GWPF | 5 Dec 2014
Emboldened China Plays $100 Billion Trump Card
China offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020. Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, coupled his comments on China’s commitment with a call to accelerate funding for climate aid, shifting the pressure to industrialized nations, led by the U.S. and European Union, to do their part toward reaching an agreement next year. The “$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,” Su said. Climate aid is “a trust-building process,” he added. —Alex Morales and Reed Landberg, Bloomberg, 5 December 2014
1) Obama’s China Deal Backfires: Emboldened China Pressures West To Pay Up – Reuters, 4 December 2014
2) UN Climate Poker: China Plays $100 Billion Trump Card – Bloomberg, 4 December 2014
3) India Demands Western Compensation For CO2 Emissions – The Economic Times of India, 4 December 2014
4) EU And US At Odds Over Legally Binding Emissions Targets – The Guardian, 2 December 2014
5) Iron Lady Says No: Australia Won’t Pay Into UN Green Climate Fund – Associated Press, 5 December 2014
6) Rupert Darwall: Obama Puts Climate On The 2016 Ballot – The Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2014
Asserting that it has been a strong champion of equity, India today said developed countries should compensate developing nations for the effects their greenhouse gas emissions have had on climate. India believes that developed countries should be held responsible for their high levels of emissions which have caused harm to developing countries, like itself. That responsibility should come in the form of compensation and a fair 2015 Paris agreement. —The Economic Times of India, 4 December 2014
As a result of promoting environmental alarmism, Western governments find themselves trapped in a perilous, yet largely self-constructed catch. As long as climate change is elevated as the principal liability of industrial countries, as long as Western CO2 emissions are blamed for exacerbating natural disasters, death and destruction around the globe, green pressure groups and officials from the developing world will continue to insist that the West is liable to recompense its exorbitant carbon debt by way of wealth transfer and financial compensation. In this way, the global warming scare is creating a lose-lose situation for the West which is causing lasting damage to its standing, influence and economic strength. —Benny Peiser, Financial Post, 8 April 2008
Gunther Oettinger, the EU’s outgoing energy commissioner, declared in September that the EU should not adopt new binding CO2 targets unless all major emitters would do likewise. The EU’s post-2020 targets for greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy are contingent on a legally binding global agreement at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The chances of such an agreement, however, are close to zero. China and India have made their support for such a deal conditional on a legally binding climate finance package of $100 billion per year by 2020 as promised by President Obama at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009. –Benny Peiser, Testimony to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2 December 2014
Australia will continue to directly pay for climate change adaptation in vulnerable South Pacific island nations through its aid budget rather than donate to a U.N. Green Climate Fund designed for the same purpose, the foreign minister said Friday ahead of climate talks in Peru. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the Australian delegation would not give the Lima meeting any proposed Australian emission-cutting targets beyond 2020. Bishop said that without legally binding commitments in Paris to reduce global emissions beyond 2020, any agreement would amount to nothing more than aspirations. —Associated Press, 5 December 2014
The fate of the current attempt to agree on a global climate pact won’t be decided around the negotiating tables in Paris a year from now, but by American voters in November 2016. President Obama has all but guaranteed that where candidates stand on implementing a Paris climate accord will be a campaign issue. For Republicans, this has the makings of a winning issue. In 2016 Mr. Obama will force Democrats to run, in effect, on a platform of fewer jobs, more-expensive energy and an indefinite commitment to paying billions of dollars of climate aid. –Rupert Darwall, The Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2014
I also want to know why the BBC have banned Lord Lawson of Blaby from debating climate change on the ground that he is not a scientist, yet you happily broadcast another non-scientist, Al Gore, attributing Australian forest fires to climate change — something the IPCC does not support. I contacted your complaints department about that in July but have yet to receive a reply. — Ross Clark, The Times, 5 December 2014
1) Obama’s China Deal Backfires: Emboldened China Pressures West To Pay Up
Reuters, 4 December 2014
Rich nations’ pledges of almost $10 billion to a green fund to help poor nations cope with global warming are “far from adequate,” particularly Australia’s lack of a donation, the head of China’s delegation at U.N. climate talks said on Thursday.
Su Wei also urged all rich nations to deepen their planned cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, signaling that a joint Chinese-U.S. announcement of greenhouse gas curbs last month does not mean an end to deep differences on climate policy.
Speaking during Dec. 1-12 talks in Lima, Su said donor pledges last month totaling $9.7 billion to a new U.N. Green Climate Fund (GCF), to help developing nations cut emissions and adapt to climate change, were only a small part of needed cash.
“It is far from adequate,” he told a news conference, noting that developed nations in 2009 agreed to mobilize $100 billion a year from both public and private sources by 2020 to help poor nations suffering droughts, heat waves, floods and rising seas.
“There is still a large gap towards the 2020 targets of $100 billion a year,” he said. Australia is the main developed nation that has not contributed to the GCF, saying it prefers for now to focus on domestic aid programs.
“It is not good news [about] Australia, if it is true that they refuse to provide any money to the GCF,” Su said. The biggest donors to the GCF are the United States with up to $3 billion and Japan with $1.5 billion.
Su also said that greenhouse gas cuts planned by rich nations before 2020 were far too small and urged a toughening.
In a joint announcement last month, Beijing said it would aim to peak its fast-rising emissions around 2030, the first time it has set a maximum year, and the United States said it would seek to cut emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Su said the joint announcement was intended to give momentum to the talks.
“A joint announcement does not necessarily blur the distinction between developed and developing countries,” he said.
Bloomberg, 4 December 2014
Alex Morales and Reed Landberg
China offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020.
China will work to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for every dollar of gross domestic product and to boost its stock of forests that absorb emissions, Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, said today. The comments are among the most significant from a Chinese official since President Xi Jinping pledged last month to begin to reduce carbon-dioxide pollution around 2030 and expand supplies of renewable power.
Addressing carbon intensity is key as China emits almost twice as much pollution to achieve the same amount of growth as the U.S., according to data from the International Energy Agency. China’s carbon intensity is on par with the U.S. level in 1985.
“We would redouble our efforts in terms of taking actions on climate change for the period up to 2020 and we would markedly reduce the carbon intensity,” Su said at a press conference today at the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Lima.
Su coupled his comments on China’s commitment with a call to accelerate funding for climate aid, shifting the pressure to industrialized nations, led by the U.S. and European Union, to do their part toward reaching an agreement next year.
Rich nation commitments for climate aid are “not adequate” and need to be boosted, Su said. […]
Climate Aid
Su was critical of the progress industrialized nations have made to boost climate-related aid to $100 billion a year by 2020. The Green Climate Fund, a UN institution meant to channel an unspecified portion of that aid to developing nations, has pledges for about $9.7 billion so far.
The “$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,” Su said. Climate aid is “a trust-building process,” he added.
Su also weighed in on a debate over the period which emissions commitments should be made. China, siding with the EU, favors a 10-year period, because it gives investors greater certainty over the long-term direction of policy.
3) India Demands Western Compensation For CO2 Emissions
The Economic Times of India, 4 December 2014
Asserting that it has been a strong champion of equity, India today said developed countries should compensate developing nations for the effects their greenhouse gas emissions have had on climate.
Susheel Kumar, interim head of the Indian delegation, said India’s goal on adaptation during the UN climate change summit talks here is for it “to be there in the entire text.”
“We would also like a long-term global goal for adaptation to be clearly articulated in qualitative and quantitative terms.” Kumar said, adding that “for a developing country, adaptation becomes a more immediate need (than mitigation).”
Ministerial-level talks will begin next week which will be attended by Environment Minister Prakash Javedkar on December 7.
India would like developed countries to compensate developing nations for the effects their emissions have had on climate.
India believes that developed countries should be held responsible for their high levels of emissions which have caused harm to developing countries, like itself. That responsibility should come in the form of compensation and a fair 2015 Paris agreement. […]
India’s position is that no country’s right to development should be circumscribed and that the developing world must carry a unified voice over the course of the Lima talks if there is any hope for an equitable agreement, he asserted.
Currently, adaptation talks are progressing but text-based negotiations have not begun as yet as countries are still trying to determine what they will put forth in their final papers.
India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will likely not be ready until June 2015. The government plans to put forth a national plan lasting not less than 10 years, but preferably 15 years.
4) EU And US At Odds Over Legally Binding Emissions Targets
The Guardian, 2 December 2014
Dan Collyns
EU says mandatory carbon emissions cuts should be set for all countries, whereas US wants individual countries to be free to adjust the scale and pace of reductions
The European Union (EU)’s delegation at the climate change conference in Lima has argued that legally binding cuts applying to all countries are necessary and should be adopted by 2015 and entered into force by 2020.
“The EU is of the mind that legally binding mitigation targets are the only way to provide the necessary long-term signal, the necessary confidence to the investors … and provide credibility in the low carbon transition worldwide,” said Elina Bardram, head of the EU delegation at the conference, which opened on Monday.
“We’re not convinced that an alternative approach could provide the same signals that would be sufficient to deliver the global momentum,” Bardram told the Guardian, adding the EU would seek to take a leadership role in negotiations for an agreement which would be “owned by all parties.”
It is the first time an EU official has publicly gone on the record on legally binding targets, stating the EU’s negotiating position at the Lima conference, which is intended to deliver the first draft of an accord to cut carbon emissions and stave off dangerous climate change. The accord is expected to be signed at a UN conference in Paris next year.
The EU appears to have toughened its stance faced with major nations which claim they could not impose economy wide targets. Bardram hinted that such positions could stall the negotiating process in the lead-up to the Paris meeting.
“We don’t want to get to Paris and realise that the targets and the contributions did not add up to what we needed,” Bardram told the Guardian, adding that the EU wanted the 2015 agreement to have “legal force through robust rules, procedures and institutions, to ensure long-term certainty and accountability”.
The EU’s stance is at odds with the US position which favours the ‘buffet option’, that would contain some legally binding elements but allow countries to determine the scale and pace of their emissions reductions, even if this calls into question the aim of keeping temperature rises below 2C,the level that countries have agreed to limit warming to.
5) Australia’s Iron Lady Says No: Aussies Won’t Pay Into UN Green Climate Fund
Associated Press, 5 December 2014
Australia will continue to directly pay for climate change adaptation in vulnerable South Pacific island nations through its aid budget rather than donate to a U.N. Green Climate Fund designed for the same purpose, the foreign minister said Friday ahead of climate talks in Peru.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said governments should judge for themselves whether bilateral action to reduce the impact of climate change on developing countries was a more efficient use of aid money than donating through the U.N.
“The Green Climate Fund is about supporting developing countries build resilience to climate change. Australia is already doing that through our aid program,” Bishop told The Associated Press before leading the Australian delegation to Lima for a U.N climate summit.
“From my experience, bilateral work is able to customize responses when we’re working directly with another partner country,” she said. […]
Bishop said Australia was on track to achieve its target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 12 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
But she said the Australian delegation would not give the Lima meeting any proposed Australian emission-cutting targets beyond 2020.
“The message that I will be presenting on Australia’s behalf is that the new agreement should establish a common playing field for all countries to take climate action from 2020 and seek commitments from all the major economies to reducing emissions,” she said.
Delegates from more than 190 countries will be in Lima trying to lay the groundwork for a global emissions pact they hope will be adopted in Paris next year.
Bishop said that without legally binding commitments in Paris to reduce global emissions beyond 2020, any agreement would amount to nothing more than aspirations.
6) Rupert Darwall: Obama Puts Climate On The 2016 Ballot
The Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2014
The president’s unilateral approach ensures that a new global carbon pact will be a campaign issue in two years.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, this week and next will lay the groundwork for a more significant gathering in Paris a year from now: the 21st conference of the 1992 United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The third such conference, in 1997, produced the Kyoto Protocol, the much-heralded but ineffective plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions without applying to developing nations. The 15th conference, held in Copenhagen five years ago to draw up a successor treaty, collapsed spectacularly under determined opposition from China and India.
The Paris conference, also intended to bring about an agreement covering all the world’s emitters, promises to be different—if only in the way it influences the next U.S. presidential election.
The Obama administration drew two lessons from Copenhagen. First, that the key to getting a global climate deal in Paris would be to secure first a bilateral one with China. Second, that seeking a binding treaty is overambitious and unnecessary. An accord that doesn’t require Senate approval would suffice.
America’s international commitments could be implemented by executive actions.
From President Obama’s viewpoint, developments are moving in the right direction. At Copenhagen, China’s posture was that its carbon-intensity target was its own affair. But on Nov. 12 Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China had agreed not to exceed its carbon emissions at 2030 levels, while the U.S. would double the pace of America’s greenhouse-gas reductions.
The consequence is that the fate of the current attempt to agree on a global climate pact won’t be decided around the negotiating tables in Paris a year from now, but by American voters in November 2016. President Obama has all but guaranteed that where candidates stand on implementing a Paris climate accord will be a campaign issue.
As the president pointed out in the context of immigration reform, “the very nature of an executive action means that a future president could reverse those actions.” A vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty would settle the issue. And by avoiding the Senate and leaving the issue open, President Obama will be forcing his fellow Democrats to defend his energy policies through the next election.
They will have a lot to defend. Hardly anyone thinks that the president’s agreement with China will have much of an impact on climate control. In general, climate-policy skeptics have played down the significance of China’s pledge to peak its emissions. Some argue that given China’s demographic curve, China is only signaling what it would be doing anyway and is unlikely to legally commit to capping its carbon emissions.
Critics of the Beijing deal, meanwhile, rightly point out that even on the basis of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-approved science, it does very little to delay the anticipated rise in global temperature (although that’s something that nature is taking care of itself for the time being). The 2030 target gives China’s leadership a perverse incentive to pump out emissions to raise their peak level.
However the White House claim that the climate deal with China is a step to achieving the “deep decarbonization” of the global economy is delusory for another reason: It is far too costly.
Since Copenhagen, the principal motivation of Western leaders has not been to reach an effective agreement, but to justify their expensive renewable-energy programs. In the U.S., these have damaged America’s energy-cost advantage, which is one of the few pro-growth factors in the anemic Obama recovery.
For the developing world, however, the climate negotiations have always been about how much money they get. From the outset, the talks were predicated on massive aid transfers from north to south. Climate became the most potent bargaining chip in a decades-old demand for aid to allegedly avoid permanent Third World impoverishment.
Defying the assumptions about permanent impoverishment, the growth of the developing world has been spectacular. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reckons that in 2010 developing nations’ share of world GDP was 49%, up from 40% in 2000, and is projected to reach 57% in 2030.
This means more countries generating more carbon emissions. It also means that Obama-style deep decarbonization of the global economy would require that developed countries pay twice over—once to decarbonize their own economies and a second time for developing ones.
That isn’t going to happen. Even without China, the developing world is too large for the indebted, stagnating developed world to pay for global decarbonization.
If the West wants a fig-leaf climate agreement, however, it will have to at least promise to pay for one. At Copenhagen, developed nations pledged $100 billion a year of climate aid by 2020. The U.N. is having as little success raising money as it had in cutting emissions. So far it has recovered only $9.3 billion of one-time pledges.
Developing nations are already demanding early capitalization of the Green Climate Fund. From the outset, the talks were predicated on massive aid transfers from north to south. Climate became the most potent bargaining chip in a decades-old demand for aid to allegedly avoid permanent Third World impoverishment.
Defying the assumptions about permanent impoverishment, the growth of the developing world has been spectacular. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reckons that in 2010 developing nations’ share of world GDP was 49%, up from 40% in 2000, and is projected to reach 57% in 2030.
This means more countries generating more carbon emissions. It also means that Obama-style deep decarbonization of the global economy would require that developed countries pay twice over—once to decarbonize their own economies and a second time for developing ones.
That isn’t going to happen. Even without China, the developing world is too large for the indebted, stagnating developed world to pay for global decarbonization.
If the West wants a fig-leaf climate agreement, however, it will have to at least promise to pay for one. At Copenhagen, developed nations pledged $100 billion a year of climate aid by 2020. The U.N. is having as little success raising money as it had in cutting emissions. So far it has recovered only $9.3 billion of one-time pledges.
Developing nations are already demanding early capitalization of the Green Climate Fund. A deal in Paris would make President Obama’s recent pledge of $3 billion merely the opening round of escalating cash calls on U.S. taxpayers—unless they vote against the party that promises to continue Mr. Obama’s climate policies after his term expires.
For Republicans, this has the makings of a winning issue. In 2016 Mr. Obama will force Democrats to run, in effect, on a platform of fewer jobs, more-expensive energy and an indefinite commitment to paying billions of dollars of climate aid.
Another concern: The administration’s climate plans involve a federal takeover of electricity generation, a critical segment of the economy. Kind of like the way ObamaCare took over health care. We can see how that’s working out.
Mr. Darwall is the author of “The Age of Global Warming: A History” (Quartet, 2013).
