Abstract
The Cancún climate conference must lead to significant steps in international negotiations towards an ambitious and legally binding global climate agreement. In Copenhagen last year, the political will to compromise was not strong enough to reach a deal. Since not a lot of good news has come out of key capitals, expectations for Cancún need to be realistic. The European Union (EU) wants a balanced package of agreements that captures the progress made so far and lays the basis for a global deal as soon as possible.
The past few months have brought tragic and shocking reminders of the massive human, economic and environmental costs the world faces from climate change. These reminders have included deadly floods in central Europe, floods and mudslides in Mexico and China, the record-breaking heatwave in Russia and then the catastrophic monsoon flooding in Pakistan.
Some political leaders and media commentators have pinned the blame for some of these events at least partly on climate change. Some climatologists have stuck their necks out and done likewise. Other experts maintain that it is still very difficult to attribute a particular event to climate change. What everyone seems to agree on is that these disasters fit pretty much exactly with the scientific community's projections of what climate change will look like. More frequent and more severe extreme weather events are an essential element of these projections. These recent events are yet another wake-up call to the international community that strong and effective action to limit global warming is needed—and urgently. This call must be heeded and translated into real progress towards a global climate deal in the coming weeks and months.
These extreme weather events have occurred in a year that seems to be on track to set a new global temperature record—and which follows a decade that was itself the warmest since records began. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average global temperature over the first six months of this year was the highest in 130 years of record keeping. This despite the cold winter we had in the northern hemisphere, which did so much to increase public scepticism about global warming. The earth is on average already around 0.8°C warmer than in pre-industrial times. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected that continuing with business as usual will most likely lead to further warming of between 1.8 and 4°C on average this century, and in the worst-case scenario, by more than 6°C. These figures are all averages, which means that the temperature increase will be even higher in some places. The IPCC has had its share of adverse publicity over the past few months, but the main findings of its Fourth Assessment Report are unchallenged. A temperature increase even at the lower end of the range projected by the IPCC could cause irreversible and potentially catastrophic changes in the global environment. The lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world would be put at risk. This is one of the reasons why the international community decided at the end of 2007 to launch negotiations on a global climate agreement under United Nations auspices. We need a global framework for action to ensure that, collectively, we can succeed in preventing dangerous climate change.
Reaching a global agreement requires strong political leadership and courage to resist vested interests that want to preserve the high-carbon status quo. Shifting from our present model to a low-carbon future is a vast challenge—but it is also a huge opportunity to reinvigorate our economies and accelerate our exit from the crisis. And it is encouraging to see the number of countries that are already taking determined action domestically. Innovation in low-carbon technologies such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and carbon capture and storage promises to generate new sources of economic growth and jobs and to strengthen our energy security. The EU has every intention of staying at the vanguard of this revolution. We have committed unilaterally to cut our emissions to 20% below their 1990 level by 2020, and we have passed legislation to achieve this. In addition, we are offering to increase our reduction to 30% over the same time period if other major economies commit to taking on their fair share of a global effort.
This offer remains very much on the table. And for the long term we have set ourselves the goal, together with other industrialised countries, of cutting our emissions to 80–95% below 1990 levels by 2050. Europe wants a global climate deal that is ambitious, comprehensive in terms of scope and international participation and legally binding. Because that is what the climate needs. There were widespread hopes and expectations that the 2009 Copenhagen Conference would take us most of the way towards a global deal. In the end the political will was lacking.
The Copenhagen Accord that resulted nevertheless represents progress. First, industrialised and developing countries alike accepted for the first time that they share joint responsibility for keeping global warming below 2°C in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Almost 140 countries, responsible for more than 80% of global emissions, have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, and more than 75 have identified targets or actions to limit or reduce their emissions. The emission pledges made so far fall well short of what is needed to stay below 2°C, but they are a start. They will need to be ratcheted up over time.
Second, the industrialised world has put a considerable amount of money on the table to help developing countries combat climate change: nearly $30 billion in financing for the next three years—what we call ‘fast start’ financing—and for the longer term $100 billion a year by 2020. Developing countries rightly see prompt and full delivery of the fast-start commitment as a key test of the rich world's trustworthiness. The EU is well on track to deliver on its pledge. We gave an interim report at the Bonn negotiations in June and will provide a full report on our fast-start progress in Cancún. The EU will deliver!
Third, in several areas, and notably on the issue of transparency, the Copenhagen Accord provides important political guidance for the continuing negotiations on a global agreement. Copenhagen also put climate change at the top of the political agenda—in a time of economic crisis, no less. It created unprecedented momentum for action in the months beforehand. The final days of the conference brought together some 120 heads of state or government, whose presence sent a powerful message that world leaders recognise the serious and urgent threat from climate change.
The Copenhagen Accord provides a sound basis for moving forward that the international community must now build on. But we still have a long way to go to reach the strong, comprehensive and legally binding global agreement that we need. There is broad international recognition that the world will have to get there in steps. The next big step needs to be taken at the Cancún conference in November and December (2010). In fact, the European Union (EU) would be ready to reach a legally binding deal in Cancún, but it is evident that a number of other key players are not. Many of the problems we had in Copenhagen are still with us today. In particular, there is still no climate legislation in the US, although it is encouraging that the US administration appears determined to stand by its Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Also, a number of major emerging economies remain reluctant to bring their domestic actions on climate change into an international framework. It is hard to imagine them doing so until the US Congress passes a comprehensive climate law. Legislation is an important signal of political commitment.
In these circumstances everyone needs to have realistic expectations for Cancún. The Cancún outcome Europe wants to see is a balanced package of decisions that both captures the progress achieved so far and lays a solid basis for completing a global deal as soon as possible. For the EU a balanced package means that it must cover both tracks of the negotiations and that all parties see at least some of their priorities addressed.
On mitigating emissions, it is important that the Cancún outcome embed in the UN process the pledges put forward so far under the Copenhagen Accord and provide a framework for strengthening these so that the world can stay within the 2°C ceiling. The same goes for the long-term financing commitment made in Copenhagen. Cancún must also solve a number of major architectural issues. A priority for the EU is to make tangible progress towards a stronger system of measurement, reporting and verification. This is needed to track each country's progress towards delivering on its emission pledges, as well as industrialised countries’ progress towards meeting their financing commitments. The greater transparency this would bring is crucial for building trust between North and South. This issue of measurement, reporting and verification, or MRV, was a particular issue of contention in the negotiations of the Copenhagen Accord. The final text of the accord provides useful guidance, but this needs to be further elaborated. A process should be launched to develop guidelines next year.
A balanced package of decisions should also address a range of other issues. These include the broader financial architecture of the future global climate regime, agreement on a phased approach to reducing emissions from tropical deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), an international framework to facilitate adaptation, an agreement to set up new carbon-market mechanisms and targets for reducing emissions from international aviation and maritime transport. These decisions need to be complemented by a package of improvements to the Kyoto Protocol's rulebook. To support the Cancún package and make early progress on the ground, we also envisage that some of these decisions would be underpinned by specific projects in developing countries, to be financed by fast-start funding.
One positive development for the international process over the past few months has been the launch of informal partnerships on REDD+, MRV and adaptation. These partnerships can help to achieve progress in the negotiations on these issues. On the other hand, the EU is concerned by the lack of balance between the two tracks of the international negotiations, which became so pronounced at the Bonn session in August. This imbalance could threaten the success of Cancún if it persists. The bottom line is that the US and the major developing economies have to play their respective parts in a global deal if the world is to have a chance of preventing dangerous climate change. Unless and until they agree to do so, the EU cannot consider signing on to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. I want to be very clear about this: Kyoto alone will not keep global warming below 2°C—it covers less than 30% of global emissions. Another condition for us is that the serious weaknesses which undermine Kyoto's environmental integrity be rectified.
Europe would in any case much prefer a global deal to take the form of a single new treaty that covers both tracks. The two-track structure, where the main difference today is that the US is a party to the Convention but not to Kyoto, is terribly unwieldy and inefficient. Ideally a way needs to be found to bridge this gap and bring future global action into a single legal instrument. We recognise, however, that some other parties would prefer a deal that comprises several instruments or decisions. In this context the EU is open to considering a second commitment period under Kyoto as one element of an overall agreement—but only provided certain conditions are met.
The first is the condition I have already mentioned—that the US and the major developing countries also commit to take on their fair share of the effort. We are not there yet. The second condition is that the weaknesses which undermine the protocol's environmental integrity be fixed. By these weaknesses I mean the unlimited carry-over of surplus emission allowances from the first commitment period and the current accounting rules for emissions from forestry in industrialised countries. Together these weaknesses have the potential to reduce the emission reduction pledges currently on the table to almost zero or, in the worst case, even to turn them into a small increase in emissions.
Despite the obstacles that remain and the shortage of negotiating time left, I am confident that, under Mexico's leadership, Cancún can deliver the outcome we need—a balanced package of decisions that takes the world an important step closer to a legally binding global deal. This in turn will accelerate the transition to the low-carbon global economy, spurring innovation that promises to bolster sustainable growth, create more green jobs and make us more energy secure. We must succeed. Europe is ready; I hope our partners are too.
Footnotes