Eric Camara
17:57, sexta-feira, 7 outubro 2011
Comentários (0) Nesta sexta-feira, terminou mais um encontro preparatório para a conferência anual das Nações Unidas sobre mudança climática que começa no fim de novembro em Durban, na África do Sul.
A reunião foi no Panamá, e mais uma vez, os sinais foram desanimadores para aqueles que torcem por um acordo para cortar emissões de gases que provocam o efeito estufa e dessa forma limitar o aquecimento da Terra nas próximas décadas.
Os dilemas continuam os mesmos - países ricos insistem em abandonar o Protocolo de Kyoto, exigem compromissos formais e mensuráveis dos grandes países em desenvolvimento (leia-se China e Índia), enquanto os países mais pobres insistem em manter Kyoto e exigem maiores investimentos para adaptar-se às mudanças do clima e se desenvolver de forma limpa.
Para complicar mais um enredo que já vem complicado desde 2009, na malfadada reunião de Copenhague, o mundo mais uma vez parece estar à beira de uma recessão de proporções históricas.
Isso importa por vários motivos, mas vou me concentrar em apenas dois:
1. Dinheiro. A expectativa de países pobres e em desenvolvimento, segundo o princípio acertado durante a Rio 92 de "responsabilidade histórica" (a responsabilidade é de todos, mas aqueles que mais poluíram têm que arcar com consequências maiores), é de novos financiamentos. O problema é que até o momento não se chegou perto de qualquer acordo a valer a partir de 2013, quando acabam os últimos compromissos assumidos (de 2010 a 2012).
E que governo quer liberar novos fundos enquanto enfrenta desemprego e estagnação domesticamente?
2. O Protocolo de Kyoto. O único acordo internacional criado para combater as mudanças do clima vence no fim do ano que vem. Isso significa que, enquanto a ciência reforça cada vez mais a necessidade de se tomar medidas para coibir a emissão de gases do efeito estufa, o mundo - como um todo - caminha na direção oposta. E que político vai considerar adotar metas que poderiam ser classificadas pela oposição de "rédeas ao crescimento econômico"?
O problema é que os Estados Unidos não ratificaram Kyoto, o que significa que só os outros países industrializados é que até hoje têm a obrigação internacional de reduzir as suas emissões. Ninguém, entre eles, quer que a situação continue assim. O Japão quase parou as negociações em Cancún, no ano passado, ao dizer que estaria fora de um segundo período de compromisso sob Kyoto, voltando atrás relutantemente.
Até o momento, só a União Europeia aceita incluir as propostas de cortes de emissão apresentadas voluntariamente em Cancún em um documento formal. Mesmo assim, só se for com salvaguardas para evitar que fiquem presos a um acordo praticamente sozinhos entre os industrializados.
A Austrália e a Noruega apresentaram no Panamá uma nova proposta de acordo que na prática acaba com Kyoto, criando um novo acordo a ser assinado em 2015, mas que já começaria a ser operacionalizado em Durban, com a oficialização das metas de redução apresentadas voluntariamente no ano seguinte.
Com isso, cada país teria até 2018 para aprovar e instrumentalizar o acordo internamente. Até lá, todos torcem, a crise já terá passado.
O único problema é saber como convencer os países em desenvolvimento a aceitar jogar Kyoto no lixo e recomeçar a partir do (pouco) que existe.
O embaixador argentino Jorge Arguello, em nome do grupo dos países em desenvolvimento (G77 + China) disse, no Panamá, que "o único resultado significativo para Durban é a continuação de Kyoto".
Será que Durban vai marcar o fim de Kyoto ou o fim das negociações como um todo? Ou qual será a terceira via?
Mostrando postagens com marcador climate summit;greenhouse gases;Kyoto Protocol. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador climate summit;greenhouse gases;Kyoto Protocol. Mostrar todas as postagens
Is Cap-and-Trade Kaput?
Eco Energy Sources & How To Be Green //Rocket NEws
Written on March 22, 2011 by Editor
‘Cap-and-trade has become a political anathema,’ says Jennifer Smokelin, a US environmental attorney with Reed Smith who specialises in climate issues. ‘I think it is safe to say anything called cap-and-trade, and anything that functions substantially like cap-and-trade, will not be passed as a legislative act in this Congress,’ says Smokelin.
What does US abandonment of cap-and-trade mean to the world, specifically Europe, which has the only major functioning carbon market? And will the renewable energy industry still thrive, without a US carbon trading programme?
Obama has failed to push through controversial carbon legislation (Source: White House)
The U.S. is crucial in any worldwide attempt to reduce greenhouse gases because it is such a high emitter. Even with the rapid advancements in China’s economy, the U.S. is expected to remain the largest source of petroleum-related carbon dioxide emissions for many years, emitting 2.6 billion tonnes to China’s 2.2 billion in 2035, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Similarly, when it comes to carbon emissions from natural gas, the U.S. bests China by almost three times with 1.3 billion tonnes in the next 25 years. China does outdistance the U.S. for carbon emissions from coal, with forecasts showing it responsible for 10.5 billion tonnes in 2035, 55% of the world’s total. Still, the U.S. contributes a hefty share from coal as well: 2.4 billion tonnes, or 12% of the total in 2035.
From an economic perspective, Europe and the U.S. would have created a sizable trading market, had the U.S. gone forward with cap-and-trade, a programme that caps carbon dioxide emissions at a pre-set level and allows trading of permits for compliance. The European Union is the world’s largest economy and the U.S. the second largest; together they represent US$29.61 trillion in gross domestic product, as measured in purchasing power parity. Paired they comprise about three-fourths of carbon emissions from developed countries and roughly one-third of worldwide emissions.
EU Demoralised?
U.S. abandonment of cap-and-trade leaves Europe, alone, with the world’s only major carbon allowance and offset market. ‘European markets are the only game in town,’ says Lisa Zelljadt, senior analyst at Point Carbon, an Oslo-based marketing and trading analytics company. ‘They were expecting that there might be other large sources of demand around the world and other carbon markets they could link to, creating a global market which is more liquid. That’s not going to happen. So the European Union Emissions Trading System, this $2 billion programme, is going to go forward, and it is the only programme of that size.’
Smokelin says that for the EU this is demoralising: ‘When you move onto a course from a national standpoint, you want to see your like-minded countries move that way too’. Equally important, any part of the world going it alone faces singular economic pressure by putting a price on carbon at a time when fossil fuel use remains high. ‘Every widget made in Europe becomes more expensive than a widget made in a country without a cap-and-trade plan. That would then in turn build political pressure in the EU to take a look at whether a cap-and-trade system is the way to be going,’ Smokelin says.
The U.S. failure to pursue a carbon emissions trading market also gives good excuse for wavering nations to pause. For example, Canada is unlikely to move forward without its closest trading partner, the U.S., Smokelin says. And while Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol, it does not appear to be moving quickly toward cap-and-trade either.
That’s not to say no one will join Europe. Indeed, smaller regional efforts are underway in provinces in China, certain U.S. states and other parts of the world. ‘There will continue to be carbon markets but they will be more fragmented. It will be more regional programs at various levels,’ says Point Carbon’s Zelljadt.
Renewables Go Their Own Way
But while enthusiasm may be tenuous for carbon emissions trading markets, support for renewable energy remains strong. The industry framed itself as not only a solution to climate change, but also as an economic and job building resource. The message has stuck. The U.S. resisted cap-and-trade, but it added 16 GW of new electric generating capacity from wind, solar, and geothermal energy over the last two years, an increase of nearly 60%.
Even political foes of cap-and-trade seem to support renewable energy. With or without cap-and-trade, renewable energy is expected to continue its US expansion. Renewable energy will account for 45% of the growth in electric generation by 2035. If the federal production tax credit is extended for 25 years, renewable energy will expand even faster, with growth between 61% and 65%, according to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Worldwide, renewable energy use is expected to triple between 2008 and 2035, driven by the power sector where green energy’s share in electricity supply could rise from 19% in 2008 to 32% in 2035, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2010. IEA based its forecast on a ‘new policies scenario’ where governments live up to commitments they have made.
Annual global support for renewables in the New Policies Scenario (Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011)
‘A lot of it has to do with the economy. When you are going through bankruptcy, you are really not interested in carbon credits,’ says Mark Thimke, a partner with Foley Lardner and member of the environmental and energy team. ‘But renewable energy seems to have traction in Congress. It seems to be divorced from climate change and able to go forward in the political world,’ he adds.
President Obama appeared to be very aware of the shift in political winds during his state of the union address on 25 January. He never mentioned climate change. This contrasts with last year’s address, where ‘climate’ came up at least three times, including his proclamation that the US has ‘gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change’.
Nonetheless, in this year’s speech, innovation was a central theme, not environmentalism. Obama strongly reiterated his clean energy goals, devoting several minutes to the importance of green energy technologies. He called for increasing the nation’s research and development investments as a share of gross national product to its highest level in nearly 50 years. The US President also announced an aim to make clean energy, including wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal and natural gas, 80% of America’s electricity by 2035. In all, he said he wants to see an 85% increase in renewable energy with an eye toward making solar $1 a watt.
And while Obama may not be going after carbon dioxide emissions through cap-and-trade, he has made clear he is pursuing other methods. For one, he said he wants to end the $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers. ‘I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own’, he said, prompting laughter from Congress during the speech. The commitment is part of a G-20 pledge made in Pittsburgh in 2009 to phase out ‘inefficient’ fossil fuel subsides.
Further, Obama continues to pursue greenhouse gas restrictions through the Environmental Protection Agency, which has begun rolling out a series of rules under the federal Clean Air Act that require emitters to install best available control technology for greenhouse gas reduction. The authority of the EPA to impose such rules does face legal and Congressional challenges, however.
Should these initiatives continue — the removal of fossil fuel tax subsidies and EPA regulation of carbon dioxide — they still may not be enough, say some industry obeservers. Without a price on carbon, the playing field will continue to be unfair for renewable energy, they argue. Even if Congress passes a proposed national renewable energy standard (RES) — a requirement that a percentage of power come from renewable sorces — renewable energy may not ovecome the price inequity it faces. This inequity stems from externalities, like health care costs from polluted air, that fail to get factored into fossil fuel prices. In fact, a RES may heighten the problem, Smokelin says. ‘Without having a price on carbon, a RES is doomed to failure because renewables become just too expensive’.
California: A Game Changer
But is the U.S. really out of the game when it comes to carbon trading markets? Will individual states come to the rescue as they often do on green energy policy?
Already, 10 U.S. Northeastern states have a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade programme, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI. The initiative is too small, however, to have any significant impact on world carbon trading markets, in part, because it is confined to the power sector, capping its emissions at 10% by 2018.
But RGGI could be used as a prototype to exhibit the benefits offered through a market of its type, according to Stephen Cowell, chairman and CEO of Massachusetts-based Conservation Services Group. Under the RGGI model, about 80% of sales from allowance auctions go back to states for energy efficiency, renewable energy and other consumer benefits. The idea is to use allowance money to invest in technology that will reduce consumer energy costs. As of early 2011, the auctions had raised $775 million. While RGGI has not been without problems — some state governments diverted funds from clean energy to pay down their debt — it is largely seen as a cap-and-trade success story.
The message might spread if RGGI is described as cap-and-invest. ‘We undersold the benefits. We don’t articulate the true merits when we say “put a price on carbon” or just “cap it.” RGGI is the classic cap-and-invest strategy and the result is that total energy costs with RGGI are lower than without RGGI’.
RGGI may be too small to contribute significantly to a worldwide trading market; but California’s upcoming cap-and-trade market is not. The state’s voters expressed their continued support for the programme in the November 2010 elections by rejecting an attempt to delay it. About 60% of those voting turned down a measure that would have postponed cap-and-trade until state unemployment had dropped to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.
The development of California’s carbon cap-and-trade scheme (Source: Point Carbon)
Now the state is clear to begin carbon trading effort in 2012. The programme is modeled after the European Union Emissions Trading System, and is expected to have a significant impact on world markets because of California’s size. California intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and secure 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Different from RGGI, California’s cap is economy wide, meaning the cap applies to a host of emission sources, such as industrial processes, not just power.
California’s programme starts small, initially only encompassing power plants, and then gradually adding the other resources, until the emissions caps cover 85% of its economy. The Point Carbon chart (see below) shows how California’s cap expands over the years. It reveals that once emissions from transport fuels are included in 2015, the scope of the programme (and thus size of the carbon cap) nearly doubles.
After Europe, California will be the second largest carbon market in the world. Point Carbon expects it to be worth $1.7 billion dollars in 2012, the first year of compliance, grow to close to $10 billion by 2016, and possibly as high as $50 to $80 billion in 2020.
‘RGGI for all its good intentions is not regarded as something that will have global impact in terms of driving a carbon market. The California cap-and-trade programme, coming down the track like a freight train, I think is going to be very different,’ says Larry Goldenhersh, founder of Enviance, a company that offers information technology to companies worldwide to track and manage environmental assets, including carbon dioxide allowances.
Goldenhersh points out that with a population of about 37 million, California is home to one in nine Americans and is the world’s eighth largest economy. What’s impressive, he says, is that California’s voters decided to move forward with cap-and-trade during one of the nation’s worst economic downturns: ‘It is a very important example of a clear judgment of a large body of people in America who said that they will vote for the environment. That is real political will.’
The sheer scale of California’s carbon cap-and-trade will exert global influence (Source: E.ON)
Given California’s size and worldwide economic clout, it will force the US federal government to rethink its stand on a national programme, he adds, saying: ‘The eighth largest economy is going to tell the world what it thinks the price of carbon is. You can’t just ignore the eighth largest economy in the world. From a regulatory perspective it is very, very important. I don’t think this is going to be lost on the Congress one bit. I think there is going to be an immense amount of pressure to do something on energy and climate’.
CSG’s Cowell also remains confident that Congress may still act in favour of a carbon cap-and-trade initiative. ‘I’ve been at this for 30 years; it’s never too late. I’m not ready to throw in the towel. And as the President said, we have to invest the clean technology of the future. Or we will even more quickly fall behind countries that are seeing the future.’
So Is Cap-and-Trade Really Dead in the U.S.?
Two years ago it seemed likely the U.S. would join the EU and institute cap-and-trade. But political sentiment shifted radically. Two years from now the same could happen again with a turn back toward a market-based greenhouse gas reduction programme. For now, however, world excitement has ebbed about cap-and-trade, but not renewable energy, a resource that has successfully positioned itself as the solution, whether the problem is environmental or economic.
Written on March 22, 2011 by Editor
‘Cap-and-trade has become a political anathema,’ says Jennifer Smokelin, a US environmental attorney with Reed Smith who specialises in climate issues. ‘I think it is safe to say anything called cap-and-trade, and anything that functions substantially like cap-and-trade, will not be passed as a legislative act in this Congress,’ says Smokelin.
What does US abandonment of cap-and-trade mean to the world, specifically Europe, which has the only major functioning carbon market? And will the renewable energy industry still thrive, without a US carbon trading programme?
Obama has failed to push through controversial carbon legislation (Source: White House)
The U.S. is crucial in any worldwide attempt to reduce greenhouse gases because it is such a high emitter. Even with the rapid advancements in China’s economy, the U.S. is expected to remain the largest source of petroleum-related carbon dioxide emissions for many years, emitting 2.6 billion tonnes to China’s 2.2 billion in 2035, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Similarly, when it comes to carbon emissions from natural gas, the U.S. bests China by almost three times with 1.3 billion tonnes in the next 25 years. China does outdistance the U.S. for carbon emissions from coal, with forecasts showing it responsible for 10.5 billion tonnes in 2035, 55% of the world’s total. Still, the U.S. contributes a hefty share from coal as well: 2.4 billion tonnes, or 12% of the total in 2035.
From an economic perspective, Europe and the U.S. would have created a sizable trading market, had the U.S. gone forward with cap-and-trade, a programme that caps carbon dioxide emissions at a pre-set level and allows trading of permits for compliance. The European Union is the world’s largest economy and the U.S. the second largest; together they represent US$29.61 trillion in gross domestic product, as measured in purchasing power parity. Paired they comprise about three-fourths of carbon emissions from developed countries and roughly one-third of worldwide emissions.
EU Demoralised?
U.S. abandonment of cap-and-trade leaves Europe, alone, with the world’s only major carbon allowance and offset market. ‘European markets are the only game in town,’ says Lisa Zelljadt, senior analyst at Point Carbon, an Oslo-based marketing and trading analytics company. ‘They were expecting that there might be other large sources of demand around the world and other carbon markets they could link to, creating a global market which is more liquid. That’s not going to happen. So the European Union Emissions Trading System, this $2 billion programme, is going to go forward, and it is the only programme of that size.’
Smokelin says that for the EU this is demoralising: ‘When you move onto a course from a national standpoint, you want to see your like-minded countries move that way too’. Equally important, any part of the world going it alone faces singular economic pressure by putting a price on carbon at a time when fossil fuel use remains high. ‘Every widget made in Europe becomes more expensive than a widget made in a country without a cap-and-trade plan. That would then in turn build political pressure in the EU to take a look at whether a cap-and-trade system is the way to be going,’ Smokelin says.
The U.S. failure to pursue a carbon emissions trading market also gives good excuse for wavering nations to pause. For example, Canada is unlikely to move forward without its closest trading partner, the U.S., Smokelin says. And while Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol, it does not appear to be moving quickly toward cap-and-trade either.
That’s not to say no one will join Europe. Indeed, smaller regional efforts are underway in provinces in China, certain U.S. states and other parts of the world. ‘There will continue to be carbon markets but they will be more fragmented. It will be more regional programs at various levels,’ says Point Carbon’s Zelljadt.
Renewables Go Their Own Way
But while enthusiasm may be tenuous for carbon emissions trading markets, support for renewable energy remains strong. The industry framed itself as not only a solution to climate change, but also as an economic and job building resource. The message has stuck. The U.S. resisted cap-and-trade, but it added 16 GW of new electric generating capacity from wind, solar, and geothermal energy over the last two years, an increase of nearly 60%.
Even political foes of cap-and-trade seem to support renewable energy. With or without cap-and-trade, renewable energy is expected to continue its US expansion. Renewable energy will account for 45% of the growth in electric generation by 2035. If the federal production tax credit is extended for 25 years, renewable energy will expand even faster, with growth between 61% and 65%, according to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Worldwide, renewable energy use is expected to triple between 2008 and 2035, driven by the power sector where green energy’s share in electricity supply could rise from 19% in 2008 to 32% in 2035, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2010. IEA based its forecast on a ‘new policies scenario’ where governments live up to commitments they have made.
Annual global support for renewables in the New Policies Scenario (Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011)
‘A lot of it has to do with the economy. When you are going through bankruptcy, you are really not interested in carbon credits,’ says Mark Thimke, a partner with Foley Lardner and member of the environmental and energy team. ‘But renewable energy seems to have traction in Congress. It seems to be divorced from climate change and able to go forward in the political world,’ he adds.
President Obama appeared to be very aware of the shift in political winds during his state of the union address on 25 January. He never mentioned climate change. This contrasts with last year’s address, where ‘climate’ came up at least three times, including his proclamation that the US has ‘gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change’.
Nonetheless, in this year’s speech, innovation was a central theme, not environmentalism. Obama strongly reiterated his clean energy goals, devoting several minutes to the importance of green energy technologies. He called for increasing the nation’s research and development investments as a share of gross national product to its highest level in nearly 50 years. The US President also announced an aim to make clean energy, including wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal and natural gas, 80% of America’s electricity by 2035. In all, he said he wants to see an 85% increase in renewable energy with an eye toward making solar $1 a watt.
And while Obama may not be going after carbon dioxide emissions through cap-and-trade, he has made clear he is pursuing other methods. For one, he said he wants to end the $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers. ‘I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own’, he said, prompting laughter from Congress during the speech. The commitment is part of a G-20 pledge made in Pittsburgh in 2009 to phase out ‘inefficient’ fossil fuel subsides.
Further, Obama continues to pursue greenhouse gas restrictions through the Environmental Protection Agency, which has begun rolling out a series of rules under the federal Clean Air Act that require emitters to install best available control technology for greenhouse gas reduction. The authority of the EPA to impose such rules does face legal and Congressional challenges, however.
Should these initiatives continue — the removal of fossil fuel tax subsidies and EPA regulation of carbon dioxide — they still may not be enough, say some industry obeservers. Without a price on carbon, the playing field will continue to be unfair for renewable energy, they argue. Even if Congress passes a proposed national renewable energy standard (RES) — a requirement that a percentage of power come from renewable sorces — renewable energy may not ovecome the price inequity it faces. This inequity stems from externalities, like health care costs from polluted air, that fail to get factored into fossil fuel prices. In fact, a RES may heighten the problem, Smokelin says. ‘Without having a price on carbon, a RES is doomed to failure because renewables become just too expensive’.
California: A Game Changer
But is the U.S. really out of the game when it comes to carbon trading markets? Will individual states come to the rescue as they often do on green energy policy?
Already, 10 U.S. Northeastern states have a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade programme, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI. The initiative is too small, however, to have any significant impact on world carbon trading markets, in part, because it is confined to the power sector, capping its emissions at 10% by 2018.
But RGGI could be used as a prototype to exhibit the benefits offered through a market of its type, according to Stephen Cowell, chairman and CEO of Massachusetts-based Conservation Services Group. Under the RGGI model, about 80% of sales from allowance auctions go back to states for energy efficiency, renewable energy and other consumer benefits. The idea is to use allowance money to invest in technology that will reduce consumer energy costs. As of early 2011, the auctions had raised $775 million. While RGGI has not been without problems — some state governments diverted funds from clean energy to pay down their debt — it is largely seen as a cap-and-trade success story.
The message might spread if RGGI is described as cap-and-invest. ‘We undersold the benefits. We don’t articulate the true merits when we say “put a price on carbon” or just “cap it.” RGGI is the classic cap-and-invest strategy and the result is that total energy costs with RGGI are lower than without RGGI’.
RGGI may be too small to contribute significantly to a worldwide trading market; but California’s upcoming cap-and-trade market is not. The state’s voters expressed their continued support for the programme in the November 2010 elections by rejecting an attempt to delay it. About 60% of those voting turned down a measure that would have postponed cap-and-trade until state unemployment had dropped to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.
The development of California’s carbon cap-and-trade scheme (Source: Point Carbon)
Now the state is clear to begin carbon trading effort in 2012. The programme is modeled after the European Union Emissions Trading System, and is expected to have a significant impact on world markets because of California’s size. California intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and secure 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. Different from RGGI, California’s cap is economy wide, meaning the cap applies to a host of emission sources, such as industrial processes, not just power.
California’s programme starts small, initially only encompassing power plants, and then gradually adding the other resources, until the emissions caps cover 85% of its economy. The Point Carbon chart (see below) shows how California’s cap expands over the years. It reveals that once emissions from transport fuels are included in 2015, the scope of the programme (and thus size of the carbon cap) nearly doubles.
After Europe, California will be the second largest carbon market in the world. Point Carbon expects it to be worth $1.7 billion dollars in 2012, the first year of compliance, grow to close to $10 billion by 2016, and possibly as high as $50 to $80 billion in 2020.
‘RGGI for all its good intentions is not regarded as something that will have global impact in terms of driving a carbon market. The California cap-and-trade programme, coming down the track like a freight train, I think is going to be very different,’ says Larry Goldenhersh, founder of Enviance, a company that offers information technology to companies worldwide to track and manage environmental assets, including carbon dioxide allowances.
Goldenhersh points out that with a population of about 37 million, California is home to one in nine Americans and is the world’s eighth largest economy. What’s impressive, he says, is that California’s voters decided to move forward with cap-and-trade during one of the nation’s worst economic downturns: ‘It is a very important example of a clear judgment of a large body of people in America who said that they will vote for the environment. That is real political will.’
The sheer scale of California’s carbon cap-and-trade will exert global influence (Source: E.ON)
Given California’s size and worldwide economic clout, it will force the US federal government to rethink its stand on a national programme, he adds, saying: ‘The eighth largest economy is going to tell the world what it thinks the price of carbon is. You can’t just ignore the eighth largest economy in the world. From a regulatory perspective it is very, very important. I don’t think this is going to be lost on the Congress one bit. I think there is going to be an immense amount of pressure to do something on energy and climate’.
CSG’s Cowell also remains confident that Congress may still act in favour of a carbon cap-and-trade initiative. ‘I’ve been at this for 30 years; it’s never too late. I’m not ready to throw in the towel. And as the President said, we have to invest the clean technology of the future. Or we will even more quickly fall behind countries that are seeing the future.’
So Is Cap-and-Trade Really Dead in the U.S.?
Two years ago it seemed likely the U.S. would join the EU and institute cap-and-trade. But political sentiment shifted radically. Two years from now the same could happen again with a turn back toward a market-based greenhouse gas reduction programme. For now, however, world excitement has ebbed about cap-and-trade, but not renewable energy, a resource that has successfully positioned itself as the solution, whether the problem is environmental or economic.
VCS Unveils its First Methodology for Generating Carbon Credits by Saving Trees Share >>
Ecosystem Marketplace
Author: John Vidaurrazaga and Molly Peters-Stanley
Tackling tropical deforestation can put a huge dent in global carbon emissions, but also requires a big pool of money to make forests more valuable alive than dead. Forest projects seeking carbon credits received a boon this week as a major standard provider announced its first benchmark to quantify the climate benefits of tropical forest conservation. Southeast Asia’s carbon-rich peat forests are first on the list.
The first Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) methodology to quantify the climate benefits for projects reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is now approved and available for us after going live this Monday.
“The carbon market can now have a role in REDD, and that’s a sea change from where we were last week,” says David Antonioli, CEO of the Voluntary Carbon Standard Association. “It is great news for the sheer benefit of helping to channel finance to real projects that have real impacts on the ground.”
U.N. cuts pre-2012 Kyoto offset estimate by 3 percent
LONDON (Reuters) - A United Nations agency cut its forecast on Wednesday for pre-2012 Kyoto Protocol carbon offsets by 3 percent, estimating that only 981 million tonnes will come to market by the end of 2012.
Under Kyoto, efforts to cut greenhouse gases can be outsourced to emerging countries such as China and India through investment in clean energy projects registered under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme.
Under Kyoto, efforts to cut greenhouse gases can be outsourced to emerging countries such as China and India through investment in clean energy projects registered under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme.
ONU retoma negociações sobre o clima, mas sem vislumbrar acordo /// Deutsche Welle - Ecodebate
Aquecimento global mais uma vez em discussãoNegociações para o período pós-Kyoto recomeçam em Bonn, mas as expectativas de um acordo amplo são pequenas após o fracasso da Conferência de Copenhague. Reunião é preparatória para o encontro de Cancún, em dezembro.
Começou nesta segunda-feira (31/05) e vai até o dia 11 de junho uma nova rodada de negociações das Nações Unidas sobre o combate às mudanças climáticas, na cidade de Bonn, na Alemanha. O evento, que conta com a presença de 185 países, é preparatório para o encontro de dezembro, em Cancún, no México. Mas a expectativa por um acordo amplo não é alta, depois do fracasso do encontro de Copenhague, seis meses atrás.
O principal objetivo das negociações conduzidas pela Convenção do Clima das Nações Unidas (UNFCCC) é chegar a um novo texto, para substituir o Protocolo de Kyoto, que vale só até 2012.
O holandês Yvo de Boer, chefe da UNFCCC, admitiu que é improvável que qualquer acordo seja assinado até o fim de 2011. De Boer encaminhou sua renúncia depois do fracasso da Conferência do Clima de Copenhague, que terminou em frustração geral, apenas com promessas vagas de corte nas emissões de gás carbônico.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Yvo de Boer diz não acreditar num acordo ainda este anoNa Dinamarca, líderes de 194 países deveriam ter acertado um acordo com força de lei para o período pós-2012. No entanto, tudo que eles conseguiram foi um compromisso de redução dos gases que causam o efeito estufa e uma promessa de ajuda aos países em desenvolvimento no combate às mudanças climáticas.
Negociação dura
No primeiro dia, o encontro de Bonn já deu um exemplo de quão difícil será agradar a todos os envolvidos. Venezuela, Cuba e Bolívia disseram que não poderiam iniciar negociações com base no novo texto por ele dar muita ênfase ao documento de Copenhague, por eles rejeitado.
Já os Estados Unidos alegaram que o novo texto não teria sido feito para servir de base para as negociações. A África do Sul reclamou que ele exige demais dos países em desenvolvimento.
Numa entrevista coletiva em Bonn, De Boer não se mostrou nada otimista em relação às possibilidades de se chegar a um consenso até o fim do ano.
"É extremamente improvável que tenhamos um acordo com força de lei em Cancún", disse a principal autoridade da ONU para mudanças climáticas. "Eu acho que principalmente os países em desenvolvimento vão querer ver o que um acordo exigiria deles antes de fazê-lo ter força de lei."
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Christiana Figueres será a nova chefe da UNFCCCNo mês passado, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, nomeou a costa-riquenha Christiana Figueres para substituir De Boer a partir de 1º de julho de 2010. Analistas avaliam que ela enfatizará o desenvolvimento de tecnologias verdes em detrimento de metas obrigatórias de cortes na emissão de gases.
O encontro de Bonn tem como objetivo destravar os impasses existentes. O chamado Acordo de Copenhague estabelece uma meta voluntária de limitar o aquecimento em 2 graus Celsius. Ele foi acertado por cerca de vinte líderes mundiais, nas horas finais do encontro.
Para mostrar que o acordo tem credibilidade – e trazer de volta a confiança no projeto como um todo – os países em desenvolvimento estão agora cobrando dos industrializados que cumpram suas promessas de apoio financeiro.
Crise econômica é um empecilho
No Acordo de Copenhague, a União Europeia, os Estados Unidos, o Japão e outros países ricos ofereceram cerca de 30 bilhões de euros de ajuda para o período de 2010 a 2012, valor que subiria para 100 bilhões de dólares anuais até 2020.
Com a crise financeira na zona do euro, a União Europeia está revendo sua meta inicial de cortar unilateralmente em 30% sua emissão de gás carbônico até 2020 – em relação ao índice de 1990. A meta seria uma forma de estimular atitudes semelhantes nos países em desenvolvimento.
Connie Hedegaard, comissária da UE para mudanças climáticas, disse na semana passada que "claramente não há condições" de se atingir esta meta. Anteriormente, a UE tinha proposto mudar sua meta de 20% para 30% se outros países a acompanhassem como parte do novo acordo climático. Um estudo apresentado pela comissária estima que isso custaria 81 bilhões de euros.
"É claro que agora não é uma hora fácil para se discutir dinheiro que sai dos cofres públicos", disse Hedegaard.
França e Alemanha – as duas maiores economias da UE – pediram a outros membros da União Europeia que tratem este assunto com muito cuidado.
Tudo tem sua hora
Grupos ambientalistas, como o WWF, vêm tentando movimentar as conversações emperradas.
"Copenhague fracassou em produzir o acordo de que o mundo precisa, mas alcançou importantes progressos em alguns aspectos", disse Regine Guenther, responsável por política climática do WWF. As negociações de Bonn deveriam focar estes pontos, disse Guenther, e concluí-los na próxima conferência do clima no México.
De acordo com o WWF, os delegados em Bonn poderiam resolver questões como finanças, desmatamento e transferência de tecnologia até Cancún e deixar para acertar um tratado global em 2011 na África do Sul.
"O progresso nestas áreas mostraria que a comunidade internacional continua trabalhando com seriedade em prol do novo acordo. O primeiro compromisso do Protocolo de Kyoto vence em 2012. Na África do Sul, no máximo, tem de ser definida a sequência do acordo", acrescentou Guenther.
TM/rtr/afp/dpa
Revisão: Alexandre Schossler
Começou nesta segunda-feira (31/05) e vai até o dia 11 de junho uma nova rodada de negociações das Nações Unidas sobre o combate às mudanças climáticas, na cidade de Bonn, na Alemanha. O evento, que conta com a presença de 185 países, é preparatório para o encontro de dezembro, em Cancún, no México. Mas a expectativa por um acordo amplo não é alta, depois do fracasso do encontro de Copenhague, seis meses atrás.
O principal objetivo das negociações conduzidas pela Convenção do Clima das Nações Unidas (UNFCCC) é chegar a um novo texto, para substituir o Protocolo de Kyoto, que vale só até 2012.
O holandês Yvo de Boer, chefe da UNFCCC, admitiu que é improvável que qualquer acordo seja assinado até o fim de 2011. De Boer encaminhou sua renúncia depois do fracasso da Conferência do Clima de Copenhague, que terminou em frustração geral, apenas com promessas vagas de corte nas emissões de gás carbônico.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Yvo de Boer diz não acreditar num acordo ainda este anoNa Dinamarca, líderes de 194 países deveriam ter acertado um acordo com força de lei para o período pós-2012. No entanto, tudo que eles conseguiram foi um compromisso de redução dos gases que causam o efeito estufa e uma promessa de ajuda aos países em desenvolvimento no combate às mudanças climáticas.
Negociação dura
No primeiro dia, o encontro de Bonn já deu um exemplo de quão difícil será agradar a todos os envolvidos. Venezuela, Cuba e Bolívia disseram que não poderiam iniciar negociações com base no novo texto por ele dar muita ênfase ao documento de Copenhague, por eles rejeitado.
Já os Estados Unidos alegaram que o novo texto não teria sido feito para servir de base para as negociações. A África do Sul reclamou que ele exige demais dos países em desenvolvimento.
Numa entrevista coletiva em Bonn, De Boer não se mostrou nada otimista em relação às possibilidades de se chegar a um consenso até o fim do ano.
"É extremamente improvável que tenhamos um acordo com força de lei em Cancún", disse a principal autoridade da ONU para mudanças climáticas. "Eu acho que principalmente os países em desenvolvimento vão querer ver o que um acordo exigiria deles antes de fazê-lo ter força de lei."
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Christiana Figueres será a nova chefe da UNFCCCNo mês passado, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, nomeou a costa-riquenha Christiana Figueres para substituir De Boer a partir de 1º de julho de 2010. Analistas avaliam que ela enfatizará o desenvolvimento de tecnologias verdes em detrimento de metas obrigatórias de cortes na emissão de gases.
O encontro de Bonn tem como objetivo destravar os impasses existentes. O chamado Acordo de Copenhague estabelece uma meta voluntária de limitar o aquecimento em 2 graus Celsius. Ele foi acertado por cerca de vinte líderes mundiais, nas horas finais do encontro.
Para mostrar que o acordo tem credibilidade – e trazer de volta a confiança no projeto como um todo – os países em desenvolvimento estão agora cobrando dos industrializados que cumpram suas promessas de apoio financeiro.
Crise econômica é um empecilho
No Acordo de Copenhague, a União Europeia, os Estados Unidos, o Japão e outros países ricos ofereceram cerca de 30 bilhões de euros de ajuda para o período de 2010 a 2012, valor que subiria para 100 bilhões de dólares anuais até 2020.
Com a crise financeira na zona do euro, a União Europeia está revendo sua meta inicial de cortar unilateralmente em 30% sua emissão de gás carbônico até 2020 – em relação ao índice de 1990. A meta seria uma forma de estimular atitudes semelhantes nos países em desenvolvimento.
Connie Hedegaard, comissária da UE para mudanças climáticas, disse na semana passada que "claramente não há condições" de se atingir esta meta. Anteriormente, a UE tinha proposto mudar sua meta de 20% para 30% se outros países a acompanhassem como parte do novo acordo climático. Um estudo apresentado pela comissária estima que isso custaria 81 bilhões de euros.
"É claro que agora não é uma hora fácil para se discutir dinheiro que sai dos cofres públicos", disse Hedegaard.
França e Alemanha – as duas maiores economias da UE – pediram a outros membros da União Europeia que tratem este assunto com muito cuidado.
Tudo tem sua hora
Grupos ambientalistas, como o WWF, vêm tentando movimentar as conversações emperradas.
"Copenhague fracassou em produzir o acordo de que o mundo precisa, mas alcançou importantes progressos em alguns aspectos", disse Regine Guenther, responsável por política climática do WWF. As negociações de Bonn deveriam focar estes pontos, disse Guenther, e concluí-los na próxima conferência do clima no México.
De acordo com o WWF, os delegados em Bonn poderiam resolver questões como finanças, desmatamento e transferência de tecnologia até Cancún e deixar para acertar um tratado global em 2011 na África do Sul.
"O progresso nestas áreas mostraria que a comunidade internacional continua trabalhando com seriedade em prol do novo acordo. O primeiro compromisso do Protocolo de Kyoto vence em 2012. Na África do Sul, no máximo, tem de ser definida a sequência do acordo", acrescentou Guenther.
TM/rtr/afp/dpa
Revisão: Alexandre Schossler
Carbon Markets : The wrong sort of recycling /// The Economist
Marcadores:
cdm,
climate summit;greenhouse gases;Kyoto Protocol,
hungarian CERs
Mar 25th 2010
From The Economist print edition
THE point of carbon markets is to put an efficient price on the right to emit carbon dioxide. Recent events in Hungary show how tricky it is to achieve that goal. At issue is the sale by Hungary’s Ministry of Environment and Water of 800,000 certified emission-reduction credits (CERs). CERs are generated by the Kyoto protocol’s “Clean Development Mechanism”, whereby reductions in greenhouse gases in developing countries can produce a carbon credit for use in industrialised markets. The problem with the sale was that Hungarian firms had already used the CERs to offset their own emissions.
Used credits are worthless on European carbon exchanges. The European Union argues that one credit must equal one tonne of carbon dioxide for its Emissions Trading Scheme, the largest emissions market, to be effective. Since the whole point of the credits is to cut carbon, double-counting them makes a mockery of the system.
But the rules of carbon trading are slacker elsewhere. Hungarian officials say the credits were ultimately destined for a buyer in Japan. Japanese firms can use the credits to prepare for their country’s own looming emissions-trading scheme, and the Japanese government can use them to meet its Kyoto commitments. “In Japan’s view, so long as some environmental benefit has occurred, then the CERs have a value,” says Yuichi Takayama, the boss of Tokio Marine Asset Management.
The trouble arose when these used CERs found their way back—how is unclear—on to BlueNext, an exchange based in Paris. (By that time they were out of the hands of the Hungarian ministry, so technically the country did not break any rules.) Once the European Commission realised what had happened, all hell broke loose. BlueNext temporarily suspended trading on March 17th. That sent the spot price for CERs into free fall. Though trading has since resumed and the price has bounced back to around €11 ($15) per tonne, Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, says there are signs that investor confidence has been hit.
In particular, there has been a “flip in the curve” of CER prices. Normally, longer-dated futures contracts are more expensive than shorter-term ones. That pattern has reversed since the Hungarian debacle (see chart), with the price of a CER expiring in December 2012 being priced lower than one running out this year. “This tells us investors anticipate this won’t be last time we see recycled CERs hitting the market,” says Mr Karmali. Indeed, Hungary has said it intends to sell more recycled credits but will put more stringent rules in place to ensure they do not wash up in Europe.
The incident adds to the difficulties of finding a successor to Kyoto, which expires in 2012. Its architects believed making the various flavours of carbon credit fungible was the best way to make the system work. Closing the loophole on double-counting could put off new entrants. Keeping it open would be even worse. Flooding exchanges with recycled CERs that do not yield any additional project finance in poor countries would not be doing the market any favours. “The environmental industry has a spectacular knack for scoring own goals,” says Gavin Tait of Croft Consulting.
Read the comments (18) regarding this article here
Kyoto carbon offset (CER) issuances picking up /// Reuters
By Michael Szabo
LONDON (Reuters) - The UN shaved its forecast for 2012 Kyoto Protocol carbon offsets this week, despite a rise in the number issued by its climate change secretariat last month.The UN issued 13.3 million offsets in February, the most seen since last November, but cut the number it expects to hand out before the current Kyoto treaty expires in 2012 to 1.035 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Under Kyoto, efforts to cut greenhouse gases can be outsourced to emerging countries through investment in clean energy projects that have been registered under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme. Investors receive offsets in return, called Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), which can be used toward emissions reduction goals or sold for profit.
The first two months of 2010 yielded 21.9 million CERs, and with another 3.5 million issued by the UN so far this week, Q1-2010 could be on track to see over 33 million CERs, according to Reuters calculations.
This compares to 31.8 million issued in Q1-2009.
Regardless, the UN forecast a lower CER supply by 2012.
"Due to the medium issuance in February our projection for the amount of CERs projected to be available by the end of 2012 decreased from 1,051 million CERs to 1,035 million CERs," said the UNEP Risoe Center.
That number could drop even further if long bureaucratic delays return to the CDM or if the scheme's executive panel announces more CDM auditor suspensions. Several emissions auditors were suspended last year after the CDM's executive board spotted "non-conformities" in their practices.
Analysts said the repercussions from this, most likely a dent in issuance rates, have yet to be fully felt by the market.
These supply issues have caused the futures curve to become backwardated with spot CERs trading some 25 cents above Dec-10 futures and around 40 cents over the Dec-11's.
Spot CER prices were down over 2 percent to 12.14 euros on Thursday afternoon as lower energy prices weighed.
Average wholesale, or primary market prices for issued CERs was around 9 euros as of last Friday, according to IDEAcarbon, implying a profit margin of over 3 euros when compared to secondary spot market rates.
The CDM's executive is consulting stakeholders on proposals to streamline the registration and issuance processes, and will review all comments at its next meeting from March 22-26.
INDUSTRIAL GAS
The share of industrial gas CERs, those generated by CDM projects that capture potent greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O), fell for a third straight month in February as more renewable energy and energy efficiency projects received CERs, UN data showed.
Industrial gas CERs now make up 75.1 percent of all issued CERs, down from 76.6 percent in November.
Although there are now 81 registered HFC or N2O projects, three quarters of all industrial gas CERs come from 10 large projects in China, India, South Korea and Brazil.
New industrial gas projects, once called "low-hanging fruit" because they were easy to implement and provided the greatest return on investment, are all but scarce now with only a handful currently awaiting validation.
(Editing by James Jukwey)
Obama, world leaders in last-minute climate talks
nenhum sinal de acordo naquileo que se refere ao estabelecimento de metas realistas de reduções de GEE, seja por parte dos Paises desenvolvidos, seja por parte dos em desenvolvimento.
Presidente Lula e Obama acabaram de discursar, ambos em direções opostas. Lula se posiciona dizendo que o Brasil não deve assumir metas obrigatórias,mas sim um compromisso. Obama, diz que os EUA entendem que os países em desenvovimento devem assumir tais metas e que sejam agressivas e obrigatórias. Eis ponto de inflexão.
Leia o artigo:
""It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.
World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document".
The UN climate talks were in serious disarray Friday, prompting President Barack Obama to upend his schedule and hold close-door talks with 19 other world leaders to work out a last-minute agreement on fighting global warming.
Associated Press
18/12/2009 12:25
Delegates earlier blamed both the US and China for the lack of a political agreement that Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and more than 110 other world leaders are supposed to sign within hours.
But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after the unscheduled meeting with Obama and the other leaders, said progress in the climate talks was being held back by China.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the US president met with world leaders from China and Russia, both seen as key participants in the climate talks, as well as the heads of state from wealthy nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany and those from developing countries like Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Colombia.
"Most of the leaders are still working out to produce a meaningful agreement to be adopted," Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kazuo Kodama said.
The lack of a deal caused leaders to throw out the planned timetable for the final day of the two-week UN climate conference, with their informal talks delaying the opening of the regular session.
Broad disputes continued behind closed doors between wealthy nations and developing ones, delegates said — the divide that from the start has dogged the two-week UN climate conference, which aimed to reach agreements on deeper reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
No agreed text had emerged as presidents and premiers were gathering at a Copenhagen convention hall, said Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren.
"It is now up to world leaders to decide," he said, suggesting they would be pressed to make last-minute decisions on the thrust of the climate declaration.
Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the morning's impasse on the Chinese for "blocking again and again," and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer, a long-range climate aid program announced Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A leading African delegate, meanwhile, complained bitterly about the proposed declaration. "It's weak. There's nothing ambitious in this text," Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, a leader of the developing nations bloc, said Friday.
Delegates filtering out of the predawn discussions Friday sounded disappointed.
"It's a political statement, but it isn't a lot," said Chinese delegate Li Junhua.
"It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.
World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document.
Presidente Lula e Obama acabaram de discursar, ambos em direções opostas. Lula se posiciona dizendo que o Brasil não deve assumir metas obrigatórias,mas sim um compromisso. Obama, diz que os EUA entendem que os países em desenvovimento devem assumir tais metas e que sejam agressivas e obrigatórias. Eis ponto de inflexão.
Leia o artigo:
""It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.
World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document".
The UN climate talks were in serious disarray Friday, prompting President Barack Obama to upend his schedule and hold close-door talks with 19 other world leaders to work out a last-minute agreement on fighting global warming.
Associated Press
18/12/2009 12:25
Delegates earlier blamed both the US and China for the lack of a political agreement that Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and more than 110 other world leaders are supposed to sign within hours.
But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after the unscheduled meeting with Obama and the other leaders, said progress in the climate talks was being held back by China.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the US president met with world leaders from China and Russia, both seen as key participants in the climate talks, as well as the heads of state from wealthy nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany and those from developing countries like Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Colombia.
"Most of the leaders are still working out to produce a meaningful agreement to be adopted," Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kazuo Kodama said.
The lack of a deal caused leaders to throw out the planned timetable for the final day of the two-week UN climate conference, with their informal talks delaying the opening of the regular session.
Broad disputes continued behind closed doors between wealthy nations and developing ones, delegates said — the divide that from the start has dogged the two-week UN climate conference, which aimed to reach agreements on deeper reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
No agreed text had emerged as presidents and premiers were gathering at a Copenhagen convention hall, said Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren.
"It is now up to world leaders to decide," he said, suggesting they would be pressed to make last-minute decisions on the thrust of the climate declaration.
Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the morning's impasse on the Chinese for "blocking again and again," and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer, a long-range climate aid program announced Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A leading African delegate, meanwhile, complained bitterly about the proposed declaration. "It's weak. There's nothing ambitious in this text," Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, a leader of the developing nations bloc, said Friday.
Delegates filtering out of the predawn discussions Friday sounded disappointed.
"It's a political statement, but it isn't a lot," said Chinese delegate Li Junhua.
"It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.
World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document.
Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag/// The NY Times
By JOHN M. BRODERWASHINGTON — If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
So what is all this going to cost?
The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.
As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.
“People often ask about the costs,” said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. “But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”
Whatever global warming’s effects — and most scientific projections are less dire — there are also varying estimates of the economic costs of failing to act to address the problem soon, some of them very high.
In Copenhagen, some of the most intense and difficult discussions for negotiators center on any potential agreement’s near-term financial arrangements. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialized world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing climate.
Many poor nations are insisting that wealthier nations make deeper cuts in their emissions and contribute more money to help the poorer countries, a split that widened in Copenhagen on Tuesday as competing documents of a potential agreement circulated.
Over time, some of the hundreds of billions of dollars the poorer countries are demanding will begin to flow, as global carbon markets become established and governments in rich countries begin to open the spigot of public spending.
But in the meantime, the industrialized countries have proposed a relatively modest fund of about $10 billion a year for each of the next three or four years to help poorer countries adapt. Even that effort remains the subject of conflict over which countries should contribute how much, what body should oversee the spending and how to determine which projects qualify for finance.
President Obama’s spokesman said last week that the president supported a short-term fund to aid developing nations and that the United States would pay “its fair share.” In many multilateral efforts, the United States picks up a quarter to a third of the tab.
“Providing this assistance,” the White House statement said, “is not only a humanitarian imperative — it’s an investment in our common security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help all countries reduce their emissions.”
The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions. Other funds might be used to adjust to effects of a changing climate, like rising sea levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher ground.
Mr. Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 18 to attend the final day of the meeting, a sign that the White House believes that a far-reaching accord, including deals on some of the sticky financial issues, is possible.
“This is the question that is being posed in Copenhagen,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. “How much money do the developed countries have to put on the table to bring developing countries into the conversation?”
Mr. Stavins said that the bulk of the money would have to come from private investment because, he said, it was “inconceivable” that the governments of the wealthy countries would come up with adequate financing and also because private entities spent money much more efficiently.
The climate and energy legislation passed by the House in June sets aside roughly $8 billion a year for assistance to developing countries by 2030, Mr. Stavins said. That figure, he suggested, represents the upper limit of public financial support from the United States.
The perspective from the developing world is, not surprisingly, somewhat different.
Álvaro Umaña Quesada, the leader of Costa Rica’s climate delegation, said that it was important to the developing world to have early resources and a predictable flow of long-term financing. He said that the $10 billion in so-called quick start financing that was now on the table was adequate but that such spending had to rise to roughly $80 billion and as much as $150 billion a year by 2020.
“That is not very much compared to the size of the world economy or the financial crisis bailouts,” he said. “There are great needs for adaptation, where the small island nations are really at risk. Some of them are one severe weather event away from disappearing.”
The European Union has endorsed a fund of that size; the United States remains noncommittal. The Obama administration has asked for $1.2 billion in climate-related financing in the 2010 budget, far below the needs being discussed at Copenhagen. But administration officials said they would seek more money for international climate programs in future years.
Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the financing needs of any climate change agreement comes from Project Catalyst, an initiative of the European Union and ClimateWorks, a foundation-supported policy group based in San Francisco. The group’s work has helped shape the negotiations in Copenhagen.
The group estimates that roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020 to finance climate-change programs in the developing world. About half could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits under a cap-and-trade system, which would be worth an estimated $2 trillion a year by 2020.
A cap-and-trade system is already operating in Europe and is under consideration by Congress. Such a system sets a ceiling on the carbon emissions of a given country or industry and allows trading of pollution permits within the cap. As the overall limit on emissions grows tighter, the price of pollution permits rises, creating a sizable market in carbon credits.
Countries would grant some of the carbon market allowances directly to energy and environmental programs in the developing world, with other funds coming from a relatively small fee on each transaction.
An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialized nations to poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the United States, the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia.
“The good news is that everybody now is supporting our proposal for financing,” said Dr. Umaña, the Costa Rican delegate. “The bad news is that it’s happening 15 years too late. Without real money on the table, this will be a disaster.”
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents. Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty ImagesThe UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.
"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."
Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.
Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.
Pessimism on climate deal hangs over carbon market
Marcadores:
climate summit;greenhouse gases;Kyoto Protocol
* Climate deal uncertainty clouds investment decisions
* If no binding deal struck, will harm investments
By Nina Chestney
LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The uncertain outcome of December's climate summit in Copenhagen is hanging over the carbon market, denting confidence in the future of emissions trading, market participants said at a conference on Tuesday.
World leaders are working to meet a December deadline to replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and slowing global warming. (...)
Full article here.
* If no binding deal struck, will harm investments
By Nina Chestney
LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The uncertain outcome of December's climate summit in Copenhagen is hanging over the carbon market, denting confidence in the future of emissions trading, market participants said at a conference on Tuesday.
World leaders are working to meet a December deadline to replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and slowing global warming. (...)
Full article here.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Informação & Conhecimento