WRI Stories Feed: All

Foundation for a Low Carbon Future: Essential Elements of a Copenhagen Agreement

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:37:33 -0500

WRI identifies key elements for a successful and possible outcome in Copenhagen

PDF of this post (PDF, 6 pages, 347 Kb)
More COP-15 Resources

In December 2009, twenty thousand people, including about 40 heads of state, will converge in Copenhagen to decide how the world responds to escalating climate change over the next half century.

If successful, the meeting of 192 member countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will send a clear signal to business and industry, governments and citizens around the world. Commitments made and mechanisms agreed will signal that the future belongs to a low-carbon economy and that tomorrow’s winners will be those that invest in clean energy solutions. It will also set in motion swift support for the most vulnerable in adapting to a warming world.

Copenhagen should serve as a foundation for and springboard to a new legally binding global climate agreement. Realistically, the summit is likely to result in a foundational outcome that encourages immediate action to reduce emissions and signals commitment to greater action in the near future. The negotiations are likely to conclude in a series of decisions that will lock in progress made so far, together with an overarching high-level political declaration that the final agreement will be legally binding. This new, comprehensive, and legally binding instrument will be the goal of negotiations in 2010, once the United States has passed the domestic legislation necessary to commit to a final target and timetable for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This brief paper, rooted in WRI’s long-running analysis of the complex and interconnected issues under negotiation, identifies key elements for a successful and possible outcome in Copenhagen (categorized in this document by The Big Picture Agreement, Building a Sound Foundation, and Support for Developing Countries). These include a clear set of follow-on negotiations to complete a legally binding agreement. This process could be achieved in two stages - at a continuation of the COP 15 Copenhagen session six months later (a so-called COP 15 bis), and at the next full conference of the UNFCCC parties (COP 16) in Mexico in December 2010. Putting in place a clear process to agree upon the final legally binding instrument(s) in one negotiation track will be key to success. After two years of negotiations, many of the elements required for an effective post-2012 climate agreement are already clear.

Essential Elements of a Copenhagen Agreement

1. The Big Picture Agreement

The world sets a goal to keep global average temperature below 1.5–2 degrees Celsius in comparison with pre-industrial levels. This is in line with the best scientific guidance which warns that greater warming will spawn increasingly dangerous and unpredictable impacts. To limit temperature rise, countries also agree to reduce global emissions by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

In order to meet this goal, a high-level declaration would contain a set of substantive agreements in the form of targets and timetables from developed countries and emission reduction actions by developing countries. Financial commitments from the former to support the latter in their mitigation and adaptation efforts between now and 2020 must also be included.

Country Commitments for a Successful Copenhagen Outcome

Developed countries as a group — including the United States, 27 European Union countries, Japan, Australia, Canada and Russia — would commit to reducing emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. These countries would also commit to cutting collective emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Additionally, each developed country would also commit to an economy-wide 2020 emission reduction target (known as a Quantified Emission Reduction Commitment or QERC) and an emissions pathway through 2030. These national targets could be in the form of a range until the final legally binding instrument(s) is agreed in 2010.

Developing countries would agree to take nationally appropriate climate mitigation actions that will reduce emissions significantly (e.g., 15 to 30 percent) below business-as-usual levels by 2020. African, Asian and Latin American governments could implement emission reduction policies and measures in all major economic sectors, including forestry (deforestation is responsible for 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions). Some large developing countries that are major economic players and substantial greenhouse gas emitters, such as China, Brazil, and Mexico also would agree to individual non-binding goals to curb national emissions within the range. The amount of financial support that developed countries come up with will fundamentally determine the level of action to which developing countries are prepared to commit.

Country actions and commitments would be reflected in long-term nationally appropriate low-carbon planning processes.

2. Building a Sound Foundation

For these commitments to form the basis of an effectively functioning agreement, a framework of international climate machinery needs to be built around them. This will require a COP decision mandating that negotiations conclude in a legally binding instrument that contains the following specified mechanisms and institutions.

A matter of record: schedule or registry

All countries’ commitments and actions would be formally registered at Copenhagen which requires creation of an official registry or schedule. These could be amended post- Copenhagen only in order to make them more ambitious. Support pledged by developed countries for developing country actions would also be included.

Comparing apples with apples: common international standards

When the post-2012 international climate agreement comes into effect, it is critical that countries employ both common methodologies to track greenhouse gas emissions and common international accounting standards. Without such rules, comparing emission reduction actions taken by different countries will be like comparing apples and oranges. Such rules will also be important to enable a global carbon market to operate effectively and help drive down the cost of climate change mitigation.

The agreement would therefore include common international accounting and reporting standards for countries taking on targets in four key areas: 1) comprehensive reporting and review of national GHG emissions; 2) common standards for quantifying, reporting, and reviewing emission reductions, including from changes in land use, land-use change, and forestry; 3) common standards for national GHG registries and 4) common methodologies for estimating emission reductions from developing country projects or programs funded by developed countries (known as offsets).

Country Commitments for a Successful Copenhagen Outcome

Measuring in order to manage: verification

A robust mechanism to measure, report and verify the commitments and actions that countries agree to take is critical to promote trust between nations, and to ensure that promised greenhouse gas reductions actually materialize. This would include deployment of expert review teams to assess country efforts. Delivery of the support that developed countries pledge to developing countries would also be measured, reported and verified. An Implementation Committee would be established, providing a forum for expert review teams to share findings with countries.

The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties could be mandated to encourage countries to meet their obligations and empowered to find a country out of compliance. Tools to encourage compliance could include possible suspension of a country’s rights and privileges under the agreement.

Applying the latest science: review mechanism

It is critically important that the Copenhagen agreement remains consistent with the latest science on climate change. This will require institutionalized reviews to help ensure that countries’ collective commitments meet the objectives the world has set. The first would review countries’ efforts in light of the latest IPCC review of science in 2014. Further emergency reviews could be triggered by a group of countries if new scientific evidence warrants swifter attention than scheduled in the agreement.

3. Support for Developing Countries

No deal will emerge from Copenhagen, or subsequently, without significant commitments of financial, technology and capacity building support from industrialized to developing countries. This requires two decisions. The first is particularly important both to build trust and respond to urgent need, and is a fast start fund to help the poorest countries respond to the existing destructive impacts of climate change on lives and livelihoods and build capacity to act. The second is a decision to create the post-2012 financial architecture and identify sources of funds. WRI views the following mechanisms and support frameworks as a workable solution.

Climate finance

A new financial mechanism created in Copenhagen could establish a single fund with four components - adaptation, technology, mitigation and forestry. The most vulnerable countries would have direct and expedited access to this money, which would have robust transparency and accountability rules attached. Developed and developing countries would be equally represented on the fund’s governing boards, which would fall under the authority of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. The financial mechanism could include a role for existing but reformed international financial institutions.

Four Components of a Climate Finance Mechanism

Fast start fund This new mechanism would be immediately operational with annual prompt start funding of $10 to $15 billion pledged by developed countries in Copenhagen for adaptation and capacity building from 2010 through 2012.

Longer term funding Developed countries would commit to deliver substantially larger amounts by 2020, with a specific figure to be agreed upon in 2010. Sources could include domestic cap-and-trade programs which provide set-asides for the aforementioned public funds, and perhaps bunker fuel levies on international aviation and shipping. All countries would contribute to the fund – based on responsibility and ability to pay – except for the poorest and most vulnerable. Additional and predictable financing must be earmarked for climate change by industrialized countries, and not diverted from official development assistance budgets.

Forest support

Countries would agree to take and support actions that will significantly reduce emissions from deforestation and significant forest degradation (known as REDD) in natural forest ecosystems by 2020. This would require agreement on the creation of a REDD mechanism at Copenhagen. This mechanism would initiate and direct performance-based financing that reflects the varied national circumstances and needs of individual developing countries. A first phase would channel financing for policies and measures leading to improvements in governance of forests that are necessary for countries both to achieve emission reductions and to provide credible emission reductions into an international system. A second (and possible subsequent) phase(s) would channel support for countries to achieve real, additional, verifiable and permanent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Reporting and verification components of the REDD mechanism would include tracking governance improvements and emission reductions. Impacts of activities on biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities would also be monitored.

forest degradation in developing countries

Technology support

This new mechanism would seek to speed the deployment of clean energy and low-carbon technologies in developing countries. Countries would decide to double climate research and development funding by 2015 and include innovation and capacity building centers in developing countries. Countries would also create a mechanism to handle issues surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR).

Adaptation support

In addition to the fast start funding, a new adaptation framework would be agreed at Copenhagen that promotes both immediate and long-term integrated action by all countries to adapt to the impacts generated by rising global temperatures. This would provide reliable adaptation support for all developing countries, with the most vulnerable first in line. Assistance will support development of planning and review processes, building of institutional capacity, implementation of practical on-the-ground projects, and scaling up of action through international cooperation networks and initiatives.

Beyond Copenhagen: finalizing a new global agreement

There are two tracks of talks under the UN negotiations, one within the UNFCCC and one within the Kyoto Protocol. Many countries (especially from the developing world) seek to maintain and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol while others, notably the United States, would prefer to work solely within the UNFCCC framework. As a result, countries may fail to decide at Copenhagen on the final legal form of a binding new climate agreement. Specifically, they may not agree whether there will be one new legally binding agreement or two, with the Kyoto Protocol continuing for those that are parties to it and a separate agreement for others.

If this is the case, countries must set a date by which such an agreement will be concluded, and a clear, timely process to complete the negotiations. To be most effective, this should include continued involvement of ministers and heads of state and be focused in one track of negotiations to decide the final legal instrument(s).

To expedite this process, countries could decide in Copenhagen that two high level meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC are needed next year. The first would be a continuation of COP 15 and take place in June 2010. The second would be the regular annual COP meeting in December in Mexico. If the key elements described above are put into place at Copenhagen, they would provide a springboard to finalize a new, long-term, and effective global climate agreement in 2010.

A Two Step Process: Completing A New Legal Climate Agreement

Download the PDF (PDF, 6 pages, 347 Kb)

WRI Releases Guide to Key Elements of Success at Copenhagen

Jessica Forres — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:02:37 -0500

The World Resources Institute (WRI) released a six-page brief here today. It outlines key elements for a successful and possible outcome of the United Nations climate conference next month in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“Commitments made and mechanisms agreed will signal that the future belongs to a low-carbon economy and that tomorrow’s winners will be those that invest in clean energy solutions,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program and a lead author of Foundation for a Low-Carbon Future: Essential Elements of a Copenhagen Agreement. “It will also set in motion swift support for the most vulnerable in adapting to a warming world.”

WRI’s president, Jonathan Lash, added, “Copenhagen will be a success if it creates the basis for and a commitment to a legally binding global climate agreement next year, and supports the efforts of leaders in the U.S. Senate to develop and pass energy and climate legislation.”

Foundational Elements of a Copenhagen Agreement

The Copenhagen conference is likely to result in a foundational outcome that encourages immediate action to reduce emissions and signals commitment to greater action in the near future. The negotiations are likely to conclude in a series of decisions that would lock in progress made so far, together with an overarching high-level political declaration that the final agreement would be legally binding. This new, comprehensive, and legally binding instrument would be the goal of negotiations in 2010, once the United States passes the domestic legislation necessary to commit to a target and timetable for reducing heat-trapping pollutants.

The six-page brief details:

What the “big picture” agreement would need to look like to keep the global average temperature below 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius.
The new financial mechanism needed at Copenhagen to construct a legally binding instrument. This could establish a single fund – immediately operational and “fast starting” $10 to $15 billion in pledges to developing countries – with separate components for adaptation, technology, mitigation and forestry.
The next steps beyond Copenhagen in deciding whether to work within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol or that of the United Nations.

The Truth About Cap-and-Trade in Europe

Jill Duggan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:29:30 -0500

Has cap-and-trade in Europe worked? WRI’s Senior Fellow Jill Duggan, who helped implement the EU trading scheme, sorts the myths from reality.

Europe began its cap-and-trade system in 2005, with a three year learning period (phase 1). In recent U.S. Senate climate hearings, cap-and-trade critics pointed to the challenges of that first phase as a sign that cap-and-trade was a failure. But as more results are identified and understood, Europe’s first phase is looking more and more like a success. Today Europe has a stable cap-and-trade system, improved by the lessons learned when it was first implemented, and industry in Europe have certainty that carbon pricing is here to stay.

Price Stability

Price volatility for carbon is often cited as a problem in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). In fact, for the second trading period, the price has been relatively stable. The chart below shows the comparative stability of European Union Allowances (EUAs) – the emissions reduction ‘currency’ (in blue) – when compared to the price volatility of other commodities such as coal, oil, and gas.

Comparing the price volatility of European Union Allowances to the volatility of oil, coal, and gas
Source: United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

Overallocation or Emissions Reductions?

Another charge leveled at the EU ETS is that officials had allocated too many allowances for polluters in the first phase, with no real abatement (greenhouse gas emissions reductions) taking place. It is true that in May 2006, the results from the first year showed that there were fewer emissions than allowances. But was this overallocation or was it, perhaps, that European states, venturing into uncharted territory, had underestimated how cheap and easy it would be for companies to reduce their emissions? The earlier UK emissions trading system, for example, exceeded its five year target in the first year. Companies, once they started to implement greenhouse gas reduction measures, were quite effective at cutting back on emissions, and needed fewer allowances than predicted.

Real Action by Companies

Critics claim that the trading system has not changed behavior. However, a look at the numbers from the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL), which tracks allowances from the EU ETS member states, shows that in 2005, when the price of carbon was high, emissions went down. As the carbon price fell in 2006, emissions went up. In 2007, the price was so close to zero that there was hardly any carbon constraint in Europe, and there were actually 11.6 million more tonnes of CO2 emitted than allowances allocated for that year. These numbers suggest that the carbon price did in fact influence behavior – it encouraged cuts when the price was higher in the earlier years providing for extra allowances, while a lower price led to an increase in emissions.

The figures fit with early analysis undertaken by economists Ellerman and Buchner, Barry Anderson and others that found significant abatement in the EU ETS in its first years of operation, meaning that companies took real action to reduce their emissions. More research is necessary to confirm these figures, and Ellerman and others will be publishing more analysis next year. But there are strong indications that the carbon price in the first phase was very effective in driving a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The EU Carbon Market Today

So is the carbon market working today? In 2006, only 15% of the companies covered by the ETS were taking the future cost of carbon into account. Point Carbon and others found that a year later, about 65% of companies in the trading system were making their future investment decisions based on having a carbon price – and that is precisely the response needed.

Europe has stuck with cap-and-trade because of its cost-effectiveness and its ability to deliver an environmental outcome.

What are the big lessons we can draw from the early EU experience? First, a market needs scarcity in order to create demand and a carbon price. Second, achieving the right level of scarcity right away is difficult, because governments and companies are nervous and tend to overestimate how difficult and expensive it will be to cut back on emissions. Reducing emissions in practice is much easier, at least in the early years, than we had expected, and that is good news, but it makes it harder to get real demand in the market at the beginning. These early challenges do not mean that cap-and-trade is fundamentally flawed, as some have suggested. Europe has stuck with cap-and-trade because of its cost-effectiveness and its ability to deliver an environmental outcome. Companies do not need to know what the carbon price will be in 2020 (just as they do not know the price for oil or coal will in 2020). They do need to know that there will be a carbon price in 2020, and in Europe at least, they know that the ETS is here to stay.

Critics should step back and look at the overall picture of the EU ETS rather than make judgments on its various elements. In future pieces we will explore issues raised about the EU ETS, and show how many of the criticisms have thus far been misplaced and how Europe has addressed some of the early lessons.

Bloomberg Philanthropies Awards EMBARQ, Partners $125 Million for Global Road Safety Work

Paul Mackie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:11:34 -0500

EMBARQ – The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport is one of six organizations awarded a total of $125 million by Michael Bloomberg to implement programs in low- and middle-income countries to prevent death and disability from road traffic crashes. This is the largest single donation ever for international road safety.

“Bloomberg Philanthropies is an ideal global strategic partner that will allow EMBARQ to continue to achieve results in some of the world’s most iconic and populated cities,” said Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute. “It is a significant milestone that Bloomberg recognizes the value of sustainable urban mobility in improving road safety and public health.”

Road traffic crashes kill 1.2 million people and injure up to 50 million each year, according to the World Health Organization. Road traffic injuries are projected to be the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2030. To reverse these trends, Bloomberg’s five-year program will focus on 10 low- and middle-income countries that have a high burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities, representing 48 percent of traffic deaths globally.

EMBARQ’s programs will focus on incorporating sustainable transport and reduced emissions in urban planning. “Helmets and seatbelts are very important, but you also have to think about policies that protect all urban residents, not just transport users,” said Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ, which includes a network of Centers for Sustainable Transport based in Mexico, Brazil, India, Turkey and the Andean Region. “We’re tackling the problem at the root by considering all of the health and safety benefits associated with mass transit, cycling, walking, clean fuels and vehicles, and vibrant public spaces. These solutions not only provide safer streets, but they also lead to cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions, more physically active citizens, and greater social inclusion.”

Other organizations involved in the initiative include the World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, Global Road Safety Partnership and the Association for Safe International Road Travel.

“We look forward to collaborating with the other Bloomberg partners,” said Claudia Adriazola, EMBARQ’s expert on road safety. “Our success will depend on a coordinated effort to achieve results, and that’s what makes this program so powerful.”

Brazil Pledges Ambitious Emissions Reductions

Taryn Fransen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:23:55 -0500

New targets and deforestation numbers put Brazil in the spotlight.

The government of Brazil announced last Friday that it will reduce its emissions by at least 36% from business as usual by 2020. This dramatic (though non-binding) target came in the wake of news that Brazilian deforestation is currently at its lowest level since measurement began over twenty years ago. As the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen approach, what do these numbers actually mean?

A Look at the Numbers

First, it is important to clarify that the target is a 36 - 39% drop from “business as usual” (BAU), not from current emissions levels. (BAU levels are based on projections of future emissions if no action is taken.) This translates to a 15 - 18% reduction from 2005 levels. Even so, these numbers look relatively ambitious in the international context, especially considering that Brazil is a developing country and does not have a quantitative emission reduction obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. By comparison, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June would reduce U.S. emissions by 14% over the same period.

Brazil’s expected reductions by sector are shown in the table below:

Sector	2005 (MtCO2e)¹	BAU 2020 (MtCO2e)²	Targeted range for 2020 (MtCO2e)³	Targeted change relative to BAU (%)⁴	Targeted change relative to 2005 (%)⁵	Planned interventions⁶
Land Use	1139.3	1084	415	(24.7)	(63.7)	Reduction of deforestation in the Amazon by 80%; reduction of deforestation in the Cerrado by 40%
Agriculture and Ranching	467.4	627	461 - 494	(4.9 - 6.1)	(1.4) - 5.7	Recuperation of pastures, interated farming and ranching, no-till, biological nitrogen fixation
Energy	354.3	901	694 - 735	(6.1 - 7.7)	48.9 - 107	Energy efficiency, biofuels, hydropower, alternative sources (e.g. wind)
Other	61.3	92	82 - 84	(0.3 - 0.4)	33.8 - 37	Substitution of charcoal from deforestation in pig iron production
Total	2022.3	2073	1651 - 1728	(36.1 - 38.9)	(18.4 - 14.6)

Over half of the proposed reductions are expected to come from efforts already underway to stem deforestation in the Amazon, which accounts for about two-thirds of Brazil’s total emissions. Yet it is unclear how much of the recent drop in deforestation is due to policy changes, such as the recent crack-down on illegal logging and enhanced enforcement of land licensing, versus the economic crisis, which has reduced global demand for the beef and soy production that has traditionally driven deforestation.

Another point of contention regarding the design of the target was the calculation of BAU emissions. The government has not released its methodology for the projections, and there is debate as to what economic growth rate should have been assumed in the calculations. Using a higher growth rate would result in higher estimates of BAU emissions, and an inflated BAU would make Brazil’s percent reduction target relatively easier to achieve. The Ministry of Environment had initially put forward an estimate based on a 4% economic growth rate, and the administration, in turn, suggested using 5% or 6%, which some environmentalists consider unrealistically high.

Reaction from Environmental Groups

Nonetheless, the reaction from Brazilian environmental groups has been mostly positive, with some reservations. According to João Talocchi of Greenpeace, “Two years ago, if you said the word ‘target,’ [the government] wanted to revoke your passport and deport you. This is a change that could help in the Copenhagen negotiations.” But environmentalists are also criticizing the lack of transparency in the process of developing the target, and demanding that the government release its calculations, update the national inventory, enshrine in national policy the steps that will be taken to implement the goal, and include the target in the Copenhagen agreement, presumably because this may lead to international monitoring and verification of the results.

Developing Countries Take Action

Brazil’s announcement, three weeks before the December COP-15 climate negotiations, may help put pressure on wealthier nations to make similar pledges. Brazil is not alone; other major developing countries have stepped forward with significant proposals as well. Mexico has pledged to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. South Africa has presented a detailed plan to peak its national emissions by 2020. China has launched an effort to reduce energy intensity 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2010, and has said it will reduce its carbon intensity by “a notable margin” by 2020. (Most of these proposals are contingent on financial support from developed countries.) While it looks increasingly unlikely that a deal will be finalized in December, negotiations are expected to continue, and the question of how the mitigation burden should be shared both between and among developed and developing countries will continue to be contentious.

Brazil’s new agenda is a politically important step, and it is significant that the Brazilian government is now willing to take on a target (even a voluntary one). This is a real change in tone from the administration. Developed countries, and especially the U.S., will have to take note and put forward their own ambitious targets. Yet Brazil’s target will be meaningless unless significant steps are taken to implement it. This means continuing to improve the management of the Amazon by clarifying and implementing land tenure laws, addressing excessive fire outbreaks, and reducing subsidies to competing land uses that drive deforestation; tackling emissions from agriculture and ranching; and reversing the trend of increasing carbon intensity in the energy sector. The world will be watching to see how Brazil approaches these challenges in the years to come. In the meantime, other countries must step up to the plate and match Brazil’s ambition.

Cerri et al., “Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Importance of Agriculture and Livestock. Sci. Agric. v. 66, n. 6, p. 831 – 843, Nov/Dec 2009 ↩
MMA et al., Cenários para Oferta Brasileira de Mitigação de Emissões, http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/182/_arquivos/cenarioemisso..., accessed 11/16/09 ↩
Calculated based on MMA et al. ↩
MMA et al. ↩
Calculated by author based on Cerri et al. and MMA et al. ↩
MMA et al. ↩

WRI’s Lash Says China-U.S. Agreement a Major Step in Global Climate Negotiations

Paul Mackie — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:12:15 -0500

Leaders of China and the U.S. announced today that their countries will work hard alongside other nations to produce a substantive international climate agreement at a major United Nations climate conference next month.

In response, Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, said, “The outcome of today’s discussions between President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao on climate and energy sends an encouraging signal for a positive result at the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen.

“The statements by the two leaders and the joint communiqué following their meeting reflect a shared sense of urgency about achieving progress toward a comprehensive agreement on climate change, and a shared vision of the transition to a low carbon economy as a source of innovation and economic opportunity,” Lash added. “It is particularly encouraging that both leaders signaled their commitment to national action to reduce heat-trapping pollutants, and to cooperation on a wide range of projects to promote technologies to achieve that goal.”

For much more information on the upcoming climate talks, visit the Countdown to Copenhagen page on WRI’s Web site.

MEDIA ADVISORY: WRI Press Briefing on What to Expect at Copenhagen

Paul Mackie — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:24:01 -0500

WHAT: Please join the World Resources Institute (WRI) for a journalist-only policy briefing this Friday that will preview the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark from December 7-18.

WHEN: Friday, November 20, 2009
3:00 pm – 4:30 pm: Expert Briefings and Question & Answer Session
4:30 pm – 5:30 pm: Happy Hour Reception

WHERE: World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE, 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20002 (Metro: Red Line to Union Station)

WHO: Jonathan Lash, president, World Resources Institute,
Jennifer Morgan, director, WRI Climate and Energy Program

WHY: Details on possible outcomes in Copenhagen will be outlined, including WRI expert perspectives on provisions for finance, forests, and adaptation – taking into account the latest public statements from leaders of the U.S., China, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, and country environment ministries. WRI Climate and Energy program Director Jennifer Morgan will also release a new report, Foundations for a Low Carbon Future: Essential Elements of a Copenhagen Agreement.

RSVP: Paul Mackie, WRI director of media relations, +1(202) 729-7684, pmackie@wri.org

SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter hashtag #wrinews

RSVP by Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Reflections from Barcelona

Jennifer Morgan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:08:08 -0500

Last week’s climate talks brought into relief the complex mix of politics and policies that countries are grappling with heading into COP-15 next month.

The stakes were high at the recently concluded Barcelona talks, the last formal negotiating stop before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-15) begins in Copenhagen next month, at which countries hope to lay the groundwork for a low carbon future. Despite some progress, much urgently needed work remains to be done. The challenge now is for heads of state to engage each other on the core elements of an effective global climate agreement, and to build the trust needed for success in Copenhagen.

The Barcelona talks brought into relief the complex mix of politics and policies that countries are grappling with as they attempt to identify clear choices for their leaders. Two issues in particular received considerable attention: the “African walk out” and the question over whether an agreement will be “politically binding” or “legally binding.” The debate over the significance of these two issues preoccupied many journalists and observers, and on the latter may have diverted attention from the real issues at hand.

Africa and other vulnerable countries are terribly concerned that efforts by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are far from adequate to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. The “walk out” was intended to remind the rest of the world that these countries have some political muscles to flex, if they so choose.

Meanwhile, the media portrayal missed the main point on the question of politically and legally binding commitments. Namely, while there seems to be a common desire for a legally binding final agreement in Copenhagen (including the main substance of the Bali Action Plan), there is also growing recognition that the exact form of that legally binding agreement may take a extra few months to decide. Indeed, the Bali Action Plan stated that there should be an “agreed outcome” in two years but did not specify whether it should be legally binding or not. Therefore, what came out of Barcelona from negotiators was less a statement about the intended legal form than the timescale needed to get everything completed. The crucial decisions on whether there will indeed be a legally binding instrument—and the process to complete it—have thus been left to the last possible minute, in Copenhagen. There is ample room for negotiations to unravel in this sphere, and attention to detail will be critically important.

Beyond these two headline grabbers, the key issues remain the same after Barcelona as before. First, how much commitment to countries have to reduce emissions—in the form of economy-wide emission reduction targets for developed countries, and below business-as-usual goals for large developing countries? Second, how much support will industrialized countries provide for developing countries to decarbonizes their economies, reduce emissions from forest loss, and adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change?

In addition, a new but nonetheless critical issue captured attention in Barcelona: what rulemaking architecture should countries adopt for the emerging agreement?

For the uninitiated, there are now two tracks of talks taking place at the UN climate negotiations. The first is the Kyoto Protocol track, which aims to reach agreement on the next round of emissions reduction targets by industrialized countries. The second is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) track, which is discussing a U.S. target, emission reduction actions by developing countries, and associated new support mechanisms. A key question for this second track is what kind of rulemaking system will be agreed to ensure that countries comply with their commitments.

Why Is a Rulemaking System Important?

When the international agreement comes into effect, it will need common methodologies and rules to track greenhouse gas emissions and apply common international accounting and trading standards.

Such rules will be particularly important for a global carbon market to operate effectively and drive down the cost of climate change mitigation. Just like currency markets, carbon markets also need recognized standards so that buyers can be certain that a ton is a ton is a ton. For example, rules must ensure that an offset credit issued from a project in India was developed using similar standards to an offset credit issued in Mexico, and that an independent third-party approved and verified the projects.

Uniform rules will also be important in national accounting. Without international standards, countries could make up their own rules, and would no doubt choose criteria that fit their national interests, leading to competitiveness concerns. For example, Russia, a densely forested country could decide only to count its forests as carbon sinks and to ignore the role of cleared forests as sources of greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States instead count both forestry sinks and sources, there would be a significant accounting imbalance. It would also be difficult to track national rules if there were an accounting free-for-all.

Next Steps: All to Play For in Copenhagen

The Barcelona talks helped to clean up a weighty negotiating text and clarify the options available as the Copenhagen deadline looms. Some issues, notably financing for climate adaptation and how to reduce emissions from deforestation, made some progress. Many delegations also promoted an international agreement that encourages the exchange of transparent, scientifically based, information among all countries. Such an approach would help build confidence in a new international climate agreement, by helping to ensure that countries undertake the actions to which they are committed, and by promoting the development of an effective international carbon market.

Before Copenhagen, a series of ministerial and heads of state meetings will be held around the world where preparation for the climate summit will play a prominent role. Among them are President Obama’s trip to China and other Asian nations, the pre-Copenhagen ministerial meeting in mid-November, and the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Trinidad the first week of December. Each of these must be used to bring countries closer together so that a fair, ambitious and binding deal is possible in the Danish capital. There is still all to play for in Copenhagen.

Courage to Lead Dinner Honors Environmental Innovators

Rich Barnett — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:43:26 -0500

WRI Annual Dinner gathers leaders tackling today’s toughest environmental challenges, and raises more than $1 million to support WRI’s work.

Last night more than 350 people joined WRI at The Mandarin Oriental in New York to recognize two visionary leaders who have blazed new paths to protect the environment and improve people’s lives.

Daniel L. Doctoroff, President of Bloomberg L.P., is a successful investor who injected passion and drive into public service and in doing so brought to life to one of the most ambitious urban sustainability initiatives in the world. Under the leadership of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Mr. Doctoroff led New York’s dramatic economic resurgence after 9/11 with a comprehensive five-borough economic development strategy. He also led the creation of PLANYC, the most extensive plan to strengthen an urban environment ever undertaken by an American city.

The Courage to Lead

Watch on YouTube

Charles O. Holliday, Chairman of DuPont, is an engineer who, throughout a career in industry, has harnessed the power of innovation and top line growth toward solving society’s most pressing environmental challenges. Under Mr. Holliday’s leadership, DuPont established its mission to achieve sustainable growth – increasing shareholder and societal value while decreasing the company’s environmental footprint.

WRI’s Courage to Lead Dinner raised over $1 million in unrestricted funds to support the Institute’s ability to find practical solutions to environment and development challenges.

DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman

Dinner Co-Chairs were Peter T. Grauer, Jeffrey R. Immelt, Ellen J. Kullman, and Stephen M. Ross. CNN National Correspondent Alina Cho served as master of ceremonies. Other featured speakers included DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman, WRI President Jonathan Lash, and Director and Producer Ric Burns. The dinner featured a small, dynamic auction led by Lydia Fenet of Christie’s Auction House.

WRI is pleased to recognize the supporters of the evening’s event:

Investors
Marine Conservationist Celine Cousteau, CNN National Correspondent Alina Cho Bloomberg
DuPont
GE
Stephen M. Ross and Related Companies

Benefactors
Ogilvy & Mather

Sponsors
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Doctoroff Family Foundation
Louisa and Bob Duemling
Duke Energy and Jim Rogers New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, EMBARQ Director Nancy Kete
Goldman Sachs
Matthew Nimetz and General Atlantic
Ronald Perelman and MacAndrews & Forbes
Invenergy LLC and Michael Polsky
Tishman Speyer
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Patrons
Alcoa Foundation
Angeleno Group and Daniel Weiss
Bank of America
Bloomberg President Dan Doctoroff and artist Alex Schuchard. Crowell & Moring
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
Geller & Company
Al and Tipper Gore
James A. Harmon
JPMorgan Chase
News Corporation
NRG Energy, Inc.
Ted and Connie Roosevelt
Shell
Todd S. Thomson
Related Chairman and CEO Steve Ross, Doug Harmon, WRI Chairman Jim Harmon TPG Capital, L.P.
Van Scoyoc Associates and Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC

Supporters
Glenn R. August
Ballard Spahr LLP
BNY Mellon
CH2M HILL
Estée Lauder Companies, Inc.
Richard Hayes and Deloitte LLP
Morgan Stanley
Jeff Gordon and Ingrid Vandebosche PNM Resources
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Rio Tinto
Siemens
Peter J. Solomon Company, L.P.
Lizzie and Jonathan Tisch
The Traveler’s Companies, Inc.

WRI Launches New Web Site Tracking China’s Energy and Climate Actions

Jessica Forres — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:05:42 -0500

The World Resources Institute (WRI) today rolls out ChinaFAQs.org - a Web site tracking and summarizing the research of academics, research scientists and policy experts on China’s climate and energy policies and actions.

“As President Obama heads to China this week, energy and climate change will be at the top of the agenda during his meeting with President Hu Jintao,” said Deborah Seligsohn, a WRI senior fellow and principal advisor based in Beijing. “We hope this resource will provide journalists and Congress critical information on China’s actions and policies, which affect domestic energy use, bilateral cooperation, and global efforts to reduce heat-trapping pollutants.”

The network brings together more than 20 distinguished experts and summarizes their in-depth research on Chinese climate and energy issues and trends. Visitors to the site can also find fact sheets, related data, graphics, news articles, expert commentary, and other content organized by sub-topics such as carbon capture and storage, coal usage, and energy efficiency.

“Policymakers often don’t know where to find information on Chinese energy and climate issues” said Seligsohn. “For the first time all of this information can be found in one place on ChinaFAQs Network.”

The site is also meant to increase exchanges between experts, the policy community, and opinion leaders.