17/12/2018

‘1,000 Little Steps’: Global Climate Talks End In Progress But Fail To Address The Galloping Pace Of Climate Change

Washington PostBrady Dennis | Griff Witte | Chris Mooney

“In the climate emergency we’re in, slow success is no success."
Participants leave town on Friday, even as negotiations drag on at the end of the two-week United Nations summit on climate change in Katowice, Poland. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)
KATOWICE, Poland — Weary climate negotiators limped across the finish line Saturday night after days of round-the-clock talks, striking a deal that keeps the world moving forward with plans to curb carbon emissions. But the agreement fell well short of the breakthrough that scientists — and many of the conference’s own participants — say is needed to avoid the cataclysmic impacts of a warming planet.
The deal struck Saturday at a global conference in the heart of Polish coal country, where some 25,000 delegates had gathered, adds legal flesh to the bones of the 2015 Paris agreement, setting the rules of the road for nearly 200 countries to cut their production of greenhouse gases and monitor one another’s progress.
While President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, the Obama administration had already joined, and the text of the agreement doesn’t allow for formal withdrawal until late 2020. In the meantime, the U.S. remains involved in the negotiations and sends an annual delegation.
Trump has rejected the science behind climate change, and his administration has adopted policies that will roll back efforts to cut emissions. If Trump does not win reelection in 2020, a subsequent president could rejoin the Paris agreement.
The agreement reached in Poland prods countries to step up their ambition in fighting climate change, a recognition of the fact that the world’s efforts have not gone nearly far enough. But, like the landmark 2015 agreement in Paris, it does not bind countries to hit their targets. And observers questioned whether it was sufficient given the extraordinary stakes.
“We are driven by our sense of humanity and commitment to the well-being of the earth that sustains us and those generations that will replace us,” Michal Kurtyka, the Polish environmental official who presided over the two-week international summit, said late Saturday as the marathon talks drew to a close.
Kurtyka noted the difficulty of finding global consensus on issues so technical and, in many ways, politically fraught. “Under these circumstances, every single step forward is a big achievement,” he said. “And through this package, you have made 1,000 little steps forward together.”
The agreement from the COP24 climate talks in Katowice, Poland, falls short of what many scientists believe is necessary. Credit: AP
Approval of the agreement prompted a standing ovation from the delegates. But even as they cheered, the outcome raised immediate questions about whether the steps taken in Katowice were big enough as global emissions continue to rise.
“In the climate emergency we’re in, slow success is no success,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. “In an emergency, if the ambulance doesn’t get you to the hospital in time, you die. If the firetruck doesn’t get to your house in time, it burns down.”
Negotiators said the agreement was the best that could have been expected given the limited agenda for the talks and the need for a global consensus. Virtually every nation on Earth was represented at Katowice, ranging from small island countries that threaten to be swallowed by rising seas — and that pushed for a crisis-level response — to the United States.
The world’s largest economy and its second-largest polluter played an at-times contentious role in the negotiations, with its officials rankling fellow delegates by initially refusing to accept a landmark climate report and later putting on a presentation touting the virtues of fossil fuels.
But fellow negotiators said the United States was mostly notable for its absence.
“The U.S. was the driving force in the run-up to Paris. Once they decide to no longer be a part of the agreement, they can’t be a driver,” said Jochen Flasbarth, a top German delegate.
Flasbarth said the minimized U.S. role was particularly apparent in negotiations with China, which did not feel as much pressure to ramp up its commitment in fighting climate change as it otherwise might have. China is the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.
“The U.S. role here is somewhat schizophrenic — pushing coal and dissing science on the one hand, but also working hard in the room for strong transparency rules,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit based in Virginia. “Over the long haul, making the agreement operational will do more to strengthen climate ambition than any immediate political signals.”
In a statement, the U.S. State Department said that while the administration’s position on the Paris agreement — the U.S. is leaving — remains unchanged, the latest meeting helped the U.S. with “holding our economic competitors accountable” when it comes to adequately reporting their greenhouse gas emissions.
“The United States is not taking on any burdens or financial pledges in support of the Paris Agreement and will not allow climate agreements to be used as a vehicle to redistribute wealth,” the statement said. “We will work with our many partner countries to innovate and deploy a broad array of technologies that promote economic growth, improve energy security, and protect the environment.”
In another sign of a more difficult environment for climate negotiations this year, text establishing a large part of a planned carbon trading system was scuttled after Brazil, one of the world’s leading greenhouse gas producers, blocked proposals for counting certain emissions.
Brazil led a push for lenient rules that other nations said would weaken the system, which is intended to incentivize emissions cuts by creating a market price. With negotiators unable to reach a deal, the issue was punted until next year — a move that Boston College environmental law professor David Wirth said could “delay or undermine confidence among the private sector in undertaking climate-friendly investments — one of the most important purposes of the Paris Rulebook.”
This year’s conference — an annual U.N.-sponsored exercise now in its 24th year — came against the backdrop of increasingly dire assessments by scientists.
An October report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the world was far off-track in its efforts to avoid the most catastrophic impacts from warming temperatures. It concluded that a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of the world’s energy, transportation and other sectors will be necessary over the next dozen years to avoid warming the globe more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.
But rather than lighting a fire under the world to move with more urgency, the report became a source of political friction during the talks in Poland.
Early in the summit, the Trump administration joined Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait in blocking official acceptance of the report’s findings, arguing that any agreement should merely “note” its existence rather than “welcome” its warnings.
The final text of the agreement says that the world “recognizes” the role of the IPCC, “expresses appreciation and gratitude” to the scientists who produced it, “welcomes” its timely completion and “invites” nations to “make use of the information” it contained.
This treatment is “one of the clearest illustrations that any sense of urgency is lacking in the [conference] outcome,” said Joeri Rogelj, a scientist with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria who led the key second chapter of the IPCC report. “After the initial failure … to welcome the IPCC report which they had asked for, the final text now expressed its appreciation and gratitude to the IPCC and the scientific community for delivering the report on time, but then fails to acknowledge any of the report’s findings.”
The fight over how to address the report encapsulated the U.S. shift under Trump, from pushing fellow countries to act more aggressively to refusing to acknowledge the conclusion of the world’s top scientists.
A chorus of activists, diplomats and national delegates — none more vocal than the coalition of small island states suffering rising sea levels — had implored leaders of the summit to recognize the content of the IPCC report. The issue continued to be debated into the conference’s closing hours, along with a bevy of more technical disagreements.
The conference was scheduled to end Friday, but repeated deadlines for closing out the talks came and went, with negotiators haggling through Friday night and again on Saturday. By then, some negotiators had nearly lost their voices. Bleary-eyed journalists slept on chairs or FaceTimed with their loved ones from afar. U.N. staffers, security officials and the rest of the dwindling crowd at the cavernous conference center — built on the site of a former coal waste dump — speculated over when the talks would finally reach their end.
A worker dismantles the exhibition pavilion of Austria after the UN Climate conference ended, but negotiators from almost 200 countries continued haggling over the fine print of the Paris climate accord in Katowice, Poland, Saturday. Credit: AP
The once-busy pavilions — which had pulsated with a seemingly endless stream of lectures and demonstrations of new technologies — were being broken apart. A group of Pacific Islanders sat in a small circle, playing a guitar and drums. A group of Austrians seemed determined to clear out any remaining wine, beer and sweets in their corner of the conference center and to invite passersby to join in.
After two weeks under the cold, unremittingly gray skies of December in Poland, negotiators are due to meet in the sun and warmth of Santiago, Chile, next winter. In between, the U.N. is hosting a climate summit in September that observers say now takes on crucial importance as a measure of whether countries are serious about raising their carbon emissions targets.
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who led a previous round of U.N. climate talks and is now leader of the World Wildlife Fund’s global climate and energy practice, said world leaders will need to come through in New York on the promises they have made in Katowice.
“Anything less,” he said, “is a failure in political and moral leadership.”

Links

Climate Change: Five Things We've Learnt From COP24

BBC - Matt McGrath

Kiara Worth/IISD/ENB
Delegates to the UN climate conference in Poland have reached agreement on how to implement the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which comes into force in 2020. What are the key points to come out of the meeting?

1. The rules are key to the game
However dull it may be, the operational rules for the 2015 Paris climate agreement will govern the way the world tackles climate change for decades to come.
The key thing was not to unravel the carefully negotiated Paris agreement by having one set of rules for the rich countries and another one for the poor.
EU climate commissioner Miguel Arias Canete explained how the new rules would work.
"We have a system of transparency, we have a system of reporting, we have rules to measure our emissions, we have a system to measure the impacts of our policies compared to what science recommends."
To keep everyone in check, the rules will also contain a compliance mechanism, which means that countries that don't submit their reports on time will face an inquiry.
The new regulations are "flexible" for developing countries, meaning they can sign up to the rules at a later date.

2. Science is worth fighting for
One of the biggest rows at this meeting was over a key scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A group of countries including Saudi Arabia, US, Kuwait and Russia refused to "welcome" the IPCC study.
They merely wanted to "note" the contents.
Efforts to find a compromise ended in failure.
However that was not the end of the matter.
The vast majority of countries felt that acknowledging the science was critical at this conference.
Their efforts did finally ensure that the IPCC was recognised - but many felt it was a token effort.
"That science is unsettling and it doesn't connect it to the need to do more," said Camilla Born from the environmental think tank E3G.
"The deal looks at it in isolation, it's an elegant compromise but it's not really enough."

3. Multilateralism is not dead
Many countries had worried that with the rise of nationalism in many countries and the recent election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil's president, the international co-operation needed to tackle climate change might be in danger.
For many getting agreement here in Katowice was less about technical rules and more about showing that the international spirit is still alive and has teeth.
"I think the beauty of multilateralism is that it is the effort of everybody," said Spanish Ecology Minister Teresa Ribera.
"And what we have seen is that everybody has supported the package, no single country has decided to step down.
"It is very difficult. It is like organising a party for 200 friends, and there's a single menu that everybody has to eat. It is not so easy but we have got it. That's fantastic!"

4. Actions speak louder than words
While negotiators have been congratulating themselves on a job well done in landing the rulebook, there are many voices here who feel that the agreement does not go far enough.
They point to the strength of the science, and the public recognition of the impacts of climate change seen this year in heatwaves and wildfires.

How years compare with the 20th Century average

Source: NOAA

Many environmental campaigners believe that Katowice was a missed opportunity for radical action.
"We have ended up here with more of a coal trade fair than a climate convention," said Mohamed Adow from Christian Aid, referring to the efforts to promote coal by Poland and the US at this conference.
"We haven't acted in good faith, particularly for the young, that we takes seriously what science is telling us and we are responding to it. That message didn't come through.
"If people think the rulebook is the way to get the world on that path, it is not robust or ambitious enough."

5. New voices are emerging
One of the most striking things about this conference of the parties was the presence of energised young people in far greater numbers than I have ever seen them at a COP before.
Climate change chimes with young people in a way that is sometimes missing with older people, who make up the bulk of negotiators here.
The sense that perhaps this UN process doesn't quite connect with the modern world was summed up best by Mohamed Nasheed, the former president of the Maldives and now their lead climate negotiator.
"Almost 10 years since I was last at these climate negotiations, I must say, nothing much seems to have changed.
"We are still using the same old, dinosaur language. Still saying the same old words.
"Still making the same tedious points."

Matt McGrath explains why we should care about climate change


It would be hard to argue with this view given the shenanigans that played out at the end, when one country, Brazil, held up progress at the talks on one issue for a couple of days.
Perhaps the most memorable image of this meeting was that of 15-year-old Swedish student Greta Thunberg.
This young woman who has organised school strikes in Sweden held daily press conferences here to drive home her message that platitudes and warm words just aren't enough anymore.
Her message was sharp and succinct.
"We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis."



Links

Progress And Problems As UN Climate Change Talks End With A Deal

The Guardian

Nations agree on implementing 2015 Paris agreement, but put trickiest issues on back burner
The Brazilian delegation was at the centre of negotiations at the UN climate change talks. Photograph: Kacper Pempel/Reuters
The UN climate change talks ended late on Saturday night in Poland with a deal agreed on how to put the 2015 Paris agreement into action, but with other contentious problems left to be resolved next year.
Countries thrashed out the complex details of how to account for and record their greenhouse gas emissions, which will form the basis of a “rulebook” on putting the Paris goals into action. But difficult questions such as how to scale up existing commitments on cutting emissions, in line with stark scientific advice, and how to provide finance for poor countries to do the same, were put off for future years.
In the final hours, agreement was held up by a debate over the market in carbon credits, awarded to countries for their emissions-cutting efforts and for their carbon sinks, such as forests, which absorb carbon dioxide.
Brazil wanted an amendment that would benefit the country for its large rainforest cover, but this was opposed by others as it could allow the double-counting of carbon credits, undermining the integrity of the system.
This question has now been pushed back to next year’s annual conference. Brazil’s stance, however, under incoming president Jair Bolsonaro, who also rescinded the country’s offer to host next year’s talks, presages troubles to come.
Brazil has been a reliable supporter of the annual talks in the past, and has worked to broker deals between the developed and developing world. Without that support in future, the talks are only likely to grow more fractious.
Even when Brazil’s carbon-credits issue was postponed, a further obstacle was opened up by Turkey, which wants to be counted as a developing country rather than a developed one. Weary delegates finally filed into the closing session at nearly 10pm to hail the compromise agreement.
Despite these hitches, the two-week conference – the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as COP24 – finally ended in clarity, at least on some of the key building blocks for putting the Paris agreement into action.
David Waskow, of the World Resources Institute, said the final deal was “a good foundation for countries to go about implementing the Paris agreement”. He added: “It sets the direction of travel and will spur countries to take action. Now countries need to go home and do their homework, by increasing their commitments [on emissions].”
A man sits on the stairs of the event centre during the COP24 UN climate change conference. Photograph: Kacper Pempel/Reuters 
But the key question of whether countries are doing enough to cut their emissions, in the light of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that predicted dire consequences if temperatures were allowed to rise more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, was left out.
The IPCC’s report in October showed that the world must change course drastically in the next decade to avoid the consequences of a 1.5C rise, including the die-off of coral reefs, droughts and floods, and a decline in agricultural productivity over many areas.
This year has seen extreme weather across many parts of the globe, and the fourth highest global average temperatures on record, while the IPCC warning is the starkest yet to come from scientists.
António Guterres, secretary-general of the UN, praised countries for coming to an agreement, but demanded more. “The approval of the Paris agreement work programme is the basis for a transformative process which will require strengthened ambition from the international community,” he said.
“Science has clearly shown that we need enhanced ambition to defeat climate change. From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition.” He cited the need for countries to toughen their emissions-cutting targets and to adapt their infrastructure to cope with the effects of climate change.
Jennifer Morgan of Greenpeace said: “A year of climate disasters and a dire warning from the world’s top scientists should have led to so much more. Instead, governments let people down again as they ignored the science and the plight of the vulnerable.
“Without immediate action, even the strongest rules will not get us anywhere. People expected action, and that is what governments did not deliver. This is morally unacceptable.”
Gareth Redmond-King, head of climate change at WWF-UK, said: “[There has been] some positive progress, but we have not yet done enough. The world is in a state of climate emergency and yet some of our leaders prefer to stay in a state of denial.
“Everyone’s future is at stake. We need all countries to get much more serious about climate ambition."

Links