EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Washington weighs moving climate politics beyond UNFCCC

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 16 November 2012, updated 14 December 2012

EXCLUSIVE / The US is considering a funnel of substantive elements of the Doha Climate Summit away from the UN framework and into the Major Economies Forum (MEF), a platform of the world’s largest CO2 emitters, EurActiv has learned.

Since 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has provided an umbrella for talks to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, and on 26 November, will host the COP18 Climate Summit in Qatar.

But it has been confirmed to EurActiv that Washington is increasingly looking to shift policy action to the MEF whose members account for some 85% of global emissions, and which the US views as a more comfortable venue for agreeing climate goals.

If the idea gains traction, it could demote the UNFCCC to a forum for discussing the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions reductions projects, sources say.

Michael Starbæk Christensen, the deputy head of cabinet for EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, said he expected the US to convene another MEF forum soon which could be fruitful for discussing raised climate ambitions.

"We need to broaden the group to work together on this and whether it is inside our outside the UNFCCC, by all means do it outside," he told a Green Party conference in the European Parliament on 15 November.

“Ideally we would like to see as much happening inside the UNFCCC as possible,” he continued, “but if we can engage with the US in other forums, it is the action that counts”.

Brussels sees the MEF as a complement - rather than an alternative - to the UNFCCC, and is mindful of giving the newly-elected President Obama time to finesse his climate agenda. 

It would be considered a "provocation" if the US was to unilaterally leave the UNFCCC process itself, sources say, and could potentially split the world into rival climate blocks led by Washington and Beijing.

The MEF is a successor to the Major Economies Meetings set up by President Bush, and criticised by several governments for undermining the UN process.

Its participants include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Uncompromising talk

Asked by EurActiv about the consequences of moving climate processes to the MEF, Christiana Figueres, the UNFCCC’s secretary-general, was uncompromising.

MEF forums provided a helpful and informal space in which new ideas put forward within the UNFCCC could be candidly aired and clarified, she said.

But “the one and only place where formal negotiations and, above all, decisions take place and where treaties are negotiated is the UNFCCC,” she stressed.

“Should governments change that, that’s of course the purview of government, but I don’t see any government - including the government of the US - currently with the intent of changing that,” she said.

EurActiv understands that Washington would prefer to reach a domestically saleable agreement within the UNFCCC framework but is prepared to ink a framework agreement in Doha with MEF members alone.

This could be used as a stick to pressure developing world countries to sign up to an agreement that falls short of expectations on Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), a core UNFCCC principle, centred on the concept of equity between poor and rich nations.

Common but different

Article 3 of the UNFCCC says that “parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of future and present generations of humankind on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. Accordingly, developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”.

However this principle was slightly morphed at the UNFCCC’s last Durban Climate Summit with a platform agreement obliging all nations to commit to future emissions reductions, within a framework taking CBDR into account.  

Despite the richer North’s historic responsibility for atmospheric CO2 concentrations, China recently overtook the US as the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter yet has no CO2 reductions obligations.

Beijing counters that such figures do not reflect its emissions per capita, which are well below the US’s, but fast approaching the European average. A consensus holds that if the planet is to keep within the IPCC’s target 2 degrees target for global warming, they will need to fall.

“Climate change requires all countries to act, but the central question of who should do how much can't be sidestepped by shifting the discussion outside the UN,” said Lies Craeynest, a senior advisor for Oxfam.

Only a fair deal agreed at the UN could achieve this, she said. “The US should stop seeing the pursuit of equity as an obstacle, and start seeing it as an opportunity to ensure all countries take on greater efforts,” Craeynest added.

Next steps: 
  • 26 Nov. 2012: COP18 Doha Climate Summit due to open
  • By Oct. 2014: IPCC to deliver fifth scientific assessment of climate change.
  • 2015: COP17 parties to agree a new legal framework agreement for a second round of emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • 2020: New global climate treaty due to come into force.
Arthur Neslen

COMMENTS

  • I think you in the UNFCCC framework should know by now that what you ar working at is nothing but politician rubish. All sientific indicators say the weather system has been this way for million years. You have the ozon, acid rain and now greenhouse gases.Why are you trying to let people belive this is unatural snd du to the act of people. You know one eruption from volcaneo or one forest fire will do more damage and you also know that Co2 is good for the growth. Tell me what will it help to sell Co2 to buyers that pay the best price. Is it bad that we in Iceland and other northen countries will get one or two deegrees on centigrate warmer in the summer. We still have our winters some bad and other good like al our sagas and annals say for last 1000 years. Thanks. Valdimar. PS grow up.

    By :
    Valdimar Samuelsson
    - Posted on :
    16/11/2012
  • A new report from Stockholm Environment Institute – Mobilizing Climate Change Action beyond the UNFCCC regarding the on-going negotiation on Climate Change - did not clarify necessary needs of change . My reflection is still that the processes are very slow and new entrepreneurs is needed from the diplomatic sector and local governments. National Governments are not the ones that will bring us a new agreement. The report is right when they saying – Still, there is a growing consensus that climate action outside the UNFCCC need not undermine the climate negotiations, but rather, can complement them. The key is to ensure that all relevant institutions work together in a mutually support- ive manner. The UNFCCC should play a central role on two levels: as the forum for negotiating a global agreement and pushing Parties to increase their ambition, and as a coordinator and catalyst for external actors.

    But, it is not enough and the conclusion is to weak.

    Summits in Copenhagen, Durban and other world cities have been tasked with discussing national governments’ ambitions to find global agreements on sustainable development, Millennium Development Goals and climate change. Despite this, the climate deal is still up in the air and in my view there are no clear signs of a breakthrough. Instead, I see passive national governments that are not engaged enough to bring us closer to any solid agreements.

    But at the same time, we’ve seen more cities working together with businesses and their stakeholders to act positively and deliver solutions on sustainable development. It is these initiatives that have been most successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and finding ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

    It seems fitting that Sweden, a country that has benefited from programs often based in local areas and cities. The Swedish now use more bio energy than fossil fuel so perhaps when discussions start on Monday, the participants will be inspired by the sort of Swedish initiatives highlighted in the 2 magazines Sustainable Solutions and Green solutions . It highlights some of the country’s most innovative solutions that have been successful because they embrace local perspectives and involve all stakeholders.

    As often my question is - whether local governments will take the lead ahead of the national government and bring these powerful local solutions from its cities to the negotiating table? More at http://bit.ly/Rh9Buk

    By :
    Kaj Embren
    - Posted on :
    16/11/2012
  • To a military strategist of the last century when nation states were eager to retain their sovereign power, weather was a potential weapon. In the 21st century, when the role of the nation states is being redefined, the strategic importance of weather may have changed.

    In this century, the TNCs would play more important role than the sovereign nation states, in developing rules and regulations of different multilateral treaties, pertaining to important issues like climate change, intellectual property rights etc. The power of the nation states is eroding very fast. The TNCs with the help of mainstream global media, on which they have almost total control, are capable to systematically establish or suppress any 'scientific' view, which are important for their strategic planning. Under this changed power structure, old strategies and tactics are bound to change. 'Weather' which had a strategic importance as 'weapon' to a nation state during cold war period, is likely to have a strategic importance of different type (as 'economic good') to a TNC dominated world order of this century. Now the emphasis is more on economics than politics. The paradigm shift is very clear and distinct.

    By shifting environmentally hazardous activities to the fund-starved poorer countries, pollutions will be 'parceled out' to the Southern states. The responsibility of reducing the 'green house gas' has been shifted already to the less polluting developing countries by promising a few extra dollars. The Kyoto protocol basically has done this through its much-hyped clean development mechanism. However, few civil societies in the North have taken initiatives to correct this practice.

    The study concludes with the observation that in an integrated global economy, where TNCs have developed alliances with their local partners for further consolidation of their power, an international alliance of consumer and civil societies to safeguard common citizens' interest across the globe is essential. Fortunately few initiatives to this effect have been made. In the absence of such a coordinated effort, Southern countries, as before, will remain at the receiving ends and would be treated as dump yards for Northern wastes and pollutants.

    By :
    Dipankar Dey
    - Posted on :
    21/11/2012
  • Hilariously, the CO2 polluting industries that are being relocated to avoid domestic emissions are of vast benefit to the developing countries (as is their CO2 pollution, of course). The deeply embedded lies and errors will frustrate the Greens at every turn from now on.

    By :
    Brian H
    - Posted on :
    21/11/2012
  • The difference between manmade and natural warming is the trillions of dollars that Al Gore , Mann, and fellow AGW fraudsters want to pull out of our wallets to 'cure the problem'. Climategate is a disaster for political propaganda and the carbonazis' greed and lust for global control. Sure global warming may be happening but it still has to be proven that it is caused by man.
    Carbon racket is a tool for one worlders , that want to see planet under one rule and have latched to this carbon BS because it allows them into everything, EU president even admits this .

    "What failed at Copenhagen was not just the summit. A notion of establishing the UN as a sort of world government through the use of climate politics -- has also failed."
    (Die Welt -german news paper -Refering to EU President Speech )

    No Thanks

    By :
    well
    - Posted on :
    15/12/2012
  • No Thanks to 25.000 lobbyist in Washington the national goverments will never find the roadmap to fight climate change. And with a president that is scared to take decision it will not any deliver propsal. So No thanks to this political leaders that not have the courage to deliver. But, here is the issues we said yes please to:

    Creating a low-carbon economy is seen as a burden on the state and a drain on public funds, but in fact economic and environmental forces should work in harmony. This requires political courage though.

    In an interview with the Financial Times, former US President, Bill Clinton, said: “For $ 1 billion invested in a new coal plant, you get fewer than 900 jobs; for solar you got 1,900 jobs, for wind turbines 3,300 jobs and (for) retrofitting buildings 7,000 – 8,000 jobs… Here are the jobs, here is the investment. Are you really against it?’”

    As well as creating jobs, a low-carbon economy offers a way out of our current financial mess. Environmentally sustainable solutions have proven to be hugely profitable whilst simultaneously protecting economies from the volatility of markets reliant on oil and other finite resources. As a long-term solution, a low-carbon economy it is achievable feasible, but it requires political willpower.

    The success of low-carbon enterprise in the private sector offers compelling evidence for this stance.

    California’s Tesla motors raised $ 226 million dollars for investors when it went public in 2010. Tesla’s goal is to accelerate the world’s transition to electric mobility with a full range of increasingly affordable electric cars. The company has delivered more than 2,000 Roadsters, the world’s first electric sports car, to customers worldwide. Model S, the first premium sedan to be built from the ground up as an electric vehicle, goes on the market in mid-2012.

    Tesla’s cars are sold out until 2013 and other similar companies are profiting from this profitable market. Stanley Morgan projects that by 2025, 25 per cent of the world’s fleet of cars will be electric. If Tesla keeps just 1% of this market, it is easy to see how successful the company will be and how much investors will profit.

    Governments must do more to encourage investment in these sustainable and lucrative ventures. They must also work to support the NGOs that are doing exactly this, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project that has successfully engaged over 500 independent financiers who manage over $ 71 billion of investment funds to put part of these funds in sustainable businesses.

    Alternative investment policies in Scandinavia provide a model of how to utilize market forces in the transition towards a low-carbon economy. Sweden, for example, is the only country in the world where the national use of bio energy (32%) is higher than fossil fuel (29.6%), and the private companies that produce it have generated healthy returns for investors.

    Of course, the Swedish government has encouraged this unprecedented feat by creating a green tax system. As any start up, bio-fuel producers often needed some financial support before they are fully profitable.

    Politicians would do well to look to models like Sweden’s for inspiration, but they must also put the burdens of subsidy into context. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $ 409 billion in 2010 whilst just $ 64 billion went towards renewable energy.

    And it is not simply a case of reallocating financial recourses, but about effectively using that money as a catalyst to stimulate the potential markets for sustainable energy. In 2011, the EU allocated (or at least pledged to allocate) € 27bn towards reducing the damage of climate change. If invested wisely, this sum could make a significant contribution in moving towards a low-carbon economy, whilst creating jobs and improving living standards at the same time.

    We are however, running out of time

    More at Http://www.kajembren.com

    By :
    Kaj Embren
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
UNFCCC summit in Durban, December 2011
Background: 

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December 1997 by the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and opened for signature in March 1998.

The protocol commits industrialised countries to reduce during the period 2008-2012 their collective emission of six greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels. Under the protocol, the EU committed itself to reduce emissions by 8%.

To enter into force, the protocol had to be ratified by 55 countries, and the developed countries that have ratified must account for at least 55% of 1990 emissions.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising