!"#$%&'()'*+&#%&#+),(((((((((((((-%)*.+.

(((((((((((((%/0#"(122((((((((((((()*+()'3,"'&&'0

!
%/0#"
&:;($;<=>?
#@@A;

!!"#$%&'$())*$+,(-.'%)/$(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&;%

The Emperor’s Clothes The Truth About Mitigation

ECO keenly looks forward to
today’s presentations on developing
country action as we expect they will
demonstrate more ambition and
readiness for action than what was
presented yesterday.
Many developing countries have
recognized that their pledges and
NAMAs can reduce emissions while
growing their economies sustainably
and creating a climate safe future. A
future where people are lifted out of
poverty, have access to clean safe
energy, and the unavoidable impacts
of climate change managed.
NAMAs should be developed
within the context of Low Emission
Development Strategies or Plans
(LEDS/P) both to reduce emissions
below business as usual in the short
term and to fulfill their sustainable
development objectives while also
achieving a low carbon economy.
Specific steps which can be taken
internationally this year include:
- Making operational a robust
MRV system and Registry – enabling
recognition of early action and
matching enhanced action with
support;
- Agreeing a concrete plan and
timetable by Durban to clarify the
assumptions, metrics and scope of
actions, and related support required;
- Establishing an ongoing iterative
process that involves hearing from
every single country on their
strategies and plans.
Early action is needed and the
capability to act is there. However,
technological and financial support
as well as capacity building is crucial
to realize the full potential of
mitigation actions in developing
countries.
There is thus a dual obligation on
developed countries to both act and
support. Fulfilling that obligation will
give practical meaning to the
principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities. This support
is essential for both preparation and
implementation of Low Emission
Development Strategies or Plans and
NAMAs.
The ongoing lack of ambition by
developed countries is a serious
breach of trust in terms their existing
obligations under both the
Convention and the Protocol. To
ensure environmental integrity in an
equitable manner developed
countries must reduce their emissions
by more than 40% and leave
sustainable development space for
developing countries. But it is clear
that all countries need to do far
more, as ECO has said many times
over. Those with more capabilities
should act sooner and faster.
– It’s Still Inconvenient!
The bright and shiny moments in
yesterday’s workshop on mitigation targets of
developed countries were noticeable, albeit
sparse, and mostly rhetorical. It seems to
ECO, the truth is still inconvenient!
We learned that reducing emissions is
good for the economy. Many countries re-
affirmed the need to increase the ambition
level and were very aware of the gap
between current pledges and the cuts needed
to stay below 2 degrees of warming, let
alone the needed 1.5°C limit.! And nearly
everyone – except the U.S. – acknowledged
the need for common accounting standards
to ensure the environmental integrity of this
global climate cooperation.
But, to put it simply, knowing a thing and
doing a thing isn’t the same thing…!
On the difficult questions CAN posed;
negotiators did not have such positive
answers.! For example, what will their
true emissions be? Assumptions on
forests and other land use accounting, the
use of carbon offsets and hot air carry-over
are all huge potential loopholes. While there
was some conversation on this subject – with
the U.S. promising to count both sources
and sinks in its land-based accounting
approach and challenging other countries’
approaches – there was no definitive account
of those true emissions.! Russia, Iceland and
others didn’t take up the challenge, but you
know, there’s those inconvenient ‘national
circumstances’ to consider.! The offsets
q u e s t i o n w a s k i c k e d t o t h e M RV
discussion…so stay tuned.
- Continued on page 2

#,,4'()+(5((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6+"4$'(!776###((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((80''(+8(!9%0*'
 !"#$%&'()'*+&#%&#+),(((((((((((((-%)*.+.(((((((((((((%/0#"(122((((((((((((()*+()'3,"'&&'0
Comparisons
Ain’t Odious
The word ‘comparable’ in English
carries a double meaning, meaning
both ‘capable of being compared’,
and ‘similar or equivalent’.
The capability of being compared
remains a vital component to the
evolving climate regime – otherwise
we have no climate regime and will
be in a completely bottom up world,
with all the lack of ambition and
massive destruction that this implies.
The targets of developed countries
need to be addressed through
mandatory and uniform accounting
rules, so that ‘special national
circumstances’ (i.e. individually
devised loopholes) are not used as a
means to obfuscate the amounts of
pollution each country is contributing
to the atmosphere. The need for this
common, complete, accurate and
transparent infor mation was
recognized in Cancun. Is the US
backtracking on the Cancun
agreement already? The US seemed
to be the only country yesterday
speaking out against a rules-based
system that includes common
accounting of emissions.
It’s a great thing if, as the
honourable delegate from the US
explained, the US intends to assess
reductions based on economy-wide
emissions of all sources and sinks,
and that the US target refers to
complete domestic reductions. As far
as Annex I countries are concerned,
Brave New
Zealand!
One of the first things the current
Zealand Government did when it
came to power was to announce its
intention to replace the country’s
existing Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Strategies. Both had
#,,4'()+(5((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6+"4$'(!776###((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((80''(+8(!9%0*'
this target would therefore have a lot
of integrity, if calculating emissions
were the only important issue – and if
ambition counted for nought. The
honorouable delegate from the US
went on to say that it was important
to gauge the adequacy of country
reduction targets as an aggregate,
which contradicts his lambasting the
idea of agreeing metrics to assess the
adequacy of individual reduction
targets. The US appears to be the
only country opposed to this notion.
Should we take this as another
unfortunate example of US
‘exceptionalism’?
In truth the US is not the only
developed country that would rather
go it alone instead of playing well
with others. As we have seen in
interminable KP workshops, when
asked to define comparability,
meaning ‘similarity or equivalency’,
developed countries come out with
an astonishingly self-serving arrays of
metrics that serve to minimize their
ambition for clean sustainable
development and mean that their
eventual decarbonization will be
steeper and far, far more expensive
than early action would have
allowed. While developed countries,
each and every one, are not doing all
they can possibly do to reduce their
reductions in the face of this global
crisis, then their actions are not, in
this sense, comparable.
strong Green Party support because
of the moves towards favouring
renewable energy over the burning of
fossil fuels.
In yesterday’s workshop, the New
Zealand delegate did not signal any
major changes from the current
strategy – though she did do some
special pleading for her small island
(developed) state. So small! Such a
small part of global emissions!
- Continued from page 1
CAN! expected that developed countries
with current pledges below the 25-40%
range would explain how their low pledges
are consistent with their fair share of the
needed global mitigation efforts. We did not
get answers. We just heard a lot about
‘conditions’ that must be met before they will
tell us their real target.!
CAN expected developed countries
whose pledges are below their current Kyoto
targets, and/or below business as usual
under existing domestic legislation and
targets, to explain how those pledges
constitute progress. To ECO’s dismay,
one candidate for this question, Canada,
didn’t even sit for the exam. Another, the
EU, wiggled free of the challenge by
explaining that member states really want to
achieve their long-agreed voluntary energy
efficiency targets which is needed to cut their
domestic emissions overall by 25%. ECO,
along with the Philippines, would like to ask
how that makes the EU a climate leader.
ECO also wanted to know how their
2020 pledges will allow them to achieve
near-zero emissions by 2050.! Only
Norway seemed to come even close to
answering, but Germany did present
indicative decadal targets for -80% by 2050,
while the UK’s trajectory to -80% is
enshrined in national law. The UK’s model
is overall not a bad model for a low-emission
development strateg y. There was a
potentially encouraging admission by Poland
that it was too addicted to coal and was
embracing energy efficiency. Now, if only
Poland took that realisation to Brussels.
While additional details remain to be
tabled, equally important work must begin
to enable the leading industrialized countries
of the world to ensure the environmental
integrity of their emissions targets.!
So imagine ECO’s surprise when a draft
copy of the “new” Energy Strategy landed on
our desk. It is now a fancy looking 40 page
booklet (laid out with a whole lot of pretty
pictures!) whose top priority is to “develop
petroleum and mineral fuel resources,” ahead
of renewable energy and new energy
technologies.
So thinking small after all?
Link: http://bit.ly/gjwl6M