Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Five Things We Learned On Day Four

Fairfax - Peter Hannam & Tom Arup, Paris

Visitors walk through ice blocks as part of the sculpture Ice Watch, by Danish artist Olafur Eliasson, as part of the Paris climate talks. Photo: Jacques Brinon

1: Of Smartflowers and Eiffel leaves
Summiteers lucky enough to slip out of the conference to take in some of the major sites of beauty in Paris may not dodge the issue of climate change.
Take the subway to the Hotel de Ville, the city's beautiful neo-Renaissance town halls ("with 108 statues of illustrious Parisians", the guidebook tells us), and the traveller will be met with posters declaring how 80 per cent of buses will be "electrique" by 2025 and the rest will run on "biogaz".
Those hoping to find the traditional ice-skating rink, which runs from December to early March, will, it seems, be disappointed. Such entertainment might send a mixed signal during a conference tackling a warming world. Advertisement
Luckily, the visitors can inspect an exhibition of technologies of the future, such as this "Smartflower", dubbed "the first intelligent photovoltaic generator".

Smartflower' on display at Cities for Climate exhibition in Paris.

Its 12 petals contain 18 square metres of solar panels that open to the sun and close down at dusk, and follow the golden orb in between. In a year, it can generate 4000 kw-hours of electricity or more than enough for a typical French household.
And while the Eiffel Tower has been used lately to symbolise peace amid the terrorist attacks, it can also send a decent ecological statement too:

A new take on the icon of Paris.

2: Ice rinks may be out, but ice is in – or at least until it melts
Olafur Eliasson​, an Danish-Icelandic (or is that "Ice-ish") artist has succeeded in taking a chunk of Greenland's ice sheet all the way to Paris to highlight what is happening to many of the world's great ice sheets and glaciers.
Eliasson told The Guardian that his installation was intended to serve as a memorial to the shrinking Arctic: "The ice we are going to put in Paris is a tenth of what melts in a second in the Greenland summer."
It is a way to make the data real, to make the facts emotionally potent, he told the British media outlet.
And it seems the ice made it to Paris, for a while at least:

10,000 year old ice from Greenland. Taking a Paris vacation.

3: Burning up cash
On the financial front, Carbon Tracker came out with a report warning that $US2 trillion ($2.7 trillion) of assets face being stranded if the world's nations took seriously the two degree warming limit they agreed to at Copenhagen six long years ago.
With Mr "Inconvenient Truth" – Former US Vice President Al Gore – on hand, the group argued that coal, oil and gas assets would in many cases be stranded at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide limit for the atmosphere – a guideline for that 2-degree limit.
"Over $US2 trillion of capex needs to not be approved in order to avoid around 156 Gigatonnes of CO² of emissions – the equivalent of cutting supply and the subsequent emissions by around a quarter in the markets covered in this analysis," it said. (See table below of capex (investment) in US dollar terms.)

The group says its starkest finding is probably that all existing coal mines are sufficient to meet the 450 ppm scenario.
"It is the end of the road for expansion of the coal sector," it said, noting that China's coal demand has likely peaked and that India was becoming the main hope for coal exporters such as Australia and Indonesia.
How far India is likely go down the same coal path as China may well hinge on what happens in Paris over the next week or so.

4: What does a pavilion say about a nation?
At the Paris climate summit there are two halls where countries have been allowed to set up both offices and promotional areas for their climate plans.
A straw poll of the press room has India winning the most extravagant with its fountains and light shows.

India's display.

The United States has a giant planet (typical arrogant Americans think they own the world, am I right?), which is used by earnest scientists to explain how warming temperature will effect salmon spawning patters.

And then there is Australia.

If we were to be kind we'd call it a judicious use of tax payers' money reflecting the focus of the delegation on the negotiations and not glitzy show and tell.

5: Finally some action
After days of slow progress the United Nations climate negotiations finally reverted to form.
Developing nations were battling it out with industrialised ones over, well, pretty much everything. You can read more about it here.
If we assume the talks will end at 6pm on Friday week (and they really won't) then there are eight days left to get a whole new global climate change deal.
The clock is ticking.

Day 3 Paris Climate Talks: Tough And Uneven Progress

The Climate Institute - Erwin Jackson

The pace in Paris is picking up. Delegates are moving from meeting to meeting, negotiating on the elements of the agreement. Even big delegations are struggling to keep up.

We will not get a good sense of what will have been accomplished this week for a day or so but it is fair to say that progress is uneven. This is being driven by certain regressive countries in the Like Minded Developing Country group attempting to suck energy out of the process and weaken the effectiveness of a possible agreement. Saudi Arabia, a wealthy and diplomatically effective oil state, is the focus of much frustration.
Some areas outside the formal negotiations are moving forward, however.
The US has been proactively engaging with small island states on the issue of how to rebuild after severe and unavoidable loss and damage caused by climate change. Finding common ground on this issue would build trust between developed nations and the world’s most vulnerable countries.
Reaching agreement on how to provide financial support for the world’s poorest countries will be crucial to achieving more substantial progress in the coming week. To that end, developed country flexibility would be constructive on these issues:

• ensuring there are regular opportunities to pledge new financial commitments after 2020
• ensuring the current goal of US$100 billion of public and private finance by 2020 is the floor for future contributions
• ensuring the majority of public financing is used to help countries adapt to increasing impacts of climate change

Flexibility in these areas could help unlock more constructive engagement from developing countries on regular updates of national emissions targets, greater transparency of the actions countries are taking through measuring, reporting and verification (MRV), and greater finance contributions from emerging economies in the future.
Finally, The Climate Institute has looked at Australia’s 2030 per capita emissions compared to other developed and G20 countries. Meeting the government’s 2030 target could see our per capita emissions fall to 16 tonnes - still much higher than other developed countries, and the highest of any G20 country, aside from Saudi Arabia.
*The LMDC negotiating consists of developing nations that represent nearly half of the world's poor. It includes Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka and Venezuala.

France, Cop 21: Hunt’s Carelessness Forces Australia Into Damage Control

Renew Economy - Giles Parkinson

Australian environment minister Greg Hunt ran the gauntlet of committing a significant faux pas on Tuesday, forcing the Australian delegation into damage control for fear of derailing the critical Paris climate talks.
Hunt strayed from strict diplomatic discipline at a news conference in the afternoon – on the otherwise benign topic of a new document outlining Australia’s national climate resilience and adaptation strategy, and Australia’s contribution to “blue carbon”.
But the big problem came when Hunt was asked about progress of negotiations and the development of a new text that will form the basis of a Paris agreement in more than a week’s time.
This is a highly sensitive issue. The G77 in particularly, is paranoid about the prospect of a text being held in reserve by the French hosts, as it was to disastrous effect by the Danes in Copenhagen, and in negotiations in Bonn just a few weeks ago.
France has insisted that there is “no plan B”, i.e. no hidden text, and said it would work with whatever it receives from the co-chairs of the main negotiation stream this weekend. This language has been scrupulously observed by the Australian delegation.
Until this afternoon, when Hunt invited speculation of the hidden text by saying that the French were already consulting with other parties with the view of forming a text over the weekend. He described the work of the negotiating stream as a sort of “options paper”.
Nothing would be more sure of inflating the emotions of the G77 and deepening the divide between the developed and developing world. RenewEconomy and The Guardian sought confirmation from the French negotiating team, who again flatly denied the existence of a different text.
The Australian team was then into damage control, sparking a flurry of calls that basically conceded that Hunt had misspoken , and had intended only to convey that the text would ‘evolve” from that presented by the co-chairs and text is more an options paper than a text.

Hunt had earlier insisted that Australia was working a s a broker between two parties over the inclusion of a reference to a 1.5C target – demanded by more than 100 countries but resisted by large developed and developing economies – and the definition of what decarbonisation or carbon neutrality might mean and when.
That may well be the role that Australia would like to be seen playing. But Hunt’s carelessness, or as the French might politely say, a mal entendu, risked great harm in talks that are already on a knife-edge and racing into a tight deadline. He should have known better.

Is Australia ready for climate refugees?
A new study suggests that migration is already occurring in Pacific islands such as Tuvalu and Kiribati, with up to one quarter saying climate change was a factor.
It also found that more than 70 per cent of households in Kiribati and Tuvalu and 35% in Nauru felt that migration would be a likely response if droughts, seal level rise or floods worsened. But only a quarter of households in these countries, believe they have the financial means to migrate. That means the potential for refugees.
When asked about this, Hunt said: “That is something we will deal with as and when it arises. We will seek to avoid that problem for sake of environment and the sake of humanity. I don’t want to pre-empt or set out a position.”

The $1.2 trillion investment switch in the lead up to Paris
It seems that global investment funds have got the message about the importance of the Paris climate talks, and the inevitability of a big switch from fossil fuel investment to clean technologies that can usher in a decarbonised world.
In the 10 weeks before the Paris climate talks began on Monday, some 100 institutions representing $US800 million ($A1.1 trillion) made a commitment to divest from fossil fuels. Not all of those funds, mind you, but a portion. But that is a significant start.
According to two organisation co-ordinating the campaign, 350.org and Divest-Invest, this takes the total in the last 12 months to $US3.4 trillion ($A4.7 trillion) – representing an extraordinary shift in investment funds from old and polluting businesses to new, clean technologies.
And these businesses are not just doing this as a simply moral decision. As the Bank of England governor Mark Carney said earlier this year, there is a real risk of trillions of dollars of investments becoming stranded assets as climate change issues and the plunging cost of renewable energy technologies turn conventional business model upside down. (See Jon Walter’s story for more details here).

Shell’s sexist ad compares solar and wind to lonely women
This ad below has to be seen to be believed. Posted just over a month ago on Shell’s “make the future” marketing page, this 90 second video compares wind and solar to a lonely women, unable to cope when the wind dies and the sun sets.
What women really need, the ad says, is a man – reliable, predictable and long lasting. Shell calls the man “natural gas” and dubs the video “a beautiful relationship”. The film is in French, with English sub-titles, presumably to highlight the romance of it all, and in anticipation of the Paris climate talks.
It is quite breath-taking – not just the sexism, but the gratuitous comparisons. One, that a woman cannot function without a man, and that wind and solar need natural gas. I showed it to a few people who couldn’t quite believe their eyes.

James Hansen, Climate Scientist Turned Activist, Criticizes Paris Talks

New York Times - Justin Gillis

James E. Hansen at his farm in Pennsylvania, in 2013. Credit Michael Nagle for The New York Times

LE BOURGET, France — James E. Hansen, the retired NASA climate scientist, issued a stark warning Wednesday that the deal being negotiated here was nowhere close to what was needed to avert dangerous levels of global warming.
“This is half-assed and it’s half-baked,” Dr. Hansen said in a public forum on the sidelines of the conference. He said that the deal, praised by world leaders including President Obama, would allow emissions to continue to increase — until 2030, in the case of China — when what was needed is an immediate and rapid reduction.
The remarks were less notable for what Dr. Hansen said – he has long held a dim view of United Nations climate talks – than for where and when he said them.
Dr. Hansen, who retired in 2013 after decades in charge of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was making his first appearance at one of the annual U.N. climate conferences. He was introduced as “the Paul Revere of the climate-change movement” before a public interview for a video program.
Dr. Hansen, 74, gained fame in 1988 for warning the United States Congress that global warming had already begun and was a grave threat to future generations. He has been a voice in the wilderness ever since, and the failure of politicians to take the issue seriously has radicalized him. He regularly turns up at climate demonstrations, and has made a point of getting arrested several times.
In his appearance Wednesday, Dr. Hansen dismissed the emerging deal and said the willingness of most countries to offer some kind of emissions reductions was insufficient. Only a handful of countries are responsible for the bulk of emissions, and Dr. Hansen instead called for an agreement among those countries to begin an urgent assault on the problem.
“I’ve met with captains of industry,” Dr. Hansen said. “These people have children and grandchildren. They would like to be part of the solution, if the government would give them the right incentives.”
He repeated his longstanding position that the place to start would be a tax on carbon emissions that would raise the price of high-carbon fuels enough to encourage conservation and a switch to alternative energy sources. The money raised by such a tax should be given back to the public, he said.
Dr. Hansen also supports expansion of nuclear power as a partial solution to the climate crisis, and is expected to join other pro-nuclear scientists in an appearance later in the week. His nuclear stance has put him at odds with some environmental groups, though most of them still regard him as a hero for his warnings about the potential consequences of unchecked warming.
Dr. Hansen sketched out a future of profound climate threats that he said was on the verge of becoming unstoppable, including a potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which could cause a rise in the sea levels sufficient to drown many coastal regions.
“Our parents did not know that they were causing a problem for future generations by burning fossil fuels,” Dr. Hansen said. “But we can only pretend we do not know.”

Analysis: The Key Announcements From Day 1 At COP21

Carbon Brief

A model of the Eiffel Tower made from recycled folding chairs stands at an entrance to the COP21 United Nations climate summit in Le Bourget near Paris, France. © Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Demotix/Corbis

The opening day at COP21 in Paris has seen a blizzard of announcements and speeches.
More that 150 world leaders travelled to the French capital to show their support for the much-anticipated climate conference, which aims to secure a global deal on tackling climate change in the post-2020 period.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, opened the leaders summit by saying: "This is a pivotal moment for the future of your countries, your people and our common home. You can no longer delay."
Carbon Brief is in Paris for the next two weeks covering the event. Here, we take a closer look at the key announcements made today:

Leaders' Speeches: Barack Obama
Barack Obama said that the US, along with other nations, would pledge new money today to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDC Fund) — a fund that is specifically responsible for reducing vulnerability in the world's poorest countries (see below for more details). He said that new money would be pledged tomorrow towards risk insurance initiatives "that help vulnerable populations rebuild stronger after climate-related disasters".
Obama laid out his priorities for the new deal, which he said should be an "enduring framework for human progress".
The agreement, he said, should build in ambition through "regularly updated targets", set at a national level, which takes into account the differences between different nations. The start of this process has already taking place, with the INDCs submitted by almost all UN nations over the course of the year.
He also emphasised the need for a strong transparency system, and the need to support countries that don't have the capacity to report their progress on meeting their climate commitments.
Perhaps one of his most significant statements regarding the shape of the future climate deal was his reference to making sure resources "flow to the countries that need help preparing for the impacts of climate change we can no longer avoid" — a reference to the controversial issue of loss and damage in all but name.
He particularly highlighted the plight of the small island states — a group of nations with whom he will meet before leaving the conference. It is possible that the forthcoming donation to the LDC Fund could be a nod towards loss and damage. The US already softened its stance on the issue during a round of negotiations in Bonn in September.

Leaders' Speeches: Xi Jinping
President Xi Jinping repeated the country's pre-existing target of peaking emissions by 2030, telling delegates that China has the "confidence and resolve to fulfil our commitments".
His newest announcement was the fleshed out details of how China intends to spend the ¥20bn ($3bn) it announced in September. Among other things, China will launch 100 mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries, and help them to build up financing capabilities.
He also promised that "ecological endeavours" would "feature prominently" in China's forthcoming 13th five-year plan, a blueprint for its development in 2016 to 2020. This is due to be finalised in March.
He also spelled out some of China's priorities for the UN climate deal that countries are in Paris to negotiate. While he said that the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" should be adhered to, he stressed that the outcome is a regime that should apply to everyone, within their capabilities.
"All countries, developed countries in particular, should accept shared responsibility for win-win outcomes," he said. Such language is far more conciliatory than that adopted by China's negotiating bloc just last month, which took pains to stress the continued divisions between the rich and poor nations.

International Solar Alliance
Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, and Francois Hollande, France's president, launched an International Solar Alliance, an Indian initiative dedicated to the promotion of solar energy. It aims to "significantly augment solar power generation", says a declaration handed out at a press conference.
The alliance will aim to foster cooperation and collaboration between solar-rich nations. A working paper lists 121 "prospective member [countries]". It says solar can "transform lives" for people living without power in off-grid rural & urban fringe areas.
Writing in the Financial Times, Modi said the aim was "to bring affordable solar power to villages that are off the grid".
India will provide $62m over five years to 2020/21, including in-kind support such as land and $27m of funding towards running costs.
The alliance hopes to mobilise "more than $1,000bn of investments that are needed by 2030 for the massive deployment of affordable solar energy". An international steering committee will hold its first meeting on 1 December.
Speaking at the launch of the alliance, Hollande said: "We can no longer accept the paradox…that the countries with the largest solar potential have only a small proportion of solar generation."
Coal, oil and gas have been the foundation of wealth in the past but are the energies of yesterday, Hollande said. "Wealth tomorrow will come from new energies that will be developed everywhere and, namely, solar".
Modi told the launch many nations had long placed special cultural significance in the sun. He said: "The world must turn to sun, the power of the future…There is already a revolution in solar energy…Costs are coming down and grid connectivity is improving. It is [bringing] the dream of universal electricity access [closer]."

Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform
John Key, the prime minister of New Zealand, used the first day of COP21 to officially present the Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC. He was joined by the prime ministers of Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. The communique represents the views of 37 countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, the US, the UK, New Zealand and the Philippines. It is also endorsed by "23 global companies with combined revenues exceeding $170bn" and organisations, such as the International Energy Agency, the OECD and World Bank.
The communique calls for three "interrelated principles":

• Communication and Transparency about the merits of subsidy policies and reform timetables, including through engagement and communications with the general public and civil society stakeholders to ensure a smooth, inclusive, bottom-up approach to reform;
• Ambition in the scope and timeframe for implementing reforms; and
• Targeted support to ensure reforms are implemented in a manner that safeguards the poorest.

It adds: "We invite all countries, companies and civil society organisations to join us in supporting accelerated action to eliminate inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies in an ambitious and transparent manner as part of a major contribution to climate change mitigation."
John Key said that a third of global emissions between 1980 and 2010 had been driven by fossil fuel subsidies. He added that the world spends around US$500bn a year keeping domestic fuel prices artificially low: "[Ending such subsidies would] free up resources to invest in low-carbon energy. They are a huge obstacle to innovation. They are not a benefit to the poor and hinder the transition. Low oil prices mean the timing for reform has never been better. It's an urgent priority."
In response, Christiana Figueres said that "we need to dispel the myth that you have to choose between burning carbon and development, the myth that with only this type of subsidy can you benefit the poor". She also stressed that "we could be tempted to increase the subsidies to make up for losses…We need to decide which direction we are going. We could be locked in [to fossil fuel subsidies] for several decades. We must be guided by benefiting those at bottom of ladder."
Responding to a question from Carbon Brief on what timescale the coalition would like see such "accelerated action", John Key, the prime minister of New Zealand, said:

"In the perfect world, as quickly as possible. Because, in the end, what is happening here is the world is spending close to half a billion dollars subsidising fuel which is not going to poor people. It's money, actually, that governments could spend on so many other initiatives…One argument is to use that money to subsidise renewable energy, but even if you're not prepared to do that, stopping subsidising something that is polluting the world is the best step you can take…I suspect for some countries it will be a phaseout [rather than immediately, as New Zealand did]. But this is the time to do it, as you do have low oil prices now so the elimination of those subsidies would have much less effect."

Rachel Kyte, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, added:

"All of the economic evidences says that to delay costs you more. You run the risk of locking yourself into a high-carbon pathway that will be expensive."

Earlier this year, a, International Monetary Fund working paper found that:

• Post-tax energy subsidies are dramatically higher than previously estimated—$4.9 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2013, and projected to reach $5.3 trillion (6.5 percent of global GDP) in 2015.
• Among different energy products, coal accounts for the biggest subsidies, given its high environmental damage and because (unlike for road fuels) no country imposes meaningful excises on its consumption.

Figure 4, Global Energy Subsidies 2011-2015, IMF Working Paper WP/15/105

However, calculating fossil fuel subsidies is complicated and open to interpretation, as the IMF paper admits: "These findings must be viewed with caution. Most important, there are many uncertainties and controversies involved in measuring environmental damages in different countries – our estimates are based on plausible -but debatable -assumptions."

Climate Vulnerable Forum
The Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), a coalition of 20 countries from Afghanistan and Bangladesh to the Philippines, Rwanda and Vietnam, issued a declaration calling for the Paris agreement to include a 1.5C temperature limit.
The countries also want goals of 100% renewable energy and full decarbonisation by 2050, with peak emissions by 2020 at the latest. The Guardian said the declaration was significant because it broke ranks with the G77, which usually represents developing countries' views.

Climate finance
A number of leaders used their speeches as an opportunity to announce new financial pledges. These include:

• John Key, New Zealand: $20m over four years to reduce emissions from livestock, cropping and rice production, and up to $200m for climate-related support over the next four years, most of which will benefit Pacific nations.
• Justin Trudeau, Canada: $2.65 billion over the next five years. Trudeau made this pledge three days ago in Malta, but reiterated it today in his speech.
• Erna Solberg, Norway: Pledged to double its current donation to the Green Climate Fund ($258m), if the fund "ensures verified emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation".
• Mariano Rajoy Brey, Spain: Pledged to double its €120m donation to the Green Climate Fund.

In addition, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom pledged to contribute close to $300m to reduce deforestation in Colombia.

UN Secretary-General's High-Level Meeting on Resilience
Ban Ki-moon announced a new initiative "to build climate resilience in the world's most vulnerable countries". He said the Climate Resilience Initiative (CRI) "will help address the needs of the nearly 634m people, or a tenth of the global population who live in at-risk coastal areas just a few meters above existing sea levels, as well as those living in areas at risk of droughts and floods". The press release said:

"Bringing together private sector organisations, governments, UN agencies, research institutions and other stakeholders to scale up transformative solutions, the SG's Resilience Initiative will focus on the most vulnerable people and communities in Small Island Developing States, Least Developed Countries, and African countries. Over the next five years, the Initiative will mobilise financing and knowledge; create and operationalise partnerships at scale, help coordinate activities to help reach tangible results, catalyse research, and develop new tools."

The UN's secretary general told the event that "we must absorb risks in new development models". The event then heard from a series of leaders from countries most at risk from climate change, especially sea-level rise. Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands, said that his country's "battle against water had led to innovation and for us to prosper". He then announced that the Netherlands will donate 50m euros to a new programme led by the Red Cross that will complement the CRI.
Meanwhile, a series of leaders from developing and vulnerable countries made the case for extra help. Freundel Stuart, the prime minister of Barbados, said: "We in the Caribbean and Pacific cannot adapt or build resilience to a 3C world."
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt's president, said pointedly that "Africa is contributing least to global emissions, but it is the most vulnerable". He added: "Developed countries not taking the lead exacerbates the problem. Egypt defends Africa's interests on climate change."
France said it would be initiating a new early warning system for vulnerable nations tomorrow and Germany said it would be helping to provide additional insurance for 200m people, although didn't give more details.
Ban concluded by saying: "Most of our initiatives are coming from our hard lessons – politically and physically."
The issue of vulnerability and resilience is a particularly emotive one within the climate talks and often becomes a bitter wedge between developed and developing nations. Ban Ki-moon's efforts today can be seen as an early tactical effort by the UN to smooth edges and build bridges between parties ahead of the many days of negotiating that are still to come.

Breakthrough Energy Coalition and Mission Innovation
Emerging clean technologies received a boost, as investors and countries announced a new programme to help them pass through the "Valley of Death", their poetic term for the gap between concept and viable product.
The group of 28 investors — which includes Microsoft's Bill Gates, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos — have pledged to support early stage technologies, helping them to get off the ground at a time when other investors may be put off by the high risk factor involved. On their website, they outline the principles that will guide their investments.
In particular, the investors say they will focus on projects coming out of the 19 countries that have created the Mission Innovation coalition. This includes countries such as Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the United Arab Emirates and the US. Each has pledged to double their governmental investment in clean energy technologies over the next five years.
Earlier this year, another group launched a "Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change" with the aim of making clean energy cheaper than coal. It said the world should invest $15bn a year for a decade, though it lacked any clear funding commitments.

Least Developed Countries Fund
Switzerland, France, Germany, the US, the UK and others today made a joint pledge of $248m to the Least Developed Countries Fund, including $51m from the US and $53m from Germany.
The fund helps the world's poorest nations draw up national adaptation plans to identify their climate vulnerabilities. It also funds urgent adaptation in sectors such as water and food security.
The fund has allocated nearly $1bn to projects since its inception in 2001, according to a joint statement published by the US State Department. This has unlocked $3.8bn of co-finance from other sources, the statement says.
The fund has sometimes struggled. A year ago, the BBC said hundreds of adaptation schemes might have to be abandoned for want of cash. Its coffers were empty this June, Reuters reported. The world's 48 least developed nations will be hoping today's pledge puts the fund back on track.

Transformative Carbon Asset Facility
The World Bank, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland launched a new scheme to promote carbon pricing in developing countries. The Transformative Carbon Asset Facility (TCAF) aims to secure $500m in initial funding to "spur greater efforts to price and measure carbon pollution".
Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, said the facility's country partners "expect to commit more than $250m next year". He said the $500m target, when reached, would leverage $2bn from the World Bank "and other sources".
The TCAF will help create "the next generation of carbon credits", says Kim in a statement. It is a complement to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, another World Bank initiative designed to increase the spread of efforts to tax or limit emissions through markets.
Fossil fuel subsidy reform, clean energy policy, carbon accounting, carbon pricing and carbon market initiatives could all benefit from TCAF support. The $500m funding target, if reached, would support 10 programmes, the World Bank says.

Links

• Leaders' Speeches: Barack Obama
• Leaders' Speeches: Xi Jinping
• International Solar Alliance
• Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform
• Climate Vulnerable Forum
• Climate finance
• UN Secretary-General's High-Level Meeting on Resilience
• Breakthrough Energy Coalition and Mission Innovation
• Least Developed Countries Fund
• Transformative Carbon Asset Facility

Take No Prisoners: The Paris Climate Talks Need To Move Beyond ‘Fairness’

The Conversation - Luke Kemp

World leaders gathering at COP21 should ditch old ideas about ‘climate equity’. Reuters/Jacky Naegelen

For years now the climate talks have revolved around discussions who should bear the burden of cutting emissions, particularly between developed and developing nations. Much of Paris climate summit will be focused on this notion of equity and how to ensure that each country does its their fair share in the fight against climate change.
Developed countries (known as “Annex 1” in the United Nations' lingo) now typically have falling emissions, but are responsible for the majority of historical emissions. Developing nations (known as “non-Annex”) often have increasing emissions, but are responsible for far fewer historical emissions.
Based on this, developing countries have argued strongly for differentiation. For them this involves developed countries taking the lead on reducing emissions and providing finance and assistance for developing countries undertaking a low-carbon transformation. Developed countries argue that equity means all countries taking action and adopting targets together.
Most of the national pledges that have been submitted for the summit make some mention of why the pledge is “fair” or equitable. Even Oxfam has been in on the action releasing a Fair Shares equity review of national climate pledges.
But this concept of a fair share is a large reason why Paris is at risk of failing to deliver a worthwhile deal. We will not solve climate change until we stop seeing emissions reductions as a burden to be equally shared.

The burden of climate action?
The way we talk about issues creates a frame in our minds. It bundles up different ideas to create a shared perspective.
For climate change, talk of equity has inevitably framed emissions reductions as a burden which needs to be “fairly distributed”, or as a penalty to atone for past sins.
Nations also talk of “capacity”, or the ability to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. This of course depends on the state’s economy and politics. But it implies that reducing emissions comes at a high cost and is only worth undertaking if the right capacity is in place.
If there is one way to ensure that countries don’t act it is to frame mitigation as a burden. Luckily this just simply isn’t true. Reducing emissions, and mitigating climate change, is not a burden; it is one of our greatest opportunities.

The benefits of climate action
The economics of climate change has been slowly moving away from emphasising the costs towards recognising the benefits. This is not surprising given the history of environmental regulation.
Decreasing ozone-depleting substances was originally forecast by industry to have catastrophic economic costs. It ended up being extremely cheap.
Industry initially complained of the potential costs of the Clean Air Act in the United States. But the US Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the act saved the US economy US$2 trillion in avoided health and productivity losses by 2020. The estimated costs were just US$65 billion. The benefits were 30 times larger than the expected costs.
The same kinds of benefits are on offer when switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. One US study calculated the health costs of coal-powered electricity to be 0.8-5.6 times greater than the value added to the US economy. Earlier this year the IMF estimated that when accounting for wider costs such as health, fossil fuels are subsidised globally by more than US$5 trillion per year. So even without accounting for climate change, in most cases fossil fuels cost more than they’re worth.
Renewable energy and climate mitigation has the edge over fossil fuels in most wider analyses.
The New Climate Economy Report provides an overview of compelling studies and examples showing why mitigating climate change would be good for economic growth and general human well-being.
Importantly mitigation is already cheap and getting cheaper every year. A report by Frank Jotzo and myself earlier this year showed how the different estimates of the cost of large emissions reductions in Australia range from 0.1-0.21% of annual GDP growth. Not exactly a big hit to the economy. And these are all still narrow analyses that don’t consider all of the co-benefits of mitigation.
Emissions reductions are not a burden to be handed out equally between countries. It is an opportunity that countries should be pursuing with or without an international deal. Talk of avoiding catastrophic climate change just strengthens an energy transformation which already makes economic and social sense.

Breaking out of the prisoner’s dilemma
Climate change has typically been seen as a prisoner’s dilemma: a game where two rationally behaving actors will avoid cooperation and produce an outcome which is not in their collective interests.
Climate change has been viewed as a prisoner’s dilemma because each country thinks that climate action benefits everyone, but costs the individual country. So countries push for everyone to participate in negotiations to share this cost. It is particularly clear in Paris where there have been repeated calls for an agreement that is “applicable to all” and excludes no-one.
But this is not true, and many countries are beginning to realise this.
Looking around the world, the greatest action being taken against climate change is not about altruism or in the name of equity. They are being done for economic gain and to create better lives for the public.
China is installing vast renewable energy capacity and moving towards limiting coal consumption due to concerns over air pollution, energy security benefits and to secure a head-start in the booming renewable energy market. Germany is undertaking its famed “Energiewende” in order to secure a market advantage in renewable energy and kick-start its economy.
Countries are taking action not for equity or morality, but for their own national interest.
Realising the benefits of mitigation changes the game of negotiations. No longer would we focus on getting everyone on board and distributing “fair-shares”. Instead the aim would be to find ways to maximise collective benefits and opportunities.
Of course least developed countries should receive financial and technological aid. But that is because assistance should be given for any kind of development, not because a low carbon transformation is prohibitively expensive. Fairness does become a bigger issue when talking about other issues such as adapting to climate change impacts, but it shouldn’t be the main focus for reducing emissions.
Climate change is not a prisoner’s dilemma. It is not about equitably sharing a burden. That is a myth. There really is no dilemma when climate action has so many benefits.

Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Funds Worth $1 Trillion Divest From Fossil Fuels

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the global average surface temperature in 2015 is likely to be the warmest on record and to reach the symbolic and significant milestone of 1°C above the pre-industrial era.

More than 100 institutions controlling $US800 billion ($1.09 trillion) in funds worldwide have opted to make new divestments of at least some of their fossil fuel assets in the 10 weeks running up to the Paris climate summit, according to campaign groups 350.org and Divest-Invest.
The tally brings to $US3.4 trillion the amount of funds under management by firms that support at least a partial sell-off of their holdings of coal, oil or other fossil fuels. The latest to sign up range from the City of Melbourne to the parliament of the summit hosts, France.
"People are voting with their wallets," Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, told Fairfax Media. "The divestment movement worldwide has grown at breakneck speed illustrating the appetite for action on climate change from citizens, cities, businesses and institutions."

More of the world's big owners of assets are shifting away from fossil fuels as global warming takes a higher priority.

The groups launched a "Divest for Paris" plan in September when the tally of institutions agreeing to cut exposure to the fossil fuel sector totalled about 400 firms with $US2.6 trillion in assets. The huge figures do not represent the size of the investments actually sold off, only the scale of funds that they manage.
"This the greatest challenge of our time," Stephen Heintz, President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said. "The momentum of this campaign is accelerating day by day."
"There is a moral imperative to save the planet, and to do so, we need to end the fossil fuel era now," Mr Heintz said.

Hard times for coal and other fossil fuel investments. Photo: Bloomberg

The economics were also stacking up against fossil fuel investments as nations prepare to curb carbon emissions, with 60-80 per cent of remaining reserves of such fuels had to remain in the ground if global warming is to remain with 2 degrees, he said.

Melbourne moves
According to the groups, Australian institutions involved in the divestment have funds under management of $5.5 billion, or less than 2 per cent of the total. Melbourne City Council is one of 14 councils that are reducing their fossil fuel investments.
Among the big movers in the run-up to Paris was Allianz, Europe's largest insurance company. It divested €630 million ($915 million) of their holdings in coal while announcing plans to channel €4 billion into wind energy projects over the next six months.
"Divestment represents a simple equation, moving money away from the problem to the solution," Ms McKenzie said.
Commodity prices have been hammered, particularly in the past year. The divestment campaign has helped to undermine investors' appetite for coal and other fossil fuels by turning a spotlight on the likely future constraints on industries producing greenhouse gases resulting from such global events as the Paris summit.
The dramatic plunge in commodity prices, though, is viewed by analysts as more a response to weaker-than-expected demand, particularly in China, which is by far the largest consumer of raw materials such as coal and iron ore.
Earlier this week, the Reserve Bank of Australia released its latest gauge of commodity prices, showing the plunge had accelerated in November.
Preliminary figures show export prices for Australia's three biggest commodities – iron ore, coking coal and thermal coal – dived 4.3 per cent last month alone to be down 23.4 per cent over the past year.
As the chart below shows, the gauge is now well below the lowest level during the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, and a fresh indication that state and federal budgets can expect further squeezes on their revenues from mining.

The divestment campaign, meanwhile, has cheered this week's announcement in Paris that 38 nations had signed a communique planning to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel.
Australia, though, opted not to sign up, with the Turnbull government saying the definition of a subsidy used by the organisers – led by New Zealand – was too broad and would have unfairly disadvantaged farmers and miners.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull later said the document contained a "rather gratuitous reference to an IMF report which goes much much further than inefficient fuel subsidies".

Links

• Australia rejects fossil fuel pledge
• Australia's coasts to mapped for sea-level rise
• 5 things we learnt today
• Paris climate conference: full coverage