track 0 long-term signals-march '15
TRANSCRIPT
Harnessing long term signals for greater mitigation action
on climate change: The 2015 Agreement & the
long-term goal
Farhana Yamin, Founder & CEO, Track 0OECD, Climate Change Expert Group(CCXG) Global Forum17–18 March 2015
What is the Long-term Goal (LTG)?
The science of 20 C and zero emissions
Who supports the LTG in the “real economy”
• Business• Cities• Civil Society
Who supports the LTG in Paris negotiating
Textual proposals on the table
OVERVIEW
“I am making a strong call for governments to put us on a pathway to achieve zero net emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the second half of this century. Unlike the financial crisis, we do not have a ‘climate bailout’ option up our sleeve.”Angel Gurria, SG OECD
October 2013
Long term goal science: 20C = 0 emissions
• IPCC AR5: only one scenario, RCP 2.6, offers a 66% (likely) chance of staying within 2ºC: • All GHGs are 40 - 70% reductions lower by 2050 (using
2010 baseline) • All GHG emissions are zero by 2100• C02 emissions are net zero by 2075 and net negative
thereafter
• Climate Action Tracker/Ecofys find an 85% (high) chance of staying below 2ºC if:• All GHGs need to be net zero by 2060-2080 • C02 emissions are net zero earlier between 2045-2065• Net negative CO2 emissions after 2065
• Conclusion: we need profound changes to shift emissions from fossil fuels and industry, starting today! Source: New Climate Institute briefing ‘Net Phase out of global GHG emissions’, 11 th Feb 2015
Timeframe for achieving the LTG
Source: WRI & ACT 2015, December 2014 Working Paper
Why do we need a LTG in Paris Agreement?
• A unifying international goal to crystallise and guide regional and national action
• Create a backbone of scientific integrity for Paris given a bottom up process of NDCs (expected to be 5-10years) might fall short of science if each country left to come up with their own targets
• We need a more practical goal than 2ºC – one that anyone can understand AND apply at any level (country, city, community, business, sectoral) so create a common direction of travel by all: zero emissions is that goal
WHY DOES A LONG TERM DIRECTION OF TRAVEL MATTER?
82% of coal deposits, half of all known gas reserves and a third of the world’s oil would need to stay underground; including 80% of potential shale gas reserves in U.S., Africa and the Middle East (2014 UCL Study)
Carbon Tracker estimates that annual capital expenditures amounting to nearly $700 billion flow to projects that could end up abandoned.
Goldman Sachs estimate almost $1 trillion in investments in future oil projects are at risk.The Bank of England is analysing the risk of stranded assets. Its key message so far is that banks must take a central role in predicting potential stranded assets as they face a direct economic threat in the key transitional phase of the next 15 years.
“...climate risk is becoming synonymous with reputation risk,”
Luisa Florez, senior responsible investment analyst at Axa Investment, managing over €600bn in assets.
Stranded AssetsAvoiding Stranded Assets
Business
159 signatoriesNet zero by 2100Signatories include: Adidas, HP, Heathrow, Shell & Unilever
Cities
• 228 cities globally, representing 436 million people, have set GHG reduction goals and targets. The cumulative savings of these targets, by 2050, equals the current annual emissions of China and India combined.– The following cities committed to GHG reductions of between 80-
100% by 2050: Yokohama, Washington DC, Vasteras, Vancouver, Stockholm, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Oslo, NYC, London, Boulder, Boston, Berlin and Antwerp
• The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance connects up cities working for “aggressive long term carbon reduction goals”; including Berlin, Boston, Copenhagen, London, Melbourne, New York, Oslo, San Francisco, Seattle, Stockholm, Vancouver, Washington DC, Yokohama (Japan).
• C40 network & The Compact of Mayors are also working to commit over 75 megacities to GHG emission reduction targets.
Civil Society
• Divestment Movement: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Norwegian Oil Wealth Fund, Universities, faith groups, foundations and associations.
• Modelling and net zero scenarios already happening all over the world
• Climate Action Network (>900 NGO members) endorse 2050 goal to “phase in Renewable Energy, phase out Fossil Fuels”.
• The Elders support Net Zero by 2050.• Community initiatives such as ‘Towards Zero Carbon Bute’
and ‘Carbon Neutral Flensburg’ are working on a local level to decarbonise too.
WHO SUPPORTS THE LONG TERM GOAL FOR
NET ZERO IN PARIS PROCESS?
What is the total number of countries supporting the LTG?
Representatives of nearly 120 countries have expressed support for inclusion of the LTG in the Paris agreement including:
• Nauru, on behalf of 44 members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) at ADP meetings in Lima, COP 20
• Nepal, on behalf of 48 Least Developed Countries at COP 20, Lima
• The EU on behalf of 27 countries at the UNFCCC ADP in Geneva
• Norway, Switzerland, Mexico, South Africa, Chile, Costa Rica and Colombia have expressed support for LTG in the ADP and/or through their Heads of States at UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit, Sept 2014
“Today we have an obligation to succeed. The 2015 Paris conference must enable us to achieve a global agreement, an ambitious agreement that can ensure we reach what’s called carbon neutrality – that is, greenhouse gas emissions compatible with the planet’s absorption capabilities.”
President Hollande addressing the UN Climate Summit,
September 2015
Individual Countries who have supported inclusion of the LTG in the Paris 2015 Treaty
Country Group
1 Barbados AOSIS
2. Belgium EU
3. Bhutan LDCs
4. Chile AILAC
5. Colombia AILAC
6. Costa Rica AILAC
7. Denmark EU
8. Ethiopia LDCs/Africa
9 Finland EU
10. France EU
11. Gambia LDC/Africa
12. Georgia CACAM
13. Germany EU
14. Grenada AOSIS
15. Iceland Umbrella
16. Ireland EU
Country Group
17 Malawi LDCs/Africa
19. Marshall Islands AOSIS
20 Mexico Environmental Integrity Group
21. Monaco Environmental Integrity Group
22. Nauru AOSIS
23. Nepal LDC/Africa
24. Netherlands EU
25. New Zealand Umbrella
26. Norway Umbrella
27. Samoa AOSIS
28. South Africa Africa
29. Sweden EU
30. Switzerland Environmental Integrity Group
31. Trinidad & Tobago
AOSIS
32. Uganda LDCs/Africa
33. United Kingdom EU
Widespread Support From Negotiating Groups
AOSIS (44)AFRICAN GROUP (52)
Cook IslandsNauru *NiuePalauFijiGuyanaPapua New Guinea *SurinameBahamasBarbados *Grenada *JamaicaMarshall Islands *SingaporeSaint KitsSaint LuciaTongaBelizeDominicaMaldives (Chair)Cuba
Cote d’IvoireEgyptMoroccoNamibiaSouth Africa *SwazilandTunisiaZimbabweCameroonCongoGhanaKenyaNigeriaAlgeriaLibya
BangladeshAfghanistanBhutan *CambodiaLao P.D.R.MyanmarNepal *Yemen
KiribatiTuvaluSolomon IslandsHaitiTimor-LesteVanuatu
Guinea-BissauComorosSao Tome & Principe
Cape VerdeMauritiusSeychelles
TogoBurkina FasoMauritaniaMozambiqueEquatorial GuineaRwandaSenegalSomaliaSudanSouth SudanTanzaniaMalawi *ZambiaCentral African Republic
D.R. CongoNigerLesothoLiberiaMadagascarSierra LeoneUganda *Angola (Chair)
BeninMaliBurundiChadDjiboutiEritreaEthiopia*GambiaGuinea
Trinidad and Tobago *Antigua and BarbudaSaint Vincent & the GrenadinesFederated States of MicronesiaSamoa *
ObserversU.S. Virgin IslandsNetherlands AntillesAmerican SamoaGuamPuerto Rico
LDCs (48)
Dominican Republic ✚
Colombia *Costa Rica *Chile *PeruGuatemalaPanama
AILAC (6)
KEY* Countries who have supported inclusion of a long term goal•AOSIS + LDCs = 83 countries, are both + Not a full member of AILAC, associates with positions
Widespread Support From Negotiating Groups
Umbrella (9)
AustraliaCanadaIceland *JapanNew Zealand *
Norway *RussiaUkraineUnited States
EU Countries (27)Austria Belgium *BulgariaCzech RepublicCyprus Denmark *EstoniaPoland
France *Germany *GreeceHungaryIreland *Italy Latvia
Netherlands *PortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSweden *United Kingdom *
Environmental Integrity Group (5)
Mexico *Switzerland *LichtensteinSouth KoreaMonaco *
CACAM (7)
AlbaniaArmeniaGeorgia *KazakhstanRepublic of MoldovaTurkmenistanUzbekistan
*Countries supportive of inclusion of a long term goal in Paris
Finland *LithuaniaLuxemburgMaltaEstonia
Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group
“Mr. President…. the LDCs are still optimistic on achieving a climate neutral future before the end of the Century. Our Group understands that, in our journey of combating the climate crisis and reaching a climate neutral world, we must make the right choices here in Lima and next year in Paris. We have a historical opportunity to make things right through the new Paris Protocol.”
Statement delivered by Dr. Govinder Raj Pokhrel, Vice Chair, National Planning Commission, Nepal on behalf of 48 countries of LDC Group Opening of the High Level Segment COP-20/CMP-10Lima, Peru, 9 December 2014
“Total emissions need to reach zero between 2060 and 2080. This means we need urgent actions by all countries to reduce emissions.”
Statement made by Uganda on behalf of LDCs, ADP Ministerial, June 2014
Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS)
“We find it very important and worthwhile that paragraph 13 (a) refers to the need for long-term decarbonisation pathways. These are critical for getting on track towards our agreed long term goal. More specifically…We are very keen and happy to see the reference to net zero emissions and/or full decarbonisation by 2050, which the latest science is telling us is necessary to achieve our long-term goal.”
Statement delivered by Nauru, on behalf of the 44 members of the Alliance of Small Island States, at the Lima ADP negotiations, 3 November 2014
Countries with renewable targets1. Ambitious targets or shares of renewables > / = 50% at any time
GuatemalaGuyana Honduras Iceland Israel Italy Kenya Latvia Madagascar Malawi Mozambique Nauru New Zealand Nicaragua Niue Norway Peru
Austria Cameroon Cape Verde Colombia Cook Islands Costa Rica Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Fiji Finland Gabon Germany
PortugalRwanda Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth SudanSpainSudanSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaTongaTuvaluUgandaUruguayVanuatuZambia
Palau Panama Philippines Poland Republic of the Congo Romania Saint Lucia Samoa Senegal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Korea Suriname Thailand Togo Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Venezuela Vietnam
Albania Algeria Argentina Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burundi Chile China Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Ecuador EgyptFrance Greece Grenada
Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Jamaica Jordan Laos Lebanon Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Moldova Mongolia MontenegroNetherlandsNiger
Countries with renewables targets2. Any other renewables target
Governments
6 Carbon Neutral
Countries
196 countries supporting 2ºCimplying phase out by 2100
152 countries supporting 1.5ºCImplying 2050 phase out
93 Countries with ambitiousrenewable targets support phase in
44 Countries withIndividual LTG
50 Annex 1 Partiescollective offer 50% by 2050
AIP doing 80%
Source: Track 0
The Role of Paris
ADP workstream 1 (post 2020)
• Possible outcomes for Paris for LTG– Preamble reference e.g. “Parties agree the need to phase out GHGs to
achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century as demanded by science”– LBA body – LTG in effect giving operative guidance on re Article 2
UNFCCC and what timetable for phase out in needed as IPCC AR5 as subsequently updated
– LBA annex incentivises and allows listing of both long & short term commitments combinations put forward by countries . Net Zero does not REPLACE INDCs and short term ambition
– LBA body – ratchet mechanism setting out automatic adjustment to LTG or soft guidance for Parties to revise future contribution to be compatible/into account LTG
– COP decision setting out LTG as above, plus giving guidance to Parties to implement current and future contribution to be compatible with LTG
ADP workstream 2 (pre 2020)
• Workstream 2: COP programme of action on actions & initiatives aiming at Net Zero (especially cities, subnational governments and others).
– This programme would bring integrated actions and soft commitments, finance, CB, knowledge sharing platforms,
– Net zero registry (as REDD+ has done) could be part of the broader agreement on Work Streams 1& 2.
Other COP agenda items re LTG
• 2013-2015 review of global goal • Other agenda items could reflect 2deg C/LTG/net zero
language within their separate agenda items (e.g. adaptation, loss and damage, national communications guidelines, MRV, finance, capacity building, Article 6, new registry)– Article 6 could require all Parties to scale up education requirements/core
curricula, training for teachers in primary, secondary and tertiary sector and mandate Massive On Line Courses in all languages.
– New registry could be organized to giver higher rewards, gold stars to initiatives that are net zero, with others listed in silver, bronze categories to recognise progress and leadership.
• Sending a signal to the business community with policy certainty
• A sense of unity and common direction!
The LTG in the ADP Negotiating Text
Option 2, Option (a): Recognizing that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and the long-term temperature limit / hold the increase in global average temperature, and that such cuts must be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner,
Option (c): [Recognizing the importance of long-term efforts to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2 °C]
Option (a): [Also recognizing that scenarios consistent with having a likely chance of holding the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels include substantial cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the mid-century and net emission levels near zero gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent or below in 2100,
A. Preamblep. 1
A. Preamblep. 1
Option (b): Also recognizing that scenarios consistent with having a likely chance of holding the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels include substantial cuts in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the mid-century and zero emissions within the second half of this century,]
Option (d): [Further recognizing that economy-wide emission reduction budgets provide the highest level of clarity, predictability and environmental integrity,]
Para 1. [The objective of this agreement is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions in line with the ultimate objective of the Convention and to maintain and increase resilience to the adverse effects of climate change.]
C. Objectivep. 1
Para. 5 (5.1)
Option (a): Ensuring significant global greenhouse gas emission reductions over the next few decades or a 40–70 per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions below 2010 levels by 2050 and near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century;
Option (b): Ensuring that global greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2020 at the latest, are reduced by at least 50 per cent by 2050 and continue to decline thereafter [reaching near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century, consistent with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change];
Option (d): Ensuring significant and rapid global greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 70–95 per cent below 2010 levels by 2050 and negative emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases before 2080;
C. Objectivep. 5
D. Mitigation p. 9
Para 17 (17.2)
Option 1, Option (a): A long-term zero emission sustainable development pathway [bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries][ for developing countries that combines adaptation and mitigation to reduce climate change and its impacts]:
i. Consistent with carbon neutrality / net zero emissions by 2050, or full decarbonization by 2050 and/or negative emissions by 2100 [for developed countries];
iii. Consistent with a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 50 per cent by 2050 compared with the levels in 1990 and a continued decline in emissions thereafter, [in the context of equitable access to sustainable development and a global carbon budget][reaching near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century, consistent with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change];
iv. Consistent with emissions peaking for [developed countries][Parties included in annex X] in 2015, with an aim of zero net emissions by 2050, in the context of equitable access to sustainable development;
vii. Consistent with the scientific findings of the IPCC, in order to have a likely chance of keeping the temperature change to below 2 °C, global GHG emissions in 2050 will need to be 40 to 70 per cent lower than in 2010 and reach levels near zero Gt CO2 eq or below in 2100;
viii. Ensuring significant and rapid global greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 70–95 per cent below 2010 levels by 2050 and zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases in the period 2060–2080.
Option 1, Option (b): A full decarbonization by 2050 for developed countries and a sustainable development pathway for developing countries consistent with a peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, noting that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, in the context of equitable access to sustainable development;
D. Mitigationp. 9-10
Option 2: All Parties shall cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that, consistent with emissions peaking for developed countries in 2015, they shall aim to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050, and further recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries, in the context of equitable access to sustainable development.]
D. Mitigation p. 10
