An Evolving International Climate Regime

Transcription

1 An Evolving International Climate Regime Elliot Diringer Vice President, International Strategies Pew Center on Global Climate Change GTSP Annual Meeting May 23, 2011

2 Overview Key Concepts Top-down vs. bottom-up Regime evolution From Rio to Cancun: Evolution of the climate regime Country pledges/policies Pathways forward Where research can help

3 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Bottom- Up Voluntary pledges defined unilaterally Flexibility Integration Integrated Multi-Track Architecture Top- Down Negotiated mandatory targets/ timetables 3

4 Regime Evolution Multilateral regimes evolve over time Expand/strengthen in: membership, substantive scope, institutional capacity, legal form ( bindingness, compliance mechanisms, etc.) Reasons why: Political consensus to emerge over time Experimentation, trial and error > allows learning and reduces policy risk Responsiveness to new information, scientific understanding Confidence-building > greater willingness to accept stronger regime

5 Evolution and the Climate Regime Climate regime is marked by both evolution and step-change 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Started broad in membership and scope Few binding elements; emission targets are voluntary Contemplated evolutionary process; many incremental steps since then through decisions of the parties Left open pledge-and-review vs. targets-andtimetables

6 Evolution and the Climate Regime 1997 Kyoto Protocol a rapid step-change Parties chose binding targets/timetables over nonbinding pledge-and-review Binding targets theoretically provide greater environmental certainty, and the foundation for market-based flexibility mechanisms Primary objective of most parties has been to extend this legally binding regime beyond 2012 For many, especially developing countries, ensuring Kyoto s future is critical

7 Copenhagen: A Turning Point? General expectation for Copenhagen was a legallybinding agreement An unrealistic goal that virtually assured Copenhagen s failure Outcome instead was the nonbinding Copenhagen Accord Established political consensus on key points Elicited mitigation pledges from 80+ countries, including all major economies Effectively, resurrected pledge-and-review Not formally adopted; has no standing within the UNFCCC process

8 Cancún: Building on Copenhagen Two categories of issues: Operational finance; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); adaptation; technology; forestry (REDD+) Legal anything pertaining to the nature/timing of a future legal agreement; fate of Kyoto Outcome Cancún Agreements: Effectively import Copenhagen Accord (and countries pledges) into UNFCCC and take initial steps to operationalize key elements Lend no clarity on the legal issues

9 Assessing the Outcome Most tangible results from the UNFCCC process in nearly a decade Could mark a new pledge-based phase in the regime s evolution Focus on strengthening transparency, finance and other parts of the architecture could: Strengthen near-term action Build parties confidence in regime and one another Provide stronger foundation for future legal agreement But provides no direction toward binding commitments

10 Country s Pledges 80+ countries with 85+ percent of emissions have pledges under Cancún Agreements Developed: quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets Developed: nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) Examples US: 17% below 2005 in 2020, contingent on legislation China and India: unconditional emissions intensity targets

11 Pledges: Developed Countries US EU JAPAN AUSTRALIA RUSSIA Economy-wide emission reduction targets (2020) in the range of 17 per cent below 2005 in conformity with anticipated energy and climate legislation 20% below 1990; 30% below 1990 provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities 25% below 1990 premised on the establishment of a fair and effective international framework in which all major economies participate and on agreement on ambitious targets 5% below 2000; up to 15% below 2000 with a global deal falling short of stabilization at 450 ppm CO 2 e; 25% below 2000 with a deal capable of stabilizing at 450 ppm CO 2 e 30% below 1990; 40% below 1990 with a global deal whereby major-emitting Parties agree on emission reductions in line with the objective of a maximum 2 C global temperature rise 15-25% below 1990, depending on forestry accounting and whether all major emitters take binding reduction obligations

12 Pledges: Developing Countries CHINA Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (2020) Lower CO2 per GDP 40-45% below 2005; increase non-fossil fuels to ~15% of primary energy; increase forest coverage/stock INDIA Reduce emissions intensity of GDP 20-25% below 2005 (excluding agriculture) BRAZIL MEXICO REPUBLIC OF KOREA INDONESIA SOUTH AFRICA Target to reduce deforestation and other policies expected to reduce emissions % below projected 2020 emissions 30% below BAU subject to adequate financial and technological support from developed countries as part of a global agreement 30% below BAU 26% reduction in emissions; policies specified 34% below BAU (and 42% below in 2025), dependent on financial, technology and capacity-building support from developed countries

13 Country Policies Cap-and-trade EU: Covers power and major industrial sectors (roughly half of CO 2 emissions); expanding to aviation in 2012 New Zealand: System to be economy-wide in 2015 US (state-level): RGGI covers power sector in 10 Northeast states; California economy-wide system to start in 2012 Under consideration in Australia, Japan, South Korea, China

14 Country Policies Other market mechanisms China: Wind feed-in tariff South Africa: Renewable energy feed-in tariff India: Solar feed-in tariff; coal levy supporting clean energy fund; tradable energy savings certificates in industrial sectors Australia: Proposal to establish a carbon price > emissions trading system

15 Country Policies Renewable/low-carbon energy targets EU: 20% renewables in 2020 China: 11.4% non-fossil energy in 2015; 15% in 2020 US: President Obama s proposed target of 80% clean electricity in 2035 Energy efficiency/intensity targets China: Reduce energy intensity 16% by 2015 S. Africa: Reduce energy demand 12% by 2015

16 Country Policies GHG/efficiency standards US: New vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards for EU: Auto CO 2 standard in 2012 China: Proposed standard of 37 mpg in 2015 Forestry goals Brazil: Reduce Amazon deforestation 80% by 2020 Indonesia: 2-year moratorium on conversion of peat and forest lands

17 Looking to Durban COP 17 could establish new climate fund, make progress on transparency other operational elements But further movement on operational issues will require political finesse on legal A legally binding 2 nd commitment period under Kyoto is highly unlikely Can a commitment gap be avoided through some type of political 2 nd commitment period? What, if anything, will parties indicate about a future legal agreement?

18 Pathways Forward Within UNFCCC, need a new paradigm: evolving toward binding Be clear that the goal is binding commitments, but acknowledge it s going to take time Meantime, continue building out the regime to strengthen support and transparency > action Greater confidence in the regime, in our ability to act, and in the actions of others will make a binding agreement more feasible

19 Pathways Forward In parallel with UNFCCC, look for opportunities to reduce emissions through other regimes: Montreal Protocol: Phasing out HFC s ICAO and IMO: Reducing emissions from international shipping and aviation LRTAP: Reducing black carbon WTO: Fossil fuel subsidies

20 Where Research Can Help Needs: Understanding what s behind countries pledges in order to evaluate them What s business as usual? Assessing, comparing and tallying disparate metrics and policies Better quantification of likely GHG outcomes from non-target policies Shared platforms to assess country efforts using common assumptions/metrics

21 For More Information Towards An Integrated Multi-track Climate Framework (Bodansky and Diringer) The Evolution of Multilateral Regimes: Implications for Climate Change (Bodansky and Diringer) Summary of Cancun Outcomes