Doha 2012: What’s new?

Comments Off on Doha 2012: What’s new? / 15 Dec 2012 por Stephanie Barrial
IMSD /

EE: F1N4NC1NG CL1M47E CH4NGE

 

Even though we live in a world ruled by the economy and the market, it is difficult to set a numerical value to natural resources and the impact of human activities on our planet, mainly because they are unprecedented resources to humanity that have a socio-cultural value and are often life-essential.

How ever, environmental degradation and excessive consumption of recourses are a reality that must be addressed in one way or another and therefore “there is a need to advance the understanding of the options used to raise new sources of international climate finance and to engage policymakers and stakeholders to make the case for scaling up predictable finance. There is also need to increase national debates on how to operationalize innovative sources of climate finance.”

This idea provided by the Report on the workshops of the work programme on long-term finance on the 18^th COP session of UNFCCC, definitely leads me to reflect about, how is the issue of financing climate change currently faced worldwide?

It is known that many sources of funding both private and public are now being applied, among which are: policy incentives and agreements, risk management, carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, loans and other voluntary systems. Even though billionaire quantities have been raised up, neither money nor programs have been sufficiently effective to face the increasing green house gases (GHG) emissions, excessive consumption of resources, the destruction of natural environments and the social consequences.

According to the Emission Gap Report 2012, the total amount of GHG emissions have risen from 40 Gt in the year 2000 to 50.1 Gt in 2010 and could go up to 58 Gt by 2020. “The report estimates that there are potentially large emissions reductions possible—in a mid-range of 17 Gt of CO2 equivalents—from sectors such as buildings, power generation and transport that can more than bridge the gap by 2020.”

It is possible to foresee then that the shift to a future more respectful with the environment that ensures the viability of not only economic activities but of natural and human life, is possible.

 

Next steps?

After concluding its 18th sessions the Conference of the Parties decided “to extend  the work program on long-term finance for one year to the end of 2013, with the aim of informing developed country Parties in their efforts to identify pathways for mobilizing the scaling up of climate finance to USD $100 billion per year by 2020 from public, private and altemative sources in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and informing Parties in enhancing their enabling environments and policy frameworks to facilitate the mobilization and effective deployment of climate finance in developing countries”

In theory the approach is positive as it increases the monetary targets in fundraising, as well as extending the program for another year at least, and for the involvement of private-public sector and alternative sources in order to reach “meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation”.

However when analyzing the global context in which hundreds of laws and rules are being adopted, implementation appears a real challenge in the way to achieve mitigation and significant changes that are not yet a reality. We are facing legal systems that vary from country to country and often involve major barrier to the implementation of programs.

It seems to me that governments worldwide should include or reinforce the in their agendas the issue of the environment and in particular climate change, in order to make it a priority. However, as it is a problem extensive to business and society it’s necessary to adopt measures to enable the monetary contribution of all actors.

The debate, beyond the conclusions on meetings like DOHA 2012, must be grounded in each country in order to find the most innovative solutions adapted to their legislation and culture.

 

Comments Off on EE: F1N4NC1NG CL1M47E CH4NGE / 12 Dec 2012 por Monica Ducoing
IMSD /

EE. COP18.-“I will only do it if you do it”: Climate crisis as a result of the human values crisis

Our world is facing a crisis right now. This is something we all see everyday when reading newspapers, listening to the news, or just by talking to others. It is quite easy to recognize the economic side of it, but sometimes we don´t focus in the causes: the lack of values. During the past decades, values, morality and ethics have been degraded to the minimum. We have created a world based in individual goals, and that is one of the reasons why facing global problems is now so difficult: we are just not used to do it.

The history of global cooperation is not really old. The most important international institutions were created after the II World War, and considering that human history is 2012 years old (without considering pre historic times), that seems like yesterday if we put it in perspective. We, as humans, would need much time to improve the way to work together for common goals. I really believe that we are improving fast, and that we are getting closer and closer everyday to a global consciousness, but the latest surveys on climate change show that we don´t have all the time we could need. We need to act now, but, how can we do it if we don´t have the tools? How can we meet global goals if we focus in individual objectives? Are we “trained” to work together? The results of the Doha Conference for Climate Change have shown that, even if we have improved a little during the past decades, we are very far from it.

I like to be optimistic and focus on the positive things, so I want to start with the positive results: there has been an agreement about prolonging Kioto protocol until 2020. This is a good sign, it means that at least the last agreements have not been broken. I know it is not enough, but considering how sometimes our representatives work, I was ready to listen that after this conference, the Kioto protocol could become a tale that I would tell to my grandchildren in the future: “Once upon a time, there was a moment when countries got together for a global goal…” Fortunately, there is still some hope. Weak, tiny, small, not enough… but it is still there.

And now, letting behind the tiny good news, a dose of reality: nobody seems to be happy with the result, I am not happy, and probably all those who care about environment and sustainability are not happy as well. Why? We can say that the objectives that this new agreement will meet have been already met; Co2 emissions will keep growing; the countries that are responsible for most of the emissions don´t want to assume it; the childish idea of “if you don´t compromise I won´t do it either” has win, and the gap between the so called developed countries and the developing countries has become bigger… But the saddest side of this story are the reasons behind. The lack of values.

The countries that signed are those that HAVE to do it because they are obliged by law to reduce their emissions. The countries that have left are those that don´t want to lower their emissions or have them controlled and monitored by an external actor. And the countries that have not joined have said very clear that the other countries, those who are now proud of seeing their names in the list of the 37 Doha signers, are not sharing their clean technologies with them, making the challenge very difficult for developing countries, and creating  a very good business for the “clean countries”

The reasons behind the Doha agreements and rejections are hard to look at: legislation, individual goals and royalties. They keep showing that humans are not yet ready to work together for global goals and that economic rules are still on top of everything.

Will one day values win the battle against the dollar sign? Will we as humans find the way to work together? I want to think that we will. I want to think that this Climate Conference was just another step in the process of finding solutions. I want to think that the bitter taste that Doha has put in our mouths will help us, and our representatives, to reconsider what is important and put life before money. I just hope we have enough time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on EE. COP18.-“I will only do it if you do it”: Climate crisis as a result of the human values crisis / 12 Dec 2012 por Paloma Andres Urrutia
IMSD /

COP18 at Doha: Weak Deals or High Expectations?

The annual conference on Climate Change held in Doha, Qatar has ended after two weeks of intensive talks involving delegations from 194 countries.  Year after year the conferences has further expectations, Climate Change is no longer a secondary issue, now is at the top.

The feeling that leaves the conference is that there is still much to do, so we have much to talk until the next meeting that is going to be held in late 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, for all this, the purpose of this post will be to highlight two topics from the conference the Kyoto Protocol and the Funding efforts.

Initially one of the hot topics of the conference agenda, was the Kyoto Protocol, which has a termination date to December 31, to promote their life of the protocol, also to support their values alive, it has agreed on an extension until 2020, also they agreed to revise in 2014 to discuss the new ideas that could be included in the future.

This decision has a hue very controversial, in one hand we have the protocol as a mechanism to support the Green Household Gases reduction, as one of the key issues for Climate Change management, in the other hand we have a lower support, nations as Canada and Japan have chosen not take part, and cases such as India and China looking in a different perspective, and defending their agendas, based on high industrial development, with large amounts of emissions of Green Household Gases. Meanwhile, we still are waiting for the United States; yes, we still are waiting for them! Hopefully they will jump into scene soon, and breaks their indifference stance about to the protocol.

The picture that we have now, is far away as it was expected, and the expectation that was generated around greater efforts to join new agreements that strengthen the protocol was tremendous, which is why we say that the protocol extension is not enough, and we must wait another year to see if we can reverse the “negative trend” that is taking the Kyoto Protocol, the main reason to say this, is that the largest emitters of greenhouse gases must be protagonists in the changes, and at this time they are not doing the “sacrifice” needed to make the improvements that we the world are expecting.

The other aspect I want to highlight, and it was spoken at length during the conference, related to Funding Efforts related to Climate Change, countries like UK, France, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland have pledged to give € 7 billion for the next two years, a goal that has been set is to get at least € 100 billion in 2020 to leverage the efforts being made to combat Climate Change.

When we look at the efforts being made for the financing of Climate Change, I reflect and wonder, these efforts will be enough? Give money to the study of Climate Change will solve the problem we have?

That is why from my perception I daresay financing efforts fall short in terms of money, when you consider the size of what we are dealing, what we are leaving to future generations, and if we that perhaps the money if you can leverage development of short-term solutions and long-term, but we do if the major emitters of greenhouse gases turns away?

The Conflict of interest we fear now is that some countries see as their own interests and they do not want to sacrifice themselves; they are more oriented to the school of economic growth without considering the effects that this has on our home.

That is why I now say to them  ”You must lead by example“, this condition has a mandatory character and is not negotiable, if we want to be sustainable we must completely change the current model, we must take the last step to a global regulation, where generate greater control over the environmental impact.

Finally say, these conferences are held since 1995, so we have a long road, but the feeling in the end we have is that the clock is ticking and the ongoing efforts must be intensified, because at the end, we will always have a good reason to change.

The future…

 

Comments Off on COP18 at Doha: Weak Deals or High Expectations? / 11 Dec 2012 por Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual
IMSD /

Environmental Economics: Doha 2012 – Pigouvians and Coasians in Action

Organizers might be celebrating but the insignificant results of Doha’s Climate Change Conference (COP18) were extremely disappointing. A weak text, with shy objectives and without financial commitments summarizes the meetings’ results. As a consequence, the only positive outcome I could obtain was a personal one: I could see Pigouvians and Coasians in action. For those who have not attended Environmental Economics classes, I will try to give a very simplified explanation…

According to the ‘Pigouvian Tradition’, the market does not include social costs or profits (so-called externalities) in prices. As a result, the proposal to deal with environmental problems involves governmental intervention through the establishment of taxes which will rectify this ‘market failure’.

The ‘Coase Theorem’, on the other hand, states that the market can self-regulate and deal with externalities by itself. Consequently, in order to deal with environmental problems governments should not directly intervene in the market, but just determine rules and framework then the market will regulate itself. An example of framework and rules is the cap and trade system.

Back to Doha, ‘Pigouvians’ were represented by the ICC which organized a debate on environmental taxation. Participants provided governments with the following recommendations:

• Simplicity and cost effectiveness should be primary objectives.
• Prices imposed for environmental externalities should be economy-wide, covering all relevant sectors.
• Potential social implications of environmental taxation should be addressed through integrated policy approaches.
• In pricing externalities, there should be no overlap of different mechanisms pricing the same externality.
• New taxes, and changes to existing taxes, must be introduced with sufficient lead-in times to avoid disruption to investment plans.
• Establish stable and predictable tax laws that provide business with a foundation to design long-term economically and environmentally effective strategies.
• Ensure a predictable price for externalities and revenue neutrality.
• Assure that provisions for treatment of import and exports are consistent with existing trade agreements.
• Ensure flexibility to adjust to future developments in environmental sciences as well as evaluate the economic impacts of environmental policies over the longer term.

‘Coasians’ were represented by a group of investor’s organizations (IIGCC, IGCC, AIGCC) and UNEPFI on behalf of global institutional investors responsible for over $22.5 trillion in assets. This group signed a letter to the governments of the world’s largest economies in which they suggest that climate change and clean energy policy should:

• Include clear short term (2015), medium term (2020–2025) and long-term (2030–2050) greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives and targets, and comprehensive, enforceable legal mechanisms and timelines for delivering on these objectives and targets.
• Provide incentives to shift the risk reward balance in favour of low carbon investment.
• Encourage large-scale investments in low-carbon solutions, recognizing that scale is critical to making low-carbon investment opportunities more cost-effective than high-carbon opportunities.
• Be of appropriate duration, evolve in a predictable way and ensure the timeframe over which incentives will be reduced is transparent. Public policy needs to align with investment life-cycles, often a decade or more.
• Harness the power of markets to find the least costly ways to reduce emissions.
• Align with wider policy goals including economic, energy, resources and transport policy objectives.

In the aftermath of Doha 2012, I can only think that maybe it was missing the Ecological Approach…

Comments Off on Environmental Economics: Doha 2012 – Pigouvians and Coasians in Action / 09 Dec 2012 por Andrea Mara Hanai
IMSD /

Positive outlook for Qatar (Environmental Econ: Doha)

A the 2012 Doha conference on climate change, topics of discussion were centered around lowering GHG emissions, adaptation, and the urgency that is needed to significantly decelerate the effects of climate change. The use of clean technologies and green development were at the forefront of discussion, acknowledging that short-term action must be taken to ensure a more sustainable future. Specific attention was given to Qatar and its need to address present and soon to be present issues regarding preservation of land, resources, and establishment of new mechanisms to establish greater independence with regard to food production and technologies to provide clean water through renewable resources.

As Qatar’s ecological environment is primarily desert, there are significant concerns surrounding sustainability of their water and food supplies. Currently, they are dependent on importation of more than 50% of their food supply. With out the ability to produce a significant portion of their food domestically, they will not be able to sustain life as is. As climate change is threatening various aspects of life in Qatar, it is imperative that issues such as domestic crop cultivation, use of renewable resources to process and provide fresh water, and land preservation, are addressed. In other words, environmental development is key.

In order to confront and adapt to climate change, Qatar must seek out resources that can provide long-term prosperity with regard to access to fresh water, food supply, and land/wild life preservation. Qatar is completely dependent on desalination of sea water as a source of fresh water. As climate change is and will continue to impact sea levels, Qatar must employ practices to adapt. In order to confront these inevitable changes, the Qatar National Food Security Program has established goals to utilize new technologies and water management practices that will allow them to grow a significant amount of their own food. They will also seek to reclaim land to preserve and utilize it efficiently with regard to food and the establishment of renewable technologies.

Currently, 22% of Qatar’s land has been established as “protected”. This ensures that any development on these designated areas must be done according to “green building codes” and is strictly enforced. These areas include those that are wildlife habitats, breeding grounds, and coastal environments. With regard to the use of renewable energies, Qatar will put in place desalination and air quality management systems that are powered by solar energy. By using solar energy to power these systems, Qatar is able to decrease their amount of green house gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to energy independence and sustainable energy use in the long-term. With the intent to reduce the emission of GHG’s and convert those GHG’s that are emitted into useful energy, Qatar is minimizing gas flarings that are common at drilling sites and utilizing techniques such as Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) to convert carbon for energy use. Qatar has devoted a substantial amount of funding to utilize CCS which has contributed to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions and has the ability to provide a significant amount of energy globally.

While nations such as Qatar are making headway in the employment of renewable technologies, GHG emission reduction, and energy independence, we, as a global community, have a long way to go. It is imperative that all nations understand the impact that our practices are having on the global community and that with out action, we will continue to contribute to the certain demise of planet earth. It is the acknowledgement of this truth that has and will allow us to take action and contribute to a sustainable future.

 

Source: “By Thinking Green, Qatar is finding ways to make progress in a sensitive way” DOHA 2012 UN Climate Change Conference. http://www.cop18.qa/en-us/aboutqatar/environment.aspx

Comments Off on Positive outlook for Qatar (Environmental Econ: Doha) / 09 Dec 2012 por Cianna Walker Carrillo
IMSD /

Amongst the despair, are there any signs of hope? Doha 2012?

Blog post for the subject Environmental Economics and Accounting

The “new normal” is how the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the recent extreme weather events that have occurred around our planet, such as Hurricane Sandy in New York and Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines. Hurricane Sandy caused an estimated $71 billion in damage. Typhoon Bopha killed over 900 people.

And now…there are also countless alarming articles in the media reporting that climate change is actually happening faster than previously predicted, and at the current rate of climate change, we can expect increasing levels of environmental devastation, mass extinctions, and more frequent extreme weather disasters like Sandy and Bopha.

I have included the below links as examples of such articles:

“CO2 emissions rises mean dangerous climate change now almost certain”

“Six degrees of devastation”

“Global warming evidence strengthens, UN official says”

“Climate change ‘taking place before our eyes’, global body say”

I don’t know about you, but reading these reports leaves me in a state of despair. This is especially true given the rapid pace of industrialization in nearly every corner of the globe, the current economic recession in the developed countries, and the almost unstoppable growth of countries like China, India and Brazil.

I believe climate change is the biggest challenge that humanity has ever faced – and if we are to rise to this challenge, we will undoubtedly require a global solution. This global solution that most of us are hoping for is currently in the hands of the world’s leaders who just finished talks at the U.N. climate change conference in Doha, Qatar. However, if you read most of the articles and reports in the media about the Doha conference, it is most likely that you will get the impression that it was just another round of diplomatic talks that didn’t really achieve much….

“U.N. talks seen falling short despite climate change fears”

“Doha climate talks end with a whimper”

“Doha climate talks head for failure on rich, poor divide”

“Green groups warn of Doha failure as aid pledges fall short”

“Climate change talks deadlocked on final day of UN summit”

….Meanwhile….we continue to see more and more articles in the news referring to ‘tipping points’, ‘short windows’ of time for action and previously unaccounted ‘positive feedback loops’…again, some more examples:

“UN: Methane released from melting ice could push climate past tipping point”

“Climate change ‘taking place before our eyes’, global body says”

“Sea levels rising faster than UN projections: study”

So, on one hand we have the science strengthening the urgency for action. While on the other hand, it seems we have the economics and international politics regarding climate change going around and around in circles – unable to find the money or the political will to develop an effective agreement. And it is in this sense, that climate change has been described as “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”. A market failure arising from the dominate global ideology of neoliberalism or market fundamentalism. Some may argue that the problem of climate change simply cannot be addressed until new political systems are formed that can restrain the “global grab” of power and natural resources by corporations and the elite.

However, assuming political systems and ideologies are unfortunately not going to change for the better anytime soon, was Doha just another turn in the circle of complacency or did Doha actually bring us any closer to setting the world on track for a possible way to combat climate change?

Instead of just focusing on the perceived lack of progress, I would like to identify if there were any positive points coming from Doha and if there are any signs of hope?

So let’s see…well, the leaders at Doha did manage to achieve a second commitment period of the existing Kyoto Protocol. While this may sound positive, the reality of the details is that the Kyoto Protocol only limits the emissions of some rich countries. Moreover, some countries like Russia opted out of this second period of the Protocol altogether because it was opposed to the rules in the Protocol which limited its use of carbon credits in the established trading scheme. What is most concerning about this second commitment though is that those rich countries who did sign on will still only represent 15 % of global emissions…

Other small achievements from Doha were mainly administrative in nature related to issues around climate accounting and finance. So from the bigger picture, international agreement point of view, Doha did not produce any overwhelmingly positive results, rather “Doha delivered just enough to keep the process moving”…

However, during my research for this blog, I did come across a few other signs of hope. Signs not directly from the discussions on agreements, but positive signs coming from small events within or around the Doha conference:

1. “Doha leads way in bringing gender equality to COP agenda” – one initiative that was achieved at Doha was the decision to promote gender equality by increasing the participation of women in the UNFCCC negotiations. This initiative recognizes that we cannot combat climate change without the contribution of women who make up half the global population’s intellect and capabilities.
2. “Qatar unveils low-emission hybrid SUV” – The unveiling of this new hybrid car which reduces emissions by 50% is symbolic that R&D and innovation will continue to produce new technologies that can help to mitigate climate change.
3. “Doha climate conference diary: Qatar’s first environmental march” – The activism demonstrated by this march was the first ever in Qatar and is symbolic of the increasing number of activists from the Arab countries which are now also calling on their leaders to combat climate change. Many of the activists in Doha wore t-shirts that said “Arabs Time to Lead”.

What these three small events ultimately represent is that, even though Doha 2012 may not have been an huge leap forward, more and more people around the world are taking climate change seriously. Therefore, people are starting to develop new approaches to climate change, both socially and technologically. It will nevertheless be a race against the clock for humanity if we are to avoid a planet 6 degrees hotter by 2100…

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on Amongst the despair, are there any signs of hope? Doha 2012? / 09 Dec 2012 por Daniel Salter
IMSD /

Doha 2012: All I want for Christmas is…a world to live on.

Dear COP 18,

I know that you have been terribly busy last week discussing the future of the world and what has to be done. Now, you are all on the way back home to your friends and families, relieved that the Kyoto Protocol has been prolonged until 2020.

Yes, it’s good that Kyoto has been extended because it is THE ONLY INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE TREATY we have that is obliging wealthy countries to lower their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Current evidence from science shows that what we need to drastically start reducing the human impact on the environment. As you all at the meeting know, it’s been estimated that temperature change has to remain below 2°C in order for the damage to be “manageable”.

But you seem to have decided that this can wait. Anyway, with how things are going right now, the International Energy Agency (IEA), World Bank and others have estimated the temperature change to be more closely around 4°C or even 6°C. So by postponing it until Warsaw 2013 and then hope by 2020 a treaty will appear seems pretty uncommitted. What about actual commitment to lower GHG emissions, because sadly, even with the Kyoto Protocol we are not seeing global reductions in emissions causing the Arctic to melt away and lands to dry up.

We asked you to turn off the heat; we needed you in Doha to finally make a commitment to our planet.

The newspapers around the world write that you are all relieved you managed to extend Kyoto until 2020. So  after Copenhagen  in 2009 you postponed it to 2012 in Doha. When you realised you could (again) not agree, you decided to hopefully have a treaty by 2015 that would enter into effect in 2020.

WHY?

At the risk of  preaching and sounding repetitive: The effects of climate change are visible all around the world and science tells us we have no time to waste. Why would you extend it for 8 more years WHEN YOU KNOW WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO WASTE? 8 years is much too long if we want commitment today.

We need a globally binding treaty NOW. Not in 2020. NOW. The Kyoto Protocol only considers about 40 countries, and 15% of all GHGs.

And one more thing: How does it make sense to have fossil fuel subsidies amounting to about $1 trillion globally per year, and at the same time agreeing on providing developing countries with $11.2 billion in aid for dealing with the effects of climate change??

Fossil fuels are being subsidised 5 times the price of climate change mitigation: According to Oil Change International, 21 wealthy countries spent $58.7 billion on subsidising fossil fuels, but will now help poor countries to combat climate change through “fast start” funding. If policy makers want us to believe they actually take the issue of global warming seriously and that these meetings achieve something tangible then the subsidising of fossil fuels has to stop. How can you pretend you’re fighting for our planet when helping the main culprits? To then believe these actions are acceptable since money will be paid to poor countries to deal with the effects is just ridiculous.

Ronald Jumeau from the Seychelles explains it well: “If we had had more ambition [on emissions cuts from rich countries], we would not have to ask for so much [money] for adaptation. If there had been more money for adaptation [to climate change], we would not be looking for money for loss and damage. What’s next? Loss of our islands?”

So what is next? Will you keep the promises you made in Doha? Will we have a binding agreement  at the end of 2015, to be implemented by 2020? Do we have time to wait until then?

As the loudspeakers in every shop keep reminding us this time of year:

“He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!”

Comments Off on Doha 2012: All I want for Christmas is…a world to live on. / 09 Dec 2012 por Julia Senninger
IMSD /

E.E: Doha, Qatar: COP18

In these past two weeks 194 delegates of 200 countries met in Doha, Qatar, for the Eighteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-18) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to further tackle the on going problem of carbon dioxide emissions. Although efforts to decrease these emissions have been in place for several years now, in 2011 global emission jumped 3% from the previous years and scientists are confirming that 2012 will likely bring similar results.  The world is reaching a point where if initiatives about this issue aren’t implemented soon, it will be harder to control when things exacerbate.

One central topic at the COP18 was energy efficiency and its importance to climate change mitigation as well as its potential to help the economy in other ways.  December 3^rd, Business Day at COP18, Phillips and Ecofys released an article on energy efficiency and its potential to reduce global energy bills, reduce capital investment in electricity generation in power plants, and create employment.  On that same day, the panel “Forging a Pathway” discussed the importance of changing the current mindset from economic growth and employment to the economics of Climate Change and the economics of Energy Efficiency, which undoubtedly would bring growth and employment. For instance, if energy efficiency is increased in general electricity by just 1-2 percent per year, it would be equivalent to the production of 2,500 to 5,000 medium-sized power plants, which would in turn reduce capital investment of $1250 to 2500 billion by 2030 and could create 6 million jobs.

A greener economy would undoubtedly create opportunities for new technology, investments and jobs.

 

Since the Kyoto Protocol did not work as efficiently as one had hoped and it is coming to an end at the end of this year, there are talks of creating a new international Climate Treaty for everyone to sign by 2015 and be implemented starting in 2020!

The problem with the Kyoto Protocol is that countries that emit high numbers of carbon dioxide did not sign or signed but did not ratify, so while it is planning on being reinstated for a second term, more countries need to join and really commit to reducing their GHG emissions. Hopefully this time they will look into everything more seriously and change can finally come out of this because we certainly do not have the luxury to wait and see what happens.  Until then, it may be a great idea for countries to revisit energy efficiency as a personal goal since much good can come out of it.

 

Although energy efficiency provides many challenges, it also provides sustainable smart solutions that could overall improve people’s lives!

 

Comments Off on E.E: Doha, Qatar: COP18 / 09 Dec 2012 por Micaela Rossetti
IMSD /

Doha 2012: Money Talks

As the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research indicates, the top 10 countries for GHG emissions in 2010 are China, United States, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, the Congo, Germany, and Canada. The evidence is clear: the list includes the world’s superpowers, the robust emerging economies attempting to enter into superpower markets, and some of the largest excavation and natural resource burning sites in use by superpower trade and demand. The combined GDP of these countries is upwards of 42.72 trillion USD.

On the contrary, the Global Climate Risk Index for 2013 asserts that the 10 most affected countries in terms of climate change from 1992 to 2011 are Honduras, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Haiti, Viet Nam, Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and the Dominican Republic. Not so surprisingly, the combined GDP of these countries is about 5.4 trillion USD — a mere combined 12% of the GDP that the most polluting countries produce in the same year.

What conclusion can we draw through a parallel analysis of climate change cause and effect with GDP? The unfortunately evident reality is that countries with power are those that manipulate resources to produce and pollute, while those who suffer the consequences are silenced by their relatively “small” economic activity. However, this analysis ignores an important third factor — these groups of wealthy and poor countries do not exist in a vacuum. The economic reality is the product of hundreds of years of historical sociopolitical manipulation that has produced a generally wealthy Global North and a devastatingly dependent Global South.

This dynamic can be explained in two simple words: “Money Talks.”

The Doha Conference was yet another example of this dynamic at work. In this case, money dominated the conversation throughout a global attempt at mitigating one of the few of our most precious public goods: our shared climate.

The Huffington Post describes the relationship between poor and wealthy nations in the debate, illustrating the desperation of poor countries to collect the funds that have been promised to them. The “fast-start” pledge of $10 billion a year and the incremental promise to ramp it up to $100 billion a year (established by wealthy countries some three years ago) has yet to be described in real terms — the poorer countries find themselves asking, “What are the policies, benchmarks, and practices that can ensure such payment to protect the climate that we all share”? Unfortunately, the debate is marked (yet again) by the poor’s pleas for cooperation and wealthy’s tactics to avoid binding commitments.

Even more challenging, the Brookings Institution illustrates the dangers of the Climate Debate Post-2012 (the final year of Kyoto Protocols’ first commitment period). The core issue is that the “Fast Start Finance” of $1 billion a year will end on 1 January 2013 — with no real definition for how the gradual increase will reach $100 billion by 2013. As the article describes, a looming “fog” is descending upon the climate change debate at the onset of this new era and an engineered lack of clarity. This “fog” comes at an ideal time for the wealthy countries currently suffering a devastating economic recession — thereby providing a key opportunity for wealthy countries to back down on previous commitments as a strategy for reducing costs in the economic downturn. Although Doha produced opportunities for climate change to be considered yet again on the global scale (and importantly inviting the essential input of youth, activist groups, and the poor), the traditional power dynamic of the Global North still exists.

As we enter into 2013 and into a new and ever-challenging era of climate change, it is imperative that the political will of the wealthy countries adapts to the challenges at hand. As the Global Climate Risk report indicates, this may unfortunately mean direct climate impacts on wealthy countries in order for them to feel the effects. A harrowing reality gathered from the 2011 index indicates that United States was one of the top 10 climate change affected countries for the year (due to a rash of tornadoes and Hurricane Irene). Not so surprisingly, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was yet another reminder of the impending climate impacts for all countries. Unfortunately for wealthy countries, climate change may need to “hit home” before climate change mitigation has an actionable political agenda.

Comments Off on Doha 2012: Money Talks / 08 Dec 2012 por Kelly Elizabeth Behrend
IMSD /