The good people from the Climate Action Network staged quite the intervention during the closing plenary of the AWG-KP on Wednesday. While staying positive throughout, they managed to highlight a few major needs for work to be done before and during Poland, but cautioned the group that without accelerated action, the world's people (the poorest in particular) will face some dire circumstances.
First and foremost, CAN noted the true significance of this Ad-Hoc Working Group, stating that it "is in fact at the heart of [the Kyoto Protocol] process. If the heart stops beating, or stalls for a long period of time, the rest of the body dies with it."
With that in mind, they urged all in attendance to "breath new life and trust" to Poland in December, especially concerning (but not limited to) the following ideals:
Mitigation
The necessity for Annex 1 nations to move forward on aggressive national targets that are met by overwhelming reductions at home was highlighted, with a shift from unsustainable and inequitable consumption patters noted as the main mechanism. Quantitatively, cuts of 80%-95% from 1990 levels by 2050 were stressed (within Annex 1). Lastly, mitigation actions in developing countries must be supplemental to profound domestic reductions by these Annex 1 parties, and in no way can they shy away from the ultimate purpose of creating low-carbon economies in these non-Annex 1 parties.
Nuclear in the CDM
This one was easy, as the group simply urged all parties to discard even the thought, citing economic inefficiency (especially when compared to renewables), and the unresolved, semi- apocalyptic issues around safe disposal and potential proliferation.
Even if you are someone who believes that nuclear power is not as evil as everyone makes it out to be, the bottom line is that it doesn't compare to wind, solar, geothermal, or any of the other renewables in every imaginable criteria category. If we are to truly enter a climate regime, the half-way solution that nuclear represents cannot be our main motive. We have to go all the way, and it has to be with renewable power as a priority.
To narrow down the list of potential mechanisms, CAN suggested an extremely logical approach. When considering the options and before submitting what they hope will be detailed reactions, A1 parties should ask themselves one question:
"how will these items affect the size of my country's emissions reduction target?"
An all around good suggestion (I feel) since countries may actually start to weed out their pet projects that don't actually contribute to any kind of enhanced mitigation.
Bunker Fuels
For years now CAN has been stressing the need to control bunker fuels under the Kyoto Protocol. Aviation emissions are extremely straightforward to monitor on the basis of fuel sales and departing flights. Maritime emissions are more complex and present a bit of a dilemma: should they be used as a financial mechanism (sectoral approach to shipping could raise tens of billions of dollars a year for mitigation and adaptation) or should they simply be monitored and reduced. CAN acknowledges that this is no simple task, but stresses that it is under the responsibility of the Protocol to ensure that these emissions do not continue business as usual.
And finally, LULUCF
CAN (along with everyone else) was very happy with the progress made on LULUCF over the course of the discussions, but urge the Parties to clarify their stance on accounting, in particular:
1. That parties must ensure a reduction of business-as-usual emissions
2. That accounting for emissions from forest management cannot be optional
3. And that a country's LULUCF budget must have a limit (focus on fossil fuels!)
All in all, the intervention provided a promising list of initiatives for the group to pursue before Poland. Thank you CAN!
Rhiya
