THE G8 – CAN’T TELL THE (CLIMATE) PLAYERS W/O A SCORECARD

U.S. Lags Behind G8 Nations in Growing Clean Energy Economy, Reducing Emissions; G8 Climate Scorecard Shows U.S. Has Much Catching Up To Do, says WWF
Joe Pouliot, July 1, 2009 (World Wildlife Fund)

(Many thanks to the best reader on the Internet for the tip on this.)

SUMMARY
G8 Climate Scorecards 2009; Climate performance of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and United States of America; Background information for China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa, from the World Wildlife Foundation and Allianz SE (authors: Dr. Niklas Höhne, Katja Eisbrenner, Markus Hagemann and Sara Moltmann), rates the efforts to combat climate change by the major economies on the basis of 3 major statistics (Greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) per capita, Emissions trend from 1990 to 2007, and Proximity to their Kyoto Targets) and a series of performance indicators that fall into 3 categories, (1) Improvements since 1990, (2) Current status, and (3) Policies for the future. These indicators include the countries’ use of New Energy, their emissions intensity, their industries’ efficiencies and their various energy, efficiency and emissions policies .

Here’s how they came out: (1) Germany, (2) UK, (3) France, (4) Italy, (5) Japan, (6)Russia, (7) U.S., (8) Canada. The real story, however, is why this report came out now and why the nations were so ranked.

The reason for this report card is to push the G8 nations toward higher standards and an effective international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol at the UNFCCC Copenhagen summit on climate change in December.

click to enlarge

The good news is that this report and similar efforts seem to have had an impact. The G8 summit in Italy produced a tentative agreement. The bad news is that the Italy agreement is an inadequate, compromise measure. It reflects the current inability of world leaders to set aside the differences detailed in this WWF/Allianz report and it bodes ill for what may come at Copenhagen.

Like the majority of observers who now report on climate change, WWF and Allianz – based on the work of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – call for turning GhG emissions around by 2020 and cutting them over 80% (and up to 95%) by mid-century with the aim of preventing the average global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees C.

For all its inadequacies, that was the general shape of the Italy agreement. It is too soon to tell whether substantive action will follow.

An effective, enduring agreement between G8 nations and a unified effort from them in Copenhagen could make the difference in the international policy that emerges. A good policy (1) will make action more effective sooner, (2) build a more sustainable and stable response to the world’s presently troubled economy, and (3) will build a strong New Energy economy and help millions avoid the worst impacts of global climate change.

click to enlarge

The report includes a list of 5 points that need to be in a truly effective Copenhagen agreement:
(1) Emissions must peak before 2020.
(2) The G8 must commit to binding absolute emission cuts of 40 % below 1990 levels by 2020 and Zero Carbon Action Plans (ZCAPs) to get to zero net emissions (at least 95 %) by 2050.
(3) The G5 must commit to a deviation of at least 30 % from business as usual (BAU) by 2020.
(4) An action framework must be in place to finance mitigations to what will come in poor nations and vulnerable places from climate change. This includes secure and predictable funding of around US$ 63 billion per year and regional insurances.
(5) A financing institution to steer the transition to a New Energy economy endowed by at least US$160 billion per year by 2017.

The Italy agreement was, by most accounts, a complete failure on points 3, 4 and 5.

The scorecards used 3 major categories of performance indicators to determine the countries’ rankings: (1) Improvements since 1990, (2) Current status, and (3) Policies for the future

click to enlarge

Under Improvements since 1990, the scorecards considered:
(1) the 1990 to 2007 trendline. Only Russia’s emissions went steadily down in that period. Only emissions in Canada and the U.S. went steadily up.
(2) the proximity to the 2008-to-2012 Kyoto target. Only Russia, France, the UK and Germany are near their targets.
(3) the use of New Energy. Only Germany has made significant steady growth. In 4 of the G8 (Canada, France, Japan and the U.S.), New Energy has stagnated or declined.

Under Current status:
(1) per capita emissions. Only Italy, due to a unique economic situation, is on a straightline decline from 1990 toward a 95% reduction by 2050.
(2) emissions per GDP. Only the UK and Italy are on a path toward a 95% cut by 2050.
(3) fewer emissions per kilowatt-hour than using natural gas, without nuclear. Only Canada does this, using lots of hydroelectric power.
(4) keeping industrial energy use to no more than 24% above other energy use. Only Japan does this.

click to enlarge

Under Policies for the future:
(1) leadership in international climate negotiations. The UK, Germany and the US have
pushed climate change to a high political level but the UK and Germany have blocked
progress on crucial issues, and the U.S. has no targets.
(2) policies to use New Energy for electricity. All G8 countries are underperforming. Even the EU’s cap&trade system is judged to have been inadequate.
(3) developed policies for all industrial emissions. The UK comes closest.
(4) polices to cut household and service sector emissions. No G8 country has adapted sufficient Energy Efficiency standards.
(5) policies to transform transport. Only Japan has “top runner” standards for vehicle efficiency. The U.S. has recently improved auto standards but not to available international standards.
(6) supportive, effective New Energy policies and incentives. Only Germany is not underperforming.

COMMENTARY
The report suggests that the way G8 leaders respond to their nations’ scorecards will be a guage of their commitment to action against climate change. The report says a 4-point test will tell the tale of their seriousness:
(1) Will they commit? (They did. And then started backpedaling.)
(2) Will they return to their countries and increase local commitments to act? (Too soon to tell.)
(3) Will the leaders commit to helping the poor nations? (Too soon to tell.)
(4) Will they reach an agreement with the big, dynamic emerging economies (a.k.a., the G5 - Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa - that will be the biggest GhG-generators in the next half-century? (That failed in Italy.)

click to enlarge

What to do about the G5 emerging economies is probably the biggest challenge. These countries justifiably refuse to sacrifice economic growth. The G8 nations must understand their own emissiions created climate change over the last 2 centuries and, therefore, the only just path to international accord is to allow the G5 some leeway in the early stages of the battle to reverse climate change. The responsibility of the G5 in the early stages is to implement emissions reduction technologies (New Energies, Energy Efficiencies and other breakthroughs) provided by the G8 nations.

Assessment has heretofore been sketchy in the G8 and entirely inadequate in the G5. This must be changed. The Scorecards are intended to be a major step in that direction.

click to enlarge

Quick sketches of the scorecards’ on individual countries:

Canada and Russia: Failed.
*Canada scores lowest of all G8 countries. No policies, emissions out of control, no New Energy, Kyoto targets completely out of reach.
*Russia has a good trend because of its economic drop in the 1990s. It has few policies and emissions are rising. Recent speeches by Medveyedev and Putin offer hope but no implementation.

The U.S.: May be turning.
*Obama policies are the right direction but there is little political consensus or implementation. Big New Energy growth but a pittance of what is possible.

click to enlarge

Japan and Italy: Relatively low emissions (per capita, per GDP and per
industrial production) but policies are inadequate.
*Japan has high energy efficiency and uses of nuclear power (which WWF does not consider a viable alternative option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts). Absolute emissions are not declining. There are no mandatory emission reduction policies.
*Italy’s per capita emissions are low due to its economy. Absolute emissions have increased considerably since 1990. Some but weak policy efforts.

France, the UK and Germany: Better than the other G8 countries, but not adequate to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees C.
*France has low emissions for an industrial country, partially due to its use of nuclear energy (which WWF does not consider a viable policy option). Total emissions have only slightly declined since 1990.
*The UK’s emissions are already below the Kyoto target, largely due to a transition from coal to gas in the 1990s. A strong national climate debate has led to innovative policies that could drive significant emission reductions. It needs more New Energy and Energy Efficiency.
*Germany leads but is only slightly ahead of the UK. Emissions declined, but because of an economic downturn in the former East Germany as well as national measures. New Energy is keeping them down. Great New Energy policies, GhG cut targets and New Energy goals.

click to enlarge

The G5: Not scored, just getting into the game.
*All 5 are working up national strategies. The most detailed are South Africa (30% cut by 2050) and Mexico (50% cut by 2050).
*China, South Africa and India are building New Energy. Brazil is doing biofuels.
*China and India have “substantial” Energy Efficiency goals. China will cut energy intensity (energy per GDP) 20 % in 5 years. India will cut energy intensity 20 % in 9 years.
*China’s Top 1000 program for industrial efficiency, developed in partnership with the U.S. DOE, is a landmark and is being implemented.
*Brazil has deforestation reduction ambitions but has not net acted.

click to enlarge

Positives:
(1) The Obama administration has made New Energy and climate change priorities.
(2) U.S. action could move the other G8 economies.
(3) There are some efforts in all G5 (emerging) economies. Mexico’s 50% GhG reduction by 2050 is a big step forward.
(4) The worldwide economic downturn has not yet compromised targets for emissions cuts because there is a widely held recognition that public spending for New Energy and Energy Efficiency, properly regulated, will add jobs and revenues as well as cut GhGs.

Negatives:
(1) 20 years after the recognition of global climate change, some G8 nations’ emissions are still increasing.
(2) Most G8 economic recovery packages have failed to do as much as they could for New Energy and Energy Efficiency. Stimulus to G5 economies was a missed opportunity.
(3) Uncertainty about the effectiveness of the clean development mechanism (CDM), operatered by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), must be turned into clarity, accountability, transparency and effectiveness. It is a huge missed opportunity. Criticism of the CDM compromises the potential to reach an agreement at Copenhagen in December.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the summary of the report: “The overall performance of the G8 countries is assessed by comparing three groups of indicators: “improvements since 1990”, “current status” and “policies for the future”. In addition, G8 countries’ performance in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy and the development of the carbon market are summarized separately. The core benchmark of this assessment is whether countries are on track to reduce emissions by 95 % until 2050. As such, the rating of this year’s version is more ambitious compared to last year’s version where the benchmark was a reduction of 80 % by 2050. This reflects the growing urgency of climate science…”
- From the summary of the report: “Major policies that are planned but not yet approved have been incorporated into the evaluation but given less weight. WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option, due to its costs, radiotoxic emissions, safety and proliferation impacts…”
- From the summary of the report: “Overall, there has been more action in the US on climate change in the last four months than in the last three decades – a trend that will hopefully continue in the coming years. However, the United States are still the largest total emitter of the G8 countries, and have among the highest per capita emissions in the world. Furthermore, its emissions are projected to continue to increase. The United States have also not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.”
From the summary of the report: “As EU member states, [France, the UK and Germany] support the EU greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2020 as well as EU energy efficiency and renewables targets. The early announcement of the target was very constructive for the international debate. However, in the light of recent scientific findings, even the more ambitious variant of a 30 % reduction by 2020 with an international agreement on climate change is not stringent enough.”

click to enlarge

- Carter Roberts, President/CEO, WWF: “During debate on the energy and climate bill in the House of Representatives last Friday, opponents of the legislation demanded that other countries first step up to the plate…The truth is that not only has much of the rest of the world already been at the plate, they’re several innings into the game and we’re only now emerging from the dugout…For too long, the U.S. has resisted action while other nations have begun the transition to a clean energy economy. Other nations have dramatically cut greenhouse gas pollution, set national targets, ramped up investments in energy technology and set regulatory frameworks to spark innovation in key sectors. And now other countries dominate markets in sustainable energy and technology…It is time for the U.S. to get into the game and make up for lost time. Passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act by the House on Friday took us a big step forward. We need the Senate to pass the bill, get it to the President before Copenhagen and give us the means to challenge other countries to work with us in solving this global problem…”
- Dr. Joachim Faber, board member, Allianz SE: “A low carbon future holds growth potential for G8 countries as well as for emerging nations. Future investments and product development therefore require a sustainable political framework.”