In the morning, I briefly wrote up my ideas for a successful EU Climate and Energy package. It included the need to auction emission permits, and for a target of 40% cut in EU emissions by 2020 in line with the EU's historical responsibility.
Following this, me and Florent managed to gain access to a closed EU meeting. Of course, we were not supposted to be there, but I noted all information down for the sake of democratic openness and will publish it here. In the LCA debate, the EU were postponing the issue of auctioning. The decision on the Adaptation Fund Board had been described by a UK delegate as a "train smash". The World Bank were apparently acting as a trustee as an "interim measure"! LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) discussions were described by Malta as an "abomination". Malta pointed out we must prevent REDD (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) from "following the lousy rules of LULUCF" and "prevent REDD from becoming like LULUCF". We need clarity on the rules because we cannot say to developing countries "we've got bad rules, you need to do better". Australia argued that we "do need action in REDD".
The spokesperson from Australia, who had been invited to the EU meeting, said that Australia was still making the decision on their target, which would be an emissions cut of at least 25% by 2020, and within the 25 - 40% range. The representative from Civil Society, from the US Climate Action Network, expressed concern that France and the US were co-hosting a reception on Thursday to "say goodbye to the outgoing administration" and that this "looked like a parallel process". He was concerned about undue influence of Bush from "beyond the grave". The 'MEN process' was run primarily by the US but France insisted it was still valuable. They appeared to be "waiting" for the new US Administration. However, they expressed relief that members won't be negotiating with the negotiator Jim Connaughton "unless he gets a job in the Obama Adminstration". The EU meeting ended with a mention that Italy would hold the G8 Presidency next year.
I then attended a side event on the 'Post 2012 technology and finance framework' hosted by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, as I had aimed to understand finance at the conference. The speaker said that "international politics is by nature a conservative process". He argued the issue of intellectual property rights needs to be understood. For example, the flexibility of TRIPS could be used to address climate change. The rest of the seminar was not very engaging.
The last side event that I managed to attend was on adaptation. The speaker argued Hurricana Katrina should not have been a surprise, but we discount the future (and the past). He argued that "all societies are in unstable equilbrium... and rest on the strength of early warning systems". For example, who was watching the banks? We seem to spend more time looking at small projects in Africa in order to save a few dollars, than regulating the banks. "Creeping" hazards are especially dangerous, because no government knows how to deal with creeping problems, until they become a crisis. For example, the drying out of the Aral Sea in Central Asia, which could have been prevented.
Finally, we were able to arrange a meeting with the UK's EU Chief negotiator, Ms Droogsba on Friday after an EU meeting had finished. We asked about how the negotiations were going for the EU Climate and Energy package, and she said "not good". They were not moving at all, as nobody wants to proceed now or show their position, before the US policy comes out. The EU package will be decided in January. Everyone seems to be waiting for Obama, and in the interim there was no hope for G20 influence. I asked whether industry lobbying had prevented the auctioning of credits. However, she said there were some positive signs from industry and that the Climate Group and CBI were now supportive of action.
We asked whether there would be an opportunity to move towards concrete policies and measures (such as a carbon tax) rather than 'flexible mechanisms'. However, she said it would be difficult to agree on a tax; the EU had tried it in the 1970's. She admitted the ETS was only half the solution, and would not work on it's own. She praised the new Climate Minister Ed Miliband, and we expressed our enthusiasm about the Climate Bill. Finally we asked whether the "2 degrees of warming" target could be reached. She said it was not sensible to focus on the 2 degree target, it makes people give up. In particular, it won't be achieved so there is not point focusing on it. I came away with the impression she was on-side. However, although she said we need more "positive messages" it was worrying that she believes ultimately the 2 degree target will not be reached. It seems difficult to focus on being "positive" if there will be 2 degrees of warming, and therefore we may hit the climatic tipping point...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment