!"#$%&'()'*+&#%&#+),(((((((((((((-%)*.+.
(((((((((((((%/0#"(122((((((((((((()*+()'3,"'&&'0
!!"#$%&'$())*$+,(-.'%)/$(0$12*3425)6*7)*8&-$!*5.62*7)*8&-$462,+'$&8$7&926$.*8)6*&:2*&-$;2*<)6)*;)'$'.*;)$8%)$=82;>%2-7$!*5.62*7)*8$
"2*<)6)*;)$.*$?@ABC$!"#$.'$+62/,;)/$;232+)6&:5)-0$(0$8%)$"-.7&8)$D;:2*$1)8E26>$&8$8%)$F1G"""$7)):*H'$.*$I&*H>2>$.*$D+6.-$BJ??C$
!"#$)7&.-K$&/7.*.'86&:2*L;-.7&8)*)8E26>C26H$M$!"#$E)('.8)K$%N+KOO;-.7&8)*)8E26>C26HO);23*)E'-)N)6'$M$!/.826.&-OP62/,;:2*K$Q2'%,&$R&66&;%
An Honest Conversation
Dear delegates, ECO welcomes you
back to work with a recap of two
Cancun decisions important for
today's mitigation workshop.
Firstly, you promised the world to
aim to limit temperature increases to
below 2°C, and to review from
2013-2015 whether this aim needed
strengthening to 1.5°C. That promise
represented progress of sorts for many
of you. Though we should note that
the EU has argued for setting the 2°C
threshold for many years.
That Cancun decision clearly did
not reflect the most up-to-date
scientific assessments of climate
sensitivity that show that a
temperature rise of more than 2
degrees – even one above 1.5 degrees
– has a high probability of
catastrophic climate impacts.
Secondly, in the Kyoto Protocol
track you endorsed the IPCC Fourth
Assessment that says that in order to
keep warming to below 2 degrees,
Annex 1 countries should reduce their
emissions by 25-40% compared to
1990 levels by 2020. In order to do so,
you asked yourselves to increase
ambition in line with the IPCC's
assessment, as the current pledges are
no where near the 25-40% range.
Yet, we fear that the pledges we will
ISSUE NO 1
hear about today do not even come
close to these agreed levels of
ambition.
Disturbing figures presented by
AOSIS in the AWG-KP last year
demonstrated that the actual
reduction in aggregate Annex I
emissions pledged in Copenhagen
ranged from a feeble -1 to -7%. The
U N E P E m i s s i o n s G a p re p o r t
underscored this lack of ambition
and transparency by finding that
weak rules, bad LULUCF
accounting, and the potential carry-
over of emissions credits could add
1-2 Gt CO2e to the already sizeable
Gigatonne Gap. Double counting of
CDM credits would increase the gap
further; by up to 1.3 Gt CO2e.
Bare it all! Don't be shy. In today's
workshop, ECO calls on Parties to
explain the assumptions behind their
pledges. To be completely honest and
transparent about the loopholes they
intend to use to meet their pledges.
This would mark the start of an
honest conversation on closing the
l o o p h o l e s a n d u l t i m at e l y t h e
gigatonne gap, thus living up to the
decisions from Cancun to avoiding
dangerous warming and meeting the
C o nv e n t i o n ' s r e q u i r e m e n t o f
developed country leadership.
VOLUME CXXVIII
"
%/0#"
Probably the last
LULUCF Article Ever?
In Cancun, Parties finally acknowledged
that Annex I targets must not be set in
isolation from a thorough analysis of the
loopholes threatening to undermine them.
ECO would applaud this
accomplishment, were it not such an
obvious step to take. The UNEP
Emissions Gap report, the Climate
Analytics/Ecofys analysis and consistent
NGO campaigning all shone a bright
spotlight on the damage that
undercounting of emissions can do to
achieving the ultimate objective of the
Convention.
Indeed, in the Cancun texts, Parties
acknowledge there is a most urgent need
not only to increase ambition, but to
characterize and quantify the effect of key
loopholes, especially land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF) rules, the
project-based mechanisms and a possible
carry-over of assigned amount units.
Could that acknowledgement signal the
beginning of the end of technical
LULUCF ECO articles (and proper
accounting of emissions)?
Mind you, ECO feels your pain at the
thought of yet another article on
LULUCF, but alas, the need still remains.
- continued back page, column 3
FREE OF CHARGE
 !"#$%&'()'*+&#%&#+),(((((((((((((((-%)*.+.(((((((((((((%/0#"(122((((((((((((()*+()'3,"'&&'0
Earth to EU: The Case
for 30% is Clear
Before today’s presentations of the
pledges get underway, ECO decided
to offer some of its own
“clarifications” about the EU
mitigation pledge. And it’s mostly
good news.
! The emissions cuts made by the
EU in 2009 were already 17.3%
below 1990 levels, so the 20% target
by 2020 is almost already met. ECO
isn’t the first to point out that less
effort is required of the EU than
some may think. The European
Commission’s 2050 Low Carbon
Roadmap published in March 2011,
notes that implementing the EU’s
existing renewable energy and
energy efficiency targets would lead
to 25% domestic emissions cuts in
the EU. So there’s really no excuse
for the EU not to commit to do more
– moving to at least the 30% target
they have long promised, and beyond
to the 40% target that science
demands. And there are many
reasons why they should.!
First, the Commission’s 2050
Roadmap showed how hitting only
the 20% target by 2020 would put
the EU off-course to achieve the
2050 target of 80-95% that they
know is needed. Failing to try a bit
harder now will mean much more
work in the long-run.
Second, moving to 30% would
bring the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme back to life. ECO has long
complained of the problems of over-
allocation of emissions allowances in
ISSUE NO 1
the period 2008-12, which does
nothing but offer staggering windfall
profits to the dirtiest industries in
Europe.
Decreasing the number of
allowances by increasing the target
would turn a policy by which the
polluter gets paid, into one that
incentivizes clean, green fighting
industries of the future in Europe.
The business voices that want to
realize that vision in Europe have
had enough of the uncertainty of a
conditional target. Planning big
investments requires predictability.
Europe needs both.
Third, those investments will bring
new jobs to Europe. The European
Commission shows how “action geared
towards reaching the climate and energy
targets of the Europe 2020 strategy has
some of the greatest potential for future
j o b s. ” M a ny w i l l f a l l i n t h e
construction industry – a sector
particularly hard hit in the European
economic downturn.
ECO hopes this helps to provide all
the clarity the EU needs to finally
move to its higher target. A report
commissioned for the German
Environment Ministry sums it up
nicely. A 30% target would help
boost European investments from
18% to 22% of GDP, lead to a GDP
increase of up to "620bn, create up
to 6 million additional jobs, and help
European industry to maintain and
enhance its competitiveness. Europe,
ECO thinks the case for 30% is clear
as day.
VOLUME CXXVIII
- continued from front page, column 3
The proposed reference level approach
simply does not reflect the ambition needed
to address climate change, nor does it
secure a positive contribution toward the
emission cuts required. Forests and other
land uses must be a major part of the
solution, and yet the proposed rules move
things in the opposite direction. ECO
remains no less than astonished that while
all other sectors are expected to reduce
emissions, the forest sector gets a free pass,
since Parties could set their reference levels
allowing increased emissions with no effect
on their overall targets.
Even worse is the fact that the bulk of
emissions from bioenergy, a sector poised
for exponential growth, will go completely
unaccounted for. Moreover, while the
favoured forest fiddle is relatively well
defined, Parties have yet to fully elaborate
the rules for other land uses such as
cropland and grazing land management, as
well as rewetting and drainage. Yet, in
aggregate, these are nearly as significant as
forest emissions. Finally, Parties have fallen
short of moving towards full mandatory
accounting whilst resolving any data issues
that stand in the way.
The reference level approach to forest
management may be appealing in a narrow
political sense, but in fact it undermines
ambition in the forest and land sectors and
significantly weakens overall mitigation. It
is not just the proposed forest management
reference levels of Parties that need to be
scrutinized, but the overall political
direction of the LULUCF negotiations,
which in turn are sapping the momentum
of the overall Annex I "numbers"
discussions.
It's time for delegation leaders here and
now to focus attention, face up to the
LULUCF loophole, turn around the
momentum and starting closing the
gigatonne gap. Durban is not far off at all,
and to capture real ambition then means
starting now in Bangkok. Could this be the
year of our last LULUCF article? The
ECO Ed Board (and perhaps you kind
readers) can only hope. You can help us
achieve that goal, esteemed delegation
leaders.
FREE OF CHARGE