Australia today unveiled its White Paper on Climate Change. The proposed policy is very different to the policy that the previous Government rushed through prior to the election. The level of commitment is modest unless
“all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on reductions comparable to Australia.”
This just in
POZNAN – Russia may not join a new global deal to fight climate change if it is against Moscow’s interests and will set a national mid-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions next year, an official said on Friday.
“If the conditions for the international agreement are not favorable for us we may not join such an agreement,” Alexander Pankin, deputy head of the Russian delegation at UN-led December 1-12 climate negotiations in Poland, told Reuters.
If a new UN climate pact meant to be agreed in Copenhagen at end-2009 was unfair and failed to set comparable commitments for countries according to their economic and social standing, Russia would not sign, he said.
“If you are better off than me, why should I make a stronger commitment than you,” he said.
Pankin said Russia’s ambition was to stabilize emissions at around 30 percent below 1990 and then reduce them further but did not give a percentage about possible cuts by 2020.
“We will have our national commitment. We will see what is achievable for Russia, we will do it at a government level and we will say this is the Russian target,” he said.
“Definitely we have to do it within the next year.”
Russia would set its own “achievable and realistic” target and would not tolerate pressure from the European Union or others for emission cuts of 20 or 30 percent by 2020. The EU leaders approved on Friday a 20-percent target by 2020.
“We take our national actions not because there’s international pressure on us, we take action because we want to live in a cleaner world,” Pankin said.
Russia, the world’s number three greenhouse gas emitter behind China and the United States, ratified the current UN Kyoto Protocol in 2004 only after years of debate about whether to take on targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
Fears of global recession have now made many rich nations reluctant to launch costly new projects to fight climate change, or push ahead with ever deeper greenhouse gas cuts.
Pankin said talking about a collective mid-term global target for curbing emissions was not realistic because many countries were not ready to commit to combating climate change with concrete actions.
Emissions in the oil and gas-rich Russia, mainly from burning fossil fuels, have plunged by about a third since the collapse of Soviet-era smokestack industries. Its goal under Kyoto is to keep emissions below 1990 levels until 2012.
Moscow has previously feared its emissions may surpass 1990 levels in coming years because of strong economic growth. But the financial crisis has hit growth and Pankin said emissions would likely fall due to declining demand for commodities.
As Greenpeace was this morning criticising the New Zealand Government for falling behind the (yet to be announced) policy positions of the (yet to be sworn in) Obama Administration it is useful for us to analyse where things are sitting in the US on the application of a cap and trade or carbon tax on agriculture. Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal did the work for us.
Is the Environmental Protection Agency preparing to slap a “cow tax” on bovines for their contribution to global warming?
The agency says no. But in recent weeks, farmers and livestock ranchers have flooded the EPA with letters warning of catastrophic consequences if such a tax was imposed.
“If President-elect [Barack] Obama tries to include farmers in some kind of livestock assessment based on greenhouse-gas emissions, I want my Iowans to know that I’m going to stand beside the producers and fight,” Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said this week.
The idea of a so-called cow tax might seem far-fetched. But the uproar highlights a serious policy decision awaiting Mr. Obama’s administration: whether to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions — effectively branding as harmful pollutants carbon dioxide and other gases generated both by industry, as well as by the digestive processes of livestock.
Many environmental groups want the Clean Air Act used to control greenhouses gases. But business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are resisting. They argue such use of the Clean Air Act would lead to a cascade of unintended regulatory consequences, with regulations covering schools, hospitals, breweries, bakeries and farms.
At the core of the battle is a Supreme Court ruling last year that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health or welfare. In response, the EPA published a 570-page notice in July that drew no conclusion on that question, but instead solicited comment on options for controlling emissions of heat-trapping gases.
The EPA document only briefly suggested that livestock could be subject to regulation. But the document went too far for the Bush administration, which — in an unusual step — published comments from four federal agencies slamming the EPA’s work. The Agriculture Department said regulating emissions from agriculture could subject “numerous farming operations” — including “dairy facilities with over 25 cows” — to the “costly and time-consuming process” of getting permits to operate. The American Farm Bureau Federation alerted its members that the EPA was on course to saddle them with “costly and burdensome permits,” costing as much as $175 per cow per year for dairy cattle, enough “to force many producers to go out of business.”
Local chambers of commerce, meanwhile, began disseminating estimates of what such fees would mean for farmers at the state level — arriving at a figure of $24,995 a year for the average dairy farmer in North Dakota.
“This can be considered the most outrageous proposal in regards to the environment and animal agriculture that has been brought forth,” Ron Sparks, commissioner of Alabama’s Department of Agriculture and Industries, said in a letter to the EPA dated Nov. 26. “I An EPA spokeswoman says the agency “is not proposing a cow tax,” and notes that the document published in July states that the Clean Air Act “does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for” greenhouse-gas emissions. David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, says the idea of a cow tax is “a fantasy designed to whip up opposition to regulation,” and that the EPA has the discretion to choose not to regulate small emitters, such as dairy farmers.
But the idea that Mr. Obama’s administration might try to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions isn’t far-fetched. Environmental groups such as Mr. Bookbinder’s group are pressing him to do so, on the grounds that the U.S. cannot credibly participate in climate talks with other nations aimed at forcing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change until it passes climate legislation or begins regulating such emissions.
Talks aimed at forging such an agreement are scheduled to begin in December 2009 in Copenhagen, and it isn’t clear Congress will be able to pass climate legislation by then. Mr. Obama’s administration could move to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions without waiting for comprehensive legislation. Many Democrats expect one of the new administration’s first acts will be granting California’s request for a waiver from the law, so it can regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles — an authority it was denied under the Bush administration.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama’s transition team said the president-elect “believes a comprehensive federal approach” to regulating greenhouse-gas emissions is “far preferable” to using the Clean Air Act to regulating, but that he “intends to follow the law.”
Criticism of the leadership shown by the Key/English Government over climate change by Greenpeace on Morning Report this morning calls into question the credibility of the organisation. So let me pose a couple of questions:
Was agriculture responsible for the growth in emissions beyond our existing Kyoto commitments? (Answer – not really. Something like 97% of our increase in emissions have come from the electricity and transport sectors. The rest of the economy has pretty much met the Kyoto target)
How can you criticise New Zealand for falling behind the US when we don’t know what the US policy is going to be? (Answer: You can’t)
Does the EU apply its domestic policy to all sectors and all gases? (Answer: No, agricultural emissions are exempted from the EU scheme. The scheme applies to CO2.)
The New Zealand statement from the Poznan meeting
Mr President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
Climate change is among the greatest challenges of our age. Finding a durable solution – a solution that will allow the development process to continue but in a more sustainable way – is a formidably complex problem. The New Zealand Government is determined to play a positive role here.
We thank the Polish authorities for providing the international community an opportunity to take this a step forward at Poznan. We congratulate them for the excellent arrangements and their generous hospitality.
The complexity of a meeting such as this is considerable from purely a logistic point of view and we very much appreciate the organisational efforts that have been made.
We have had a change of Government in New Zealand within the last few weeks. The implications for the New Zealand economy arising from our Kyoto obligations, given New Zealand’s emissions profile, which is highly unusual for an Annex 1 country, was an issue.
The political debate was not of course couched in technical terms. Rather, it was expressed in general terms about the balance between our economic interests and environmental responsibilities.
What is clear is to New Zealanders is that their jobs and our prosperity depend on maintaining our export base, 63% of which is based on our primary sector. It is also clear to New Zealanders that neither they nor the world would benefit from a transfer of production from New Zealand to countries that are less efficient in food production and whose carbon footprint in food production, taking account of every step in the supply chain, is worse than New Zealand’s.
As a consequence we are reviewing our suite of climate change policies. The objective here is not to step back from Kyoto. The Government fully understands and accepts its long-standing international obligations under Kyoto for the first commitment period.
Indeed, far from retreating from the climate change challenge, this review is a means to find a more politically durable way of moving forward by building a wider policy consensus.
New Zealand is unique among Annex 1 countries. With nearly 50% of our total emissions coming from agriculture, no other developed country comes close to having such a large percentage of its emissions arising from food production.
However, we are certainly not unique if developing countries are brought into the picture. Globally, an average of 27% of all emissions from developing countries come from their agriculture production.
New Zealand is a food basket for the world – we export some 90% of what we produce. From decades of working with developing countries on agriculture issues in the GATT and now WTO, New Zealanders understand how difficult it is to advance any international agenda if it is seen to undermine food security, domestically and internationally.
Let me put this in strategic negotiating terms. The ‘New Zealand problem’ with the current treatment of LULUCF and agriculture is perhaps a minor irritant only for Annex 1 countries since they are concerned primarily with their industrial emissions. But this treatment may turn out to be an issue of real significance if emission reduction commitments from developing countries – whatever form they might take – are to play a part in a post-2012 agreement.
This Ministerial meeting in Poznan is another step in a chain of meetings designed to ensure that there is a successor agreement after 2012 that will establish a set of firm and coordinated commitments to combat the threat of anthropogenic GHGs beyond the first commitment period.
There is certainly no question about the absolute need for a successor agreement. It would be an extraordinary political failure if the international community failed to put one in place, given the gravity of the issue.
Further, this forum is the logical forum to find a coordinated international response to one of the great challenges of our age.
But objectives, even in times of great need, are one thing. Delivering a result is another. The history of international diplomacy is replete with examples of negotiations which have failed to deliver a politically durable result, even when the consequence of diplomatic failure means armed conflict or deepening economic crisis.
A result will not be achieved by soaring rhetoric and setting yet more objectives that are divorced from the capacity of countries, both developed and developing, to achieve. Negotiators will, given the choice, always prefer to focus on objectives where deep ambiguities can be buried politically, rather than focus on modalities to achieve those objectives.
My delegation, both here and at subsequent negotiating meetings, will focus its efforts on designing modalities that might serve as a more durable basis for the second commitment period. To put it in plainer language, we will be focusing on the rules governing commitments before we focus hard on the commitments.
Within that broad policy area, New Zealand will focus on more appropriate rules in the LULUCF area, not just because they are vital to New Zealand but because they will, in our view, be vital for a range of developing countries if developing countries are expected to make any commitments in a successor agreement.
An absolute priority here for New Zealand and all developing countries where livestock agriculture is an important activity is further scientific research on mitigation options. There are very few abatement options for grazing livestock agriculture. Many of those that do exist are amongst the most costly options in world, difficult for New Zealand let alone developing countries.
Food production must continue to expand if we are to feed the world and we must do this while responding to the challenges of climate change. If, in the area of livestock production, ‘mitigation’ simply means ‘cut production’ – we do not have a sustainable way forward.
New Zealand has established the Livestock Emissions and Abatement Research Network (LEARN) to work collaboratively with other countries in this effort. The new Government has decided to build on this by creating a virtual world research centre on agriculture mitigation strategies.
Considering that an average of 27% of emissions from developing countries are emissions from agriculture, there is a huge under-investment in global climate research on this matter. We will be looking creatively to build international interest in this area.
This brings me to the vital issues of land use.
The world must act on deforestation.
The case for doing something urgently is compelling.
We should leave Poznań with a strong message to create a framework to incentivise retaining forests. We need time to explore and negotiate such a framework.
And we must be open to all options to provide incentives, whether through the use of carbon markets or other means.
Mr President, Poznań will be a success if it provides the impetus to finally get down to the business of full negotiations next year. That is the kind of message that I hope you will be able to convey to the world at the end of this meeting.
The shape of what is to replace the Kyoto Protocol is looking increasingly unclear. The current UN climate change Ministerial meeting has not delivered anything like the progress hoped by some. This means that next year’s meeting in Copenhagen is also likely to undershoot expectations. The shape of, and timing for, final agreement being reached on international rules to replace the current Kyoto rules (which expire at the end of 2012) remain very much in question. This report from the Christian Science Monitor updates what is going on in Poland and within the EU on its Climate Change policy position
Hopes of laying a solid foundation for a post-Kyoto climate pact in 2009 are diminishing, as representatives from 189 nations gathered in Poznań, Poland, squabble over financing methods.
Delegates met for the two-week COP14 talks held in the western Polish industrial city hope to set the stage for a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocols, which expire in 2012. The details of the new climate pact are set to be agreed upon in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
But the current talks, which close Friday, are proceeding more slowly than expected, casting into doubt hopes of a comprehensive climate treaty next year: “We’re working under a very tight timeline,” said UN climate chief Yvo de Boer, according to Bloomberg’s Alex Morales. “I don’t think where we are now it is going to be feasible to develop a fully elaborated, long-term response to climate change in Copenhagen.”
Even if the resulting deal from Poznań lacks specifics, says Mr. de Boer, it could still give participants something to work with. “My sense is that we should be careful not to reach too far and achieve nothing,” de Boer told Bloomberg. “What we need to reach in Copenhagen is clarity on the key political issues so that everything after Copenhagen is settling the details and not negotiating fundamentals.”
I am not surprsied by any of the reporting from the UN Cliamte Change meeting in Poznan. Even some of the greatest supporters of global action (eg Germany) are backing away fast from tough commitments in the face of the global financial crunch. I am hopeful that agreement will be reached but think that some new ideas need to be put on the table to help achieve progress. Climate change is a global problem and only global action can resolve it. New Zealand with its 0.2% of global emissions should be putting its efforts into negotiating more effective rules globally than trying to go it alone with an excessively ambitious domestic secheme. Some way must be found to bring the US, China, India and Brazil into an agreement which sees them too limiting emissions.
This report on the negotiations is from Reuters
POZNAN, Poland, Dec 8 (Reuters) – Recession and the change of U.S. administration make it unlikely the world will meet a 2009 deadline for agreeing a full new pact to fight global warming, delegates at U.N. climate talks say.
A year ago, 190 nations signed up for a two-year push to agree a comprehensive climate treaty at talks in Copenhagen in late 2009. But negotiators and analysts attending preparatory Dec. 1-12 talks in Poznan say that looks out of reach.
The most many now hope for is agreement next year on the principles of a pact, though a few say this is too pessimistic.
“A suitable aspiration and a great achievement (in Copenhagen) would be agreement on the principles for negotiation, not a text,” said Robert Stavins, professor of business and government at Harvard University.
Recession means that developed nations’ greenhouse gas emissions will fall by about 2 percent next year, making other action less urgent, he said.
The 2009 deadline is meant to ensure that new targets for cutting emissions are in place in good time to allow worldwide ratification before the Kyoto Protocol goals expire in 2012.
Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, insisted that rich nations should agree in 2009 to cuts in emissions until 2020. But he also said any deal should be “ratifiable”, leaving much of the fine print for later.
De Boer said suggestions last week by a U.S. think-tank, the Pew Center, that 2009 was too early for President-elect Barack Obama to sign up for formal targets in Copenhagen were “unhelpful and incorrect.”
“Countries launched a negotiation in Bali a year ago and agreed to complete it in a year’s time in Copenhagen,” he told Reuters. “To begin to wobble on that resolve halfway through that process is not helpful.”
Incredible story about the SSC, but what really annoyed me was the Greepeace sticker. This is totally misleading. National and John Key are firmly committed to a climate change response and Tim Groser is today flying to Poland to try and help forge an international consensus for a workable global response. I look forward to seeing how President Obama’s policy is going to be more rigorous than that which New Zealand adopts.
This from this morning’s Financial Times
Businesses covered by the European Union’s emissions trading scheme are following talks this week among member states on its future operation.
At stake is the extent to which they will have to buy carbon permits at auction rather than get them free, as most have until now. The European Commission wants to phase in auctions between 2013 and 2020, with the idea that most companies would pay for all or almost all their permits by 2020.
But business lobby groups are pressing for concessions to reflect the economic downturn, and some are likely to be granted. They want more free permits, particularly for industries judged at risk from international competition.
Companies making steel, cement and paper, among others, have been pressing for special treatment. But the extent of the threat of “carbon leakage” – the closure of operations in regions with strict emissions regimes and migration to more lax jurisdictions – is hotly disputed.
The Commission is not expected to rule on which sectors are most at risk of carbon leakage until 2010.
Ten sectors are expected to be covered by the scheme in 2013: electricity generation; oil refining; iron and steel production; cement, clinker and lime production; glassmaking; brick and tile manufacturing; pulp and paper production; aluminium; ammonia production and petrochemicals, and aviation.
And officials here can tell Ministers with a straight face that we can’t change our scheme because of a backlash from Europe………………
There is an interesting article on the price of carbon on the European market in today’s Financial Times. My gut feeling is that it will fall further as more European countries try and water down the impact of the scheme (already far less rigorous than that implemented by the previous Government). I do hope that Peter Dunne ensures that the select committee has a good look at the European scheme as a possible role model for the New Zealand scheme.
Carbon prices have fallen precipitously in the past six months, reflecting the financial crisis and recession.
The cost of a permit to produce a tonne of carbon dioxide under the European Union’s emissions trading scheme topped €30 ($38) over the summer, but since then has halved and now hovers near €15-€16.
