelerating the decarbonization of humanity’s energy menu even as human numbers and resource appetites crest is implicitly a task of generations."

The good news is that there is still a basis for coordinated global action on climate change and that for the first time all 194 participating nations have agreed to be legally bound to jointly determined goals in respect of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The bad news is that a binding legal global treaty is not envisaged before 2015 and meaningful action under the umbrella of the UN has been pushed back until 2020. The world can't afford further delay.

When asked what the delay built into the outcome of the Durban talks meant Will Steffen climate scientist and Professor at the ANU summed it up succinctly. To halt global warming at or around two degrees centigrade would require global emissions to fall by around 5% per annum from 2015 a massive task. If delayed until 2020 the required rate of reduction of global GHG emissions necessary to meet the two degree threshold becomes 9 or 10% per annum. This he claims could only be achieved by placing the nations of the world on what amounts to a war footing. The extra five years means that the task has become twice as difficult and far more expensive, and if the cautious conservative IEA is right the extra five years may mean that the two degree thresh-hold has become impossible to achieve.

For those interested I have posted the text of Climate Minister Combet's Media release below the fold.

Australia's Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet hailed the outcome of the Durban talks as a 'Breakthrough'. In a media release he stated:

The Australian Government went to Durban with three key objectives: building on emissions reduction pledges made at last year's UN conference in Cancun; taking the next steps towards a legal framework to cover all major emitters; and promoting market mechanisms to cut emissions in the lowest cost.

Durban has delivered on each of these objectives.

Firstly, it has built on the decisions made in Cancun where 90 countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions made pledges to reduce carbon pollution by 2020 as part of a goal of keeping average temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

In Durban, countries ensured further progress on this agenda by agreeing to:

• Improved transparency and better monitoring, reporting and verification of countries' emissions reduction actions;

• Governance arrangements which will establish a new Green Climate Fund to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change;

• Progress the REDD+ mechanism which will reward developing countries for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation;

• Develop new market mechanisms to drive opportunities for low cost greenhouse gas abatement;

• An Adaptation Committee to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change;

• Rules for a new Technology mechanism to speed up transfer of low pollution technologies to developing countries.

These initiatives will add momentum to the extensive climate change action already under way around the world and provide a strong foundation for reducing emissions through to 2020. The transparency measures are especially welcome because they will ensure countries deliver on their emissions reduction pledges.

The second achievement at Durban was the adoption of a mandate for parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to negotiate a new legal agreement by 2015. The new agreement would take effect from 2020.

A central element of this mandate is that the new agreement will establish for the first time a common legal framework applying to both developed and developing countries.

This is an important first step towards a comprehensive agreement covering all major economies.

If the agreement is concluded it will see developing countries take on obligations, allowing the world to move on from the Kyoto Protocol's unsustainable divide between developed and developing countries and ensuring all nations do their fair share to cut global emissions.

The US, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and China have agreed to be part of the new legal architecture. These two countries account for 37 per cent of global emissions, so their decision to join a new international legal framework is a breakthrough. They are also Australia's major trading partners.

The timetable for concluding this agreement will allow parties to take account of the latest science in the next IPCC report in 2014 and the UNFCCC's 2013-15 review of the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees.

As a bridge to 2020, a number of developed countries intend to make new emissions reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol when its current commitment period ends in 2012. The Australian Government went to Durban saying it would only enter a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol if all major emitters were covered by a new legal framework.

We argued that a broader global solution was needed. The world has now adopted a mandate for achieving this solution.

Australia's third objective of promoting carbon markets was also progressed at Durban.

The Durban decisions will encourage expansion of carbon markets which cut emissions at the lowest cost.

Kyoto Protocol rules will continue to provide for market mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism. The Clean Development Mechanism generates carbon credits which Australian businesses will be able to access under the Clean Energy Act's carbon price mechanism.

Australia reached agreement at Durban with the European Union and New Zealand to examine opportunities to link Australia's carbon price mechanism with their emissions trading schemes.

Mr Combet met colleagues from China, Korea and California, where emissions trading schemes are being established, and agreed to share information and exchange expertise.

He also discussed cooperation with Japan and Indonesia on developing carbon markets our region.

Promoting carbon markets and international linking of these markets will benefit Australia's economy by allowing pollution to be reduced at the lowest cost wherever it can be achieved around the world.