Copenhagen Accord: Implications for Australia

Attached to this post is the Copenhagen Accord. Essentially, Australia now has until 31 January to put forward its emission reduction commitment under the Accord. It is likely to sit somewhere in the range of 75% to 95% of 2000 levels (the 5% to 25% range already announced through the CPRS).

Leaving Copenhagen – will world leaders be able to agree?

Today Tim and I bid farewell to Copenhagen and it’s delegates, observers, protesters and celebrities.  We’re both keenly watching to see what the outcome of the two weeks might be, but it’s time to get back to somewhere with less snow and riot police!

 We’re still getting very thorough updates from our colleagues at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).  Their work has been critical in providing business observers with a practical understanding of the negotiations, and it also gave us a heads-up on  the best way to avoid spending hours stuck in a queue outside the Bella Center.

Today NGO representatives in the Bella Center were down to 300 from 7,000 on Tuesday and Wednesday.  Emails coming through from  people observing the negotiations have noted the following:

•  The US delegation briefing last night presented a positive view on the likelihood of a political deal. It was reported that leaders were broadly united on limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees. 
• Today, the CMP President indicated that the proposed outcome of the process today is an LCA text and a KP text which would be put to Heads of State.  Developing countries asked for assurance that no outside/linking text would be introduced at this stage which the Chair confirmed.  Also developing nations were keen to make sure that the KP text was progressing which the Chair confirmed.
•  A contact group was opened to resolve issues on the AWG-LCA and AWG KP.  This was then devolved into drafting groups for the KP and LCA  text. The KP groups were looking at : amendments to the KP, LULUCF, emissions trading and market mechanisms, methodological issues and potential consequences.  The LCA groups were looking at : shared vision, financial resources and investment, mitigation, NAMAs, REDD+, market mechanisms, adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building.   It was confirmed that the basis w=for this work was the Chair’s draft text.
• Media reports tonight are confirming that the two track approach is locked in, and that the US has agreed to support an aid package valued at $100 billion up to 2020 focused on mitigation and adaptation.

So this will be our last post from the COP15.  We’d like to thank everyone for visiting the site and hope that our commentary has been useful.  We will look to provide some type of debrief for colleagues and customers once the dust has settled in the new year.

Voluntary Emission Reduction Standard in China

After battling through Copenhagen snow, protesters and police (no particular order) I caught part of a presentation today on a new voluntary emission reduction (VER) standard which is being developed in China.  The Panda Standard is an initiative being by the China-Beijing Environmental Exchange (CBEEX) and the French emissions exchange BlueNext to set up a voluntary offset system.  Offsets will initially be generated by projects in the agriculture and forestry sectors.  The scheme appeared to be in it’s early stages but CBEEX said it would be marketed in China to corporates and the general public who want to offset their personal emissions.

It will be interesting to see in the age of ‘cap and trade’ schemes and with Kyoto mechanisms such as CDM being so broadly accepted, what the future holds for VER schemes in developing countries.  In Australia, we have a well established VER market, but there is some uncertainty as to how this will operate with the introduction of the CPRS.  The DCC has published the National Carbon Offset Standard, but many details are still to come.

US States Act on Climate Change

Today I attended a really useful presentation on what US states and Canadian provinces are doing to address climate change in the absence of policy action at the Federal level.

Representatives of different jurisdictions discussed the schemes including Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (north-eastern US states), Western Climate Initiative (western US states and four Canadian provinces), Mid-Western GHG Reduction Accord (6 US states and a Canadian province) and California’s Global Warming Solutions Act 2006 (known as AB-32).

Not realising prior to this session the extent of regional climate change policy in the US, these appear to be well-developed  schemes which will drive emission reductions in these economies. Just taking the example of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), this cap and trade scheme requires a 15% reduction below 2005 GHG emissions by 2020 and the members represent 26% of North American GDP covered and 79% of Canadian population.  The WCI has a broad coverage across the economy and will have a phased commencement with GHG reporting in 2010 and then scheme operation in 2012.

It was clear that these regional representatives saw that they had a clear mandate in their jurisdiction to prosecute climate change policy initiatives in the absence of Federal action.  The representative from Michigan also highlighted that they saw this as an opportunity to diversify their predominantly heavy industrial economy with the aim of fuelling jobs and growth.

COP15: Celebrities arrive….

Unfortunately, our popular culture tends to focus on the celebrity nature associated with any event. It must be very disheartening for Australian and other national negotiators, working until all hours of the morning on specific aspects of the Kyoto Protocol and Long-Term Cooperative Action texts, to see the media focusing on the arrival of celebrities such as Al Gore, the Governator and Prince Charles. The UN probably doesnt help matters when its Executive Secretary participates in Youtube debates with Darryl Hannah about climate change…..

The reality of this event is that serious negotiations are going on behind closed doors away from the media and the public. Draft texts have been available for several days and while we can all guess, its difficult to say exactly what the outcome will be.

My guess (with only two days to go) is that the matters of technical substance have been resolved if possible with anything unresolved to be considered in Mexico next year. However, I still believe based upon the conversations I have had with people in the corridors that a global political agrement is likely. With so many world leaders coming to Copenhagen, they must all be thinking that failure is not an option and that they must return home with national targets to provide business and all stakeholders with some certainty.