ELEMENTS OF A COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE DEAL

Meeting the Climate Challenge; Core Elements of an Effective Response to Climate Change
October 6, 2009 (Center for American Progress and the United Nations Foundation)

SUMMARY
If it doesn't come to an international agreement now to take action, the community of nations is likely to find in another few years that global climate change has altered its world irreversibly. Yet the community of nations is dramatically split between conservative elements and disbelievers unwilling to take the lead in emissions cuts for fear it will compromise economic competitiveness for no substantial reason and progressive elements who fear not addressing climate change will harm long term economic interests, not to mention life as they know it, even worse.

Meeting the Climate Challenge; Core Elements of an Effective Response to Climate Change looks at 4 areas (New Energy, Energy Efficiency, reversing deforestation and sustainable land use) where significant enough cuts in emissions are profitably within reach between now and 2020 to dramatically turn the tide on global climate change.

Action could cut emissions 75% by 2020 and save $14 billion. Investing the savings in adaptation could enhance world economies, increase international security and protect threatened environments. These are the “core elements” in the new international climate change plan the world community should be seeking, the report argues, when it meets in December at Copenhagen to hammer out a replacement for Kyoto’s U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which expires in 2012.

click to enlarge

The core elements represent potential areas of agreement that could make it possible for disparate developed and developing nations to all sign on to:
1-Significant emissions reduction targets by developed countries;
2-Significant mitigation commitments by developing countries;
3-Significant commitments of financial assistance from developed countries to developing countries; and,
4-Mechanisms through which developed countries can assist the technological advancement of developing countries in New Energy and Energy Efficiency without compromising their intellectual property.

Absolutely vital quote to notice from the paper’s conclusion: “The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen will be THE BEGINNING [emphasis added] of a sustained international effort to address climate change.”

Footnote: Insiders are now predicting Copenhagen will not be the moment of truth for the world community because that the moment will have to wait until the U.S. hammers out its own climate legislation in 2010.

The evidence is simply undeniable. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The G-8 nations agreed in the summer of 2009 that the global average temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect caused by human-generated emissions must be no more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

To keep the global average temperature below this threshold, world greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) must be at least halved by 2050. At a September summit on climate change convened by Ban-ki Moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, ~100 world government leaders plus a raft of private sector CEOs and leaders of important international nongovernmental organizations affirmed the urgency of reaching a new agreement at Copenhagen.

Yet the grounds for agreement remains elusive because major players fear their own economic well being could be compromised by a commitment to joint effort. Innumerable previous reports, beginning with Lord Stern’s landmark work, have failed to impress on some world leaders how compromising to their economic well being global climate change could be. This Center for American Progress and United Nations Foundation paper takes a different approach by trying to impress on them how profitable and achievable a serious effort to cut world GhGs could potentially be.

To reiterate: It is within reach to make 75% of the needed 2020 emissions cuts and at the same time save $14 billion.

click to enlarge

The cuts will come from the 4 core elements: New Energy, Energy Efficiency, forest protection and sustainable land use, and adaptation. The economic, security, and environmental benefits of changes in the 4 core elements extend beyond the climate change fight and make them common ground for international action that will, nevertheless, profoundly and favorably impact the effort to reverse global climate change.

- For New Energy:

New Energy is abundant. (click to enlarge)

More than a third of the world’s ~6 billion people have no grid-supplied electricity.

Distributed generation New Energy is the best answer to their need and can help them move away from burning wood and biomass.

The EU goal is 20% New Energy by 2020. China’s goal is 15% by 2020. The U.S. has no goal at present but pending legislation would put it at 15-to-20% by 2020.

New Energy costs are improving as economies of scale develop. Moving the world to 20% New Energy sources by 2020 would cut emissions 10% at a cost of $34 billion.

It's the best deal. (click to enlarge)

- For Energy Efficiency:

The lowest hanging fruit: One recent study showed Energy Efficiency (EE) can provide a third of the cost-effective emissions cuts needed by 2020. It is universally popular, allows for wider access to electricity in the developing world yet could cut world energy demand in half by 2020.

Market barriers: (1) The cost of transition to EE can be greater than the benefits from incentives. (2) Unless utility profits are “decoupled” from energy sales, utilities have no motivation to lead the transition.

Increasing the world’s technology-associated EE improvement from 1.25% per year to 2% per year will cut emissions 12% and save $98 billion by 2020.

click to enlarge

- For Protecting Forests and Sustainable Land Use:

Deforestation is responsible for 17% of every year’s GhGs. Another 14% come from agricultural practices and livestock management. Turning climate change around will require the implementation of sustainable forest and land methods.

Sustainable practices will increase the productivity of farms, boost rural incomes, make the soil richer, save water and energy, cut polluting spew and runoff, grow jobs and revenues and reduce poverty, make food supplies more secure, make ecosystems around agricultural lands healthier, protect watersheds, and – oh, by the way - fight climate change and all its attendant ills.

Unfortunately, sustainable practices require upfront investment and provide long-term payoffs whereas current unsustainable practices provide quick returns. The only way developing nations can make the transition is through funding from developed nations. Little is being done at present.

The cost: Habitat restoration and sustainable forestry, agriculture, and livestock practices to cut present emissions in those sectors 50% would cost $51 billion in 2020, an amount that can be more than earned back by a less than comprehensive shift to EE.

click to enlarge

- For Adaptation:

Climate change has already started. Droughts, floods, water shortages, more intense tropical storms, increased disease ranges, decreased agricultural output, coral bleaching, and many other impacts are already observable in Africa and other poor regions of the world.

These impacts are the result of emissions generated in the developed world’s industrial revolution. $1-to-$2 billion is needed through 2012 to begin alleviating the ills caused and assisting those worst hit to adapt.

Effective National Adaptation Programs of Action could, with such funding, work through community and non-governmental organizations to reach those impacted. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) could be the financial management device through which action is taken.

- National Strategies:

China:

A targeet to cut energy intensity 20% from 2005 levels by 2010 has been set.

A new goal to get 10% of its energy from New Energy by 2010 and 15% by 2020 is being set. It includes 100-to-150 gigawatts of wind, 10 gigawatts of solar power, 300 gigawatts of hydropower and 86 gigawatts of nuclear.

At the September UN summit on climate change, President Hu Jintao said his country would increase its carbon intensity target and commited to increase China’s forest cover 20% by 2010 and 26% by 2020.

click to enlarge

The European Union:

The EU “Triple 20” commits EU members to cutting emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, cutting energy consumption 20% by 2020 and obtaining 20% of their power (including 10% biofuels) from New Energy by 2020.

The EU has said that if the U.S. commits to a 20% emissions cut, it will up its goal to 30%.

The EU is also acting internationally to turn back deforestation, build New Energy infrastructure in the developing world, and assist with adaptation in hard-hit poor countries.

The UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) plan, if adopted as world policy, will reverse the EU Emissions Trading (cap&trade) System’s prohibition against international forest conservation investments.

click to enlarge

India:

The current 5-year plan would cut energy intensity 20% and obtain 14-to-20 gigawatts of New Energy by 2012.

A newer policy, still being drafted, would target getting 10% of India’s power from New Energy by 2010 and 20% by 2020.

A National Solar Mission aims for 20 gigawatts of solar by 2020, the world’s biggest solar target.

The draft policy also targets a 5% cut in energy consumption by 2015.

A proposed National Mission for a Green India would increase India’s forest coverage from 23% to 33%.

The proposed National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem and National
Mission for Sustainable Agriculture plans would implement ecosystem and agricultural adaptation projects.

Brazil:

Largely through its hydropower, Brazil already gets 89% of its power from emissions-free sources. It intends to increase that as well as up its use of ethanol in the transport sector 11% per year.

The national climate change plan pledges to cut the present deforestation rate 50% by 2018, which is 70% below the 1996-to-2005 deforestation rate. The plan will be funded by Brazil’s Amazon Fund, to which Norway has donated $1 billion.

Brazil’s plan also calls for a 10% cut from BAU levels in energy consumption by 2030 through Energy Efficiency.

The U.S.:

A House-passed bill would obtain 20% of U.S. power from New Energy sources by 2020 and cut U.S. emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through a cap&trade system but is meeting severe resistance in the Senate.

A vehicle fuel efficiency measure ups required mileage to 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016.

As demonstrated by the Executive Order imposing the new vehicle fuel standard, the Obama administration appears ready to take more aggressive action if Congress fails to move U.S. emissions cutting forward. The next 15 months will tell the tale.

A final word on funding, or, Who Pays?

Funding for the core elements will need to come from public sources until cap&trade and emissions-taxation programs generate sufficient revenues.

Such sources: The Global Environment Facility (if better funded and regulated), the World Bank (with expanded special climate initiatives), international financial institutions engaged in building New Energy and Energy Efficiency and playing in the emissions markets, and bilateral developed world/developing world aid programs.

Specifically aimed at protecting forests and at mitigation: Funding the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Funding goals: Scale up of policy development and capacity building, to leverage private-sector investment and drive innovation, research, development, and deployment.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the paper: “It is one of the few large-scale mitigation options that yields a positive economic return while providing a wide range of other social, environmental, and security benefits. Energy efficiency is attractive in all nations and especially in developing countries because it allows existing energy sources to serve a larger population and facilitates universal access to modern energy services…”
- From the paper: “The negotiations are challenging. Among developed countries, the United States has not offered a near-term emissions reduction target, and legislation that would support such a target is still under debate in Congress. China, India, and other developing countries have announced low-carbon growth initiatives in their national plans and policies, but they are not prepared to accept internationally binding obligations. Countries have proposed needs and institutional options for financing and technology cooperation, but these have not been negotiated… It is important to remember that the underlying policies and measures that will deliver emissions reductions and low-carbon growth most effectively are attractive in their own right and can be undertaken immediately…[and] can deliver the most immediate response to climate change while also advancing other economic, security, and environmental objectives.”

click to enlarge

- From the paper: “Vital source of financing will be the carbon markets financed by cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, and other measures taken by developed countries under the new international climate agreement. New international institutions may be needed to administer financial assistance and technology cooperation under the agreement. But these will take time to develop and scale up. In the mean time, substantially increased public funding through existing institutions will be essential for progress in all of the areas…”
- From the paper: “These immediate first steps will help to accelerate the larger and longer-term commitments needed to meet the climate challenge. The Copenhagen conference would provide an ideal platform to take these first steps by increasing international support for the core elements of an effective climate strategy.”