Reflections From Week Two Of The Paris Climate Talks

Climate Council - Amanda McKenzie

John Smirnow, Global Solar Council Secretary General; Amanda McKenzie, CEO Climate Council; Bruce Douglas, Chairman of the Global Solar Council and CEO of Solar Power Europe; Steve Blume, Chair of the Australian Solar Council.

After a week at the global climate talks what has really struck me is that the most fascinating story isn't actually the negotiations, but everything that has been swirling around them. Mayors, businesses and not-for profit organisations are driving progress. I've been absolutely blown away by the sheer scale and momentum of the change we are witnessing and will witness into the future. The climate debate in Australia has been bruising and protracted and the many years of domestic inaction can certainly be wearying, so it's been enormously refreshing meeting people from around the world who are getting on with the job!
As the negotiations are in the second and final week, I wanted to share with you some reflections and to give you a flavour of what's happening.

1. Renewable energy is front and centre.
Renewable energy has continued to be a significant focus of the events and announcements surrounding the conference. Here are five examples:

• On Friday, 1000 mayors and local leaders from cities including Paris, Las Vegas, Vancouver and Stockholm announced that they would go 100% renewable.
• There have been a number of big announcements from business. One of the largest ones was Google announcing they would triple their purchases of renewable energy by 2025, with the goal of powering their operations with 100% clean energy. Thinking back to Copenhagen this is one of the biggest shifts I've noticed - some very large businesses are now actually implementing significant change in their own operations.
• Sunday saw the launch of the Global Solar Council- designed to unify the solar power sector and bring together stakeholders from business, politics, and civil society to accelerate the growth of global solar market developments.
• Through the conference, developing countries have put renewable energy front and centre. India has created an international Solar Alliance, whereby the world's most vulnerable countries have collectively called for 100% renewable energy and African nations have created an Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI) to help Africa leapfrog into low-carbon development. The goal of the AREI is to build at least 10 GW of new and additional renewable energy generation capacity by 2020 and 300 GW by 2030. Considering that current total electricity generation in Africa is roughly 150 GW, this is a very big announcement.
• The oft-repeated and utterly false argument that "Australian coal will bring people out of poverty" is non-existent in Paris. In fact, it is the opposite. Developing countries want renewable energy. Solar in particular has been noted as being critical for tackling poverty, as Rachel Kyte, a group vice-president and special envoy for climate change at the World Bank, said, "solar is critical to closing the access gap to energy for the poor".

2. Fossil fuel divestment continues to gain momentum.
Last Wednesday 350.org made the incredible announcement that that more that 100 institutions controlling over $1 trillion in funds world-wide had made divestments from fossil fuels in the 10 weeks leading up to Paris. A total of 500 organisations representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have made some form of divestment commitment since the campaign started (many of these are partial divestments).

3. Environmental celebrities have all come to town.
From Leonardo DiCaprio speaking at the global mayors event and urging them to commit to 100% renewables, to Al Gore hosting business meetings and Richard Branson urging Australia to protect the Great Barrier Reef, the celebs have been out in force. This has attracted even greater global media attention and many of their speeches have been inspiring.

Al Gore made this comment on social change I thought was insightful: that at first change happens slower than you expected it to, but then, when change happens, it is faster than you can ever imagine. His view was that we are witnessing the acceleration of enormous change.

4. Greenland's ice melts in the streets of Paris.
Art and cultural installations have surrounded the talks. One in particular caught my attention. Great blocks of ice from melting Greenland have been placed in the forecourt of the Panthéon. After the talks the other night we went to have a look. As you turn the corner into the famous square, these other-worldly glistening shapes emerge, white with a hint of blue. The ground all around is wet and water flows down the adjacent street as Greenland's ice melts away in the centre of Paris.

Although large-scale public actions have been heavily restricted, there have still be some creative public actions urging on world leaders. One example is this beautiful human sign created yesterday:

5. So how about the actual global negotiations?
The negotiations have been progressing slowly but all indications point to an agreement being reached at the end of the week.
There are a range of contentious issues that are being negotiated as we speak, including:

• The long-term goal. A crucial question is what should be the long-term goal of the global agreement. There has been significant movement in Paris on the "temperature goal", that is, the level of global warming we should be aiming to stay below. Pacific Island nations have long been arguing that anything above 1.5 degrees celsius would wipe them off the map, and is therefore unacceptable. Whereas the global community's shared goal was previously staying below 2 degrees, it looks like it may be more ambitious and that 1.5 may be included in the text. And the scientific underpinning for the 2 degrees policy target being a "safe" level of climate change is now weaker than it was a decade ago. This is because the scientific case for a 1.5 degree limit is more consistent with our current level of understanding, bolstering the case for even more urgent action. See the Climate Council's report on 'Growing risks, critical choices' and Lesley Hughes' summary of 1.5 degrees for more info.
• The review period. This is often described as the "ambition mechanism" or "ratchet mechanism" because it goes to how countries increase their commitments to reduce pollution over time. Countries have different positions on when the review happens - before or after 2020 - how often it happens; what it involves and indeed if it should exist at all! But a review process is fundamental if we are to hold countries accountable to their targets and to track progress towards reaching the 1.5/2°C target.
• Rich country vs poor country responsibilities. This issue goes to who is responsible for climate change and who needs to act first and most significantly. For those people who have followed the negotiations this issue has been contentious for the full 21 years. Right from the onset of the Paris climate talks, powerful developing countries, such as India, have contested that developed countries (because of their historical emissions that have driven climate change over a long time) should fulfill their responsibilities towards giving climate-related assistance to developing nations, in the form of helping them to invest in clean technology to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt their infrastructure to the likely damage from climate change. And "loss and damage" (issues of migration, displacement, and human mobility) is another area under discussion in the draft Paris agreement text.

There's a lot more detail on these issues! I'd recommend the IISD report service here.

6. What has Australia been doing?
While there has been a distinct and important change of tone in the Australian position, as I mentioned in the previous update Australia's domestic policies have not changed.
Today the Climate Change Performance Index, which is designed to enhance transparency during international climate talks, ranked Australia last of all the OECD countries on climate action and third-last of the 58 countries analysed. We have a long way to go!
As part of a bargaining chip at the Paris climate talks, Australia has pledged to support the 1.5 degree target, but it remains to be seen how our domestic policy will help us live up to this commitment.
Australia's current targets are too weak to put Australia and the world on the path of staying below a 2 degrees rise in global temperature and won't protect Australians from worsening extreme weather. The world recently hit an unenviable landmark of reaching 1 degree above pre-industrial levels. We must act now, there is no time to waste.
There has also been much discussion here about whether Australia has got a free ride due to the accounting rules, and you can read Tim's thoughts on that here.

What next?
We're expecting there to be some disagreements over the next few days, but ultimately we are hopeful there will be a global agreement on climate change on Saturday that will further drive action forward.
However, the most exciting thing has been all the other action that is going on beyond national pledges and international agreements. So much momentum is being generated from the ground up that inevitably governments will have to catch up.

The Radical Idea That’s Gaining Momentum At The Paris Climate Talks

The Washington Post - Chris Mooney

AP Photo/Michel Euler

PARIS — Even as some experts are questioning the extent to which it's even possible, more and more voices at the U.N. climate change conference here are standing up for at least trying to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than the more commonly cited 2 degrees C.
It's a dizzying goal: The world is already at about 1 degrees Celsius of warming, with about 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and concentrations growing by around two parts per million per year on average. And recent research suggests that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C, concentrations couldn't exceed about 420 to 440 parts per million by 2100.
The position that 1.5 degrees should be our planetary temperature target has long been held by small island nations and a growing number of developing countries – and has now been supported by 108 countries in total, according to the Climate Vulnerable Forum. But what's been striking in Paris is that major developing country emitters have also started voicing at least limited support as well.
The latest line for these countries appears to be that warming should be held as much below 2 degrees C as possible, and that if it can be below 1.5 as well, that's even better.
Politically speaking, the number 1.5 degrees signals the "existential threat that islands are facing," explains Jennifer Morgan, climate program director at the World Resources Institute. So "when the developed countries move towards it, [it] represents that they understand that existential threat."
And that's just what appears to be happening, albeit cautiously in some cases. In his opening speech here in Paris, for instance, French President Francois Hollande stated that "we need to define and mark out a credible path that will enable us to contain global warming below 2°C or even 1.5°C, if possible."  Other recent supporters of either a 1.5 C target or at least language citing 1.5°C include Australia, Canada, and now, the U.S.
Special envoy on climate change Todd Stern told press on Monday that "the goal is to hold temperatures to I think as far as possible below two degrees or something like that." But he then added that "we are working with other countries on some formulation that would include reference to the 1.5 degrees, all as part of a somewhat larger, broader sentence." And John Kerry Tuesday in Paris made similar remarks, saying of 1.5 degrees that "I think we should embrace it as a legitimate aspiration," although he added that the official target should remain 2 degrees.
"It's not new that some parties are trying to keep the reference to 1.5," says Kyle Ash, senior legislative representative for Greenpeace in the U.S. "What's new is that there are more countries making it the priority."
"The 1.5 degrees C coalition is growing," said Dr. James Fletcher, the minister of Public Service, Sustainable Development, Energy, Science and Technology  for the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia, on Tuesday. Fletcher is an influential negotiator who is co-chairing a key group here charged with determining the level of ambition to be embodied in the final climate agreement, and has been a central figure involved in expanding support for the 1.5 degree target.
Throughout the Caribbean, Fletcher says, the slogan "1.5 to stay alive" has caught on, capturing the fear that with any more warming than that, sea level rise will swamp much of the territory of low-lying island nations.
"I left with a mandate that I cannot come back without 1.5 degrees Celsius," says Fletcher.
The draft agreement that emerged here on Saturday, which will form the basis of the final text, currently contains just two options when it comes to the temperature target, both of which are fairly ambitious. The parties to the agreement, it currently reads, will aim "to hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 °C] [or] [well below 2 °C] above preindustrial levels."
Either option would go farther than the 2009 Copenhagen accord, which acknowledged "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius" (though it also suggested there should be a scientific reassessment of whether 1.5 degrees might be a better target).
What has changed since then, of course, is the science — dismaying climate news has been coming fast and furious in the past two years, particularly with respect to the planet's polar ice sheets, which seem to be showing troubling signs of destabilization. Scientists have also become increasingly vocal and critical of the 2 degrees C target, including in a paper published Monday in Nature Geoscience
contending that "no scientific assessment has clearly justified or defended the 2° C target as a safe level of warming, and indeed, this is not a problem that science alone can address."
Granted, not all countries appear to be on board at this point.
One media outlet charged recently that Saudi Arabia and India have sought to "block attempts" to make reference, in the final Paris agreement, to a U.N. report that explored the issue of holding warming to 1.5 degrees C, and noted that "limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C would come with several advantages in terms of coming closer to a safer 'guardrail.'"
"A final decision has not been made on that yet, but there was some very strong resistance from some countries" to citing the document, Fletcher says.
The Saudi Arabian delegation did not respond to a press question about its stance on 1.5 versus 2 degrees, citing the large number of press inquiries it is receiving. In a recent statement, Saudi Arabia's minister of petroleum and mineral resources, Ali Ibrahim Al Naimi, said that a Paris agreement "must strike a fair balance between greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements and adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, and must cover all sectors instead of focusing exclusively on the energy sector."
It's not hard to understand how a country whose economy is very dependent on fossil fuels might be concerned at the suggestion of tougher targets, explains Wael Hmaidan, director of the Climate Action Network International. "They're concerned if we move into 1.5, that means even more radical action," he said of Saudi Arabia. "How will they cope with needing to change completely their economy in the next 35 years?"
The deepest problem is that even as 1.5 degrees is gaining momentum in the Paris discussion, at least as a number that might be mentioned in the final agreement text alongside 2 degrees C, the grim math behind the carbon problem raises severe doubts about how achievable the target really is.
One study earlier this year, for instance, found that while keeping warming from ever exceeding 1.5 degrees may not be possible, initially overshooting that number and then coming back down again might be, assuming future technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the air at a massive scale. Another scientific group, Climate Analytics, has also acknowledged that 1.5 degrees C will require such "negative emissions," but pointedly observes that the same is true for the 2 C limit.  "Because of the delay in substantial global reductions to date, both limits now rely on negative emissions," the group notes.
However, on Monday a group of scientists strongly critiqued the hope of relying on such "negative emissions" technologies, noting that the leading idea, bioenergy combined with carbon capture and sequestration or BECCS, would require a staggering amount of land if used at a scale sufficient to really make a difference. Other negative emissions technologies also come with major tradeoffs, the report noted.
But then, as noted before, many 2 degrees C scenarios also require negative emissions. "What we've seen is that the technology to get us to 2 degrees Celsius is the same technology that will get us to 1.5 degrees, the only difference is the deployment," says Fletcher. "You will need much more rapid deployment."
One thing seems clear — the more the world seriously considers a target of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the more likely it also is that it will actually stay under 2.

Links

• Scientists just undermined a key idea behind the Paris climate talks
• Key divides persist as final week of Paris climate talks begins
• Holding warming under 2 degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?
• The one thing that really doesn't make sense about the climate debate in Paris
• Climate-change warnings include wild weather shifts. But giant flying boulders?
• In Paris, experts cite looming risk from coolants, methane

NASA Astronauts from Space: SAVE THE EARTH

The Ring of Fire

Astronauts from all over the world (and from space) came together to film a video urging politicians at the U.N. Climate summit in Paris to take drastic action in order to save our planet and slow climate change.

"This is the biggest problem the world has to face right now."

One astronaut remarked that she wished that the summit could be held from space so that all of the world leaders could see what exactly is at stake.
"Our earth has cancer. I have cancer," said Astronaut Wubbo Ockels, Ph. D, the first dutch citizen in space. The video notes that Ockels died the day after his interview.
The video is a powerful and desperate plea from Ockels and others to take action, unite, and save humanity. Watch.

Comment: Paris Talks Expose Australian Climate Hypocrisy

SBS - Hannah Aulby*

Australia’s inglorious position at the bottom of the developed world’s ranking on climate change policy comes in sharp contrast to the triumphant rhetoric of Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Paris.

Prime minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull delivers a speech as he attends Heads of States' Statements ceremony of the COP21 World Climate Change Conference.

The Climate Change Performance Index, put together by Climate Action Network Europe and NGO, Germanwatch, evaluates and ranks the climate protection performance of 58 countries that together are responsible for more than 90 per cent of global energy-related CO2 emissions.
The fact that Australia has been rated third last out of the 58 countries assessed reveals the extent of the Turnbull Government's climate hypocrisy.
Last week the Prime Minister himself was in Paris championing Australia's efforts at meeting our climate change targets early. And this week Minister Hunt has gone out of his way to talk up the positive response that Australia's representatives have received at Paris. "We're meeting and beating our targets," he said.
Australia has been using every trick in the book to make our targets sound good – but this kind of rhetoric has now been shown up to be duplicitous. If you look a little deeper you will see that our emissions are in fact rising. And that's before you take into account plans to build one of the world's largest coal mines in the Galilee Basin.
This month's CEDEX report shows emissions from energy generation are up 3.5%, driven by emissions from brown and black coal fired power plants. This translates over to a 2% rise in total emissions in just the last 15 months. A far cry from the emissions reductions claimed by Prime Minister Turnbull and others in Paris.
Looking ahead at plans to build the Carmichael mine in the Galilee basin, and our targets become irrelevant. If it goes ahead, the mine will pollute over 100 million tonnes a year, enough to cancel out the emissions reductions claimed in our 2020 and 2030 targets.
On top of conveniently airbrushing out Australia's proposed coal expansion, Minister Hunt also failed to mention the Government's continued attack on climate and renewable energy policies at home.
Since the last federal election the government has repealed the price on pollution, effectively cut the Renewable Energy Target and now plans to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA.
But the hypocrisy doesn't end there.
In Paris Australia has joined the International Solar Alliance, but at home the government continues to fund $6 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. And we will defend our right to do so. One of the announcements Malcolm Turnbull made on Day 1 in Paris was to block Australia signing onto an international communique on phasing out inefficient government subsidies for coal, oil and gas.
If Australia is serious about our climate change policy we must stop being the climate hypocrite. We have world class solar and wind resources, and a booming international renewable energy industry ready to invest in countries with the right policy setting. We have recently seen 150,000 Australians marching on the streets in 50 cities and towns from Darwin to Hobart, and Sydney to Broome for stronger climate action.
In the face of popular public support, many will be asking why the Turnbull Government seems set on saying one thing and doing the opposite with regard climate policy.
They will be asking why aren't our elected leaders taking advantage of the climate, health, economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy in a land blessed with such abundance of sun and wind?
A good question indeed. The short answer is money. And it's influence on politics. The big polluting fossil fuel companies spend billions on lobbyists and political donations to make sure the public support for climate action is not heard in the halls of Canberra.
Some of these same lobbyists are now in Paris with vested interests in profiting from oil and coal, try to slow down progress toward strong action.
Australia can and should lift its game. Listen to the Australian public and the international community, not the big polluters. Set stronger targets, and start transitioning our economy from coal to renewables. Stop being a climate hypocrite and start leading the charge.

*Hannah Aulby is a clean energy campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Links

• Australia rejects call for 1.5-degree global warming target
• Coal critical to alleviate hunger: Bishop
• Interactive: Is your city heating up?
• Paris 2015 - Climate Pledge Interactive

Global Decarbonisation On The Starting Block

Germanwatch

Indications for a turning point, but not yet a steady trend / Australia, Japan and Korea worst performers of all industrialized countries - a Press Release Germanwatch and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe

Paris (Dec. 8th 2015). The millennium started with a lost decade in terms of climate protection and, as indicated in the eleventh edition of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), global emissions were still growing in 2013. For 2014, there are signs of a slowdown or even a halt of this trend.
"We see global trends, indicating promising shifts in some of the most relevant sectors for climate protection and important steps towards a transformation of the energy system", says Jan Burck (Germanwatch), author of the CCPI.
"The energy intensity of the global economy is further declining. In the next years, it will be crucial to decarbonise the energy sector on a global scale. The years 2013 and 2014 saw for the first time a higher amount of newly installed capacity from renewables than from all other energy sources combined; indicating that many countries have already started decarbonising their energy sector."
Denmark (Rank 4), the United Kingdom (5) and Sweden (6) rank highest in the new Index.
"EU countries still rank high, profiting from their early start in development of climate policies. However, as countries all over the world have now started to invest in renewable energy on a massive scale, the EU risks falling behind. Lack of leadership is reflected in cuts in support for renewables and the ailing Emissions Trading Scheme, explains Wendel Trio, Director of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe. "The coming two years, when the EU will shape its future climate and energy policies, will define the speed of its transition to a fossil fuel free economy."
The two largest emitters, USA (34) and China (47), have both improved their ranking in this year's CCPI. They profit from better policy evaluations, due to their massive investments in renewable energy and their start to shift energy production away from coal.
The industrialized countries Australia, Japan, Korea and Canada are in the bottom six of the index. After leadership shifts in Canada and Australia, both countries now have a chance to improve their position in next year's ranking.
Korea and Japan dropped several places - Korea because of their high and still rising greenhouse gas emissions, Japan because of a worsened score in nearly every category of the index.
One of the winners is France. Just in time for its COP presidency, the country climbed six places to arrive in the Top 10 (rank 8). Some of the main reasons are the low level of per-capita emissions (lowest in G7) and a decreasing emission trend.
Worldwide there is another promising trend as coal, the dirtiest energy source, is put on the defence. As recent studies show, global coal consumption has declined 2-4% in 2015.
"Efforts to phase out polluting coal plants need to be dramatically ramped up, if we are serious about limitting climate change. We need a clear carbon prize signal that will catalyse a full phase-out of all fossil fuels and a transition to 100% renewables. It will be crucial that after the Paris summit countries start to revise their current, inadequate climate targets that put us on a path to a 3 degrees warmer world", said Wendel Trio.
Jan Burck adds: "For decarbonising the energy system on a global scale, it will be important that the worlds emerging economies manage to decarbonise their energy sector before their economies are as dependent on coal as the ones from developed countries."
India (25th in the index) and many African countries are making important decisions on the direction of energy investments.
Providing support for the right decisions could play a key role in this regard. The CCPI data up to 2013 do not indicate this important aspect yet, but the described trends happening on a global scale give hope for a shift.

Australia:
Rank 59 Ranking Very Poor
Share of Global CO2 Emissions 1.21% Share of Global GDP 1.04%
Share of Global Primary Energy Supply 0.95% Share of World Population 0.33%

Australia Ranks Third Last On Climate

AAP

Australia ranks third last on climate change action from the world's large emitters. (AAP) 

Australia ranks third last on climate change action from the world's large emitters, but has improved slightly since last year, a new report shows.
The latest Climate Change Performance Index ranks Australia ahead of only Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia based on carbon emissions, trends, renewable energy and climate policy.
The report was launched on the sidelines of United Nations climate talks in Paris, where 196 parties are attempting to forge a historic deal to curb emissions.
Of 58 countries, Australia was 55th - jumping up one spot from last year, with the report noting improved efficiency, policy and renewables.
Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy says that's because the renewable energy target wasn't cut as much as the government wanted and clean energy bodies ARENA and the CEFC have survived.
Plans to cut the two agencies stalled in the Senate, while Labor last year negotiated the Renewable Energy Target up from the government's position to slash it by a third.
But high emissions, and an absence of policies to dramatically slash them, earned Australia third last spot.
"It shows that we're absolute laggards and it is embarrassing," Ms O'Shanassy told AAP in Paris.
"We're here saying one thing in Paris, we're doing another thing back home."
Saudi Arabia has been causing trouble in the negotiations, employing common delay tactics to hold up proceedings.
"We're amongst Saudi Arabia (in the report), who have been incredibly disruptive," Ms O'Shanassy said.
At the opening of high-level negotiations on Monday, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop spruiked Australia's "ambitious" 2030 emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent.
The target has been criticised as lacking ambition and placing Australia at the back of the pack, but the government maintains it's one of the strongest goals in terms of per capita emissions in the G20.
The index ranks Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden as the top performing countries, and places India up six spots from last year.
It's collated by Climate Action Network Europe and German Watch.