Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Roman Targosz
European Copper Institute
targosz@pcpm.pl
January 14 2009
Today’s schedule
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Attributes of GHG
Source: UNFCCC
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was established in 1988
by the United nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO). Its
role is to assess a range of information
relevant for the understanding of the risk
of human-induced climate change.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science
Source: Climate
Change 2007 –
Assessment Report,
IPCC
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science
www.leonardo-
energy.org
IPCC 2007 Report
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Stabilising the climate will ultimately
require large emission cuts
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Global anthropogenic GHG emissions
www.leonardo-
energy.org
GHG by population and GDP
www.leonardo-
energy.org
GDP versus stabilisation levels
Notes:
Values given in this table correspond to the full literature across all baselines and mitigation scenarios that provide GDP
numbers.
a) Global GDP based on market exchange rates.
b) The 10th and 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given where applicable. Negative values indicate GDP
gain. The first row (445-535ppm CO2-eq) gives the upper bound estimate of the literature only.
c) The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the average reduction during the assessed
period that would result in the indicated GDP decrease by 2030 and 2050 respectively.
d) The number of studies is relatively small and they generally use low baselines. High emissions baselines generally
lead to higher costs.
e) The values correspond to the highest estimate for GDP reduction shown in column three.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Economic mitigation potentials
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Mitigation portfolios for achieving
stabilisation of GHG concentrations
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Kyoto Protocol
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Annex A Sources of emissions
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Annex I assigned units
www.leonardo-
energy.org
The reality gap between what is
needed and what has been achieved
is the percentage point difference in
emissions between the Kyoto target
and actual emissions of Annex I
countries in 2005.
Emissions changes exclude
LULUCF. EIT countries are shaded.
EU countries’ targets are those
agreed under the EU burden
sharing agreement. The figure for
Turkey is from 2004.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Greenhouse gas emissions of Annex I
countries 1990-2005, excluding LULUCF2
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Developing countries would account for most of the
projected increase in world greenhouse gas emissions
over the coming decades
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Cost-effective mitigation action would imply
only limited costs in the first decades
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Costs of abatement without redistribution
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Who is most hurt by global warming?
www.leonardo-
energy.org
GHG equity instruments
An emission cap and permit trading system is a quantity
instrument because it fixes the overall emission level (quantity)
and allows the price to vary.
In contrast, an emission tax is a price instrument because it fixes
the price while the emission level is allowed to vary according to
economic activity.
A third option, known as a safety valve, is a hybrid of the price
and quantity instruments. The system is essentially an emission
cap and tradeable permit system but the maximum (or minimum)
permit price is capped. Emitters have the choice of either
obtaining permits in the marketplace or purchasing them from the
government at a specified trigger price (which could be adjusted
over time).
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Effort sharing
Equitable effort sharing is one of the main principles of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Article 3.1 of the Convention
states that the parties to the Convention should protect the climate system
“on basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities”.
However, the question of what is actually equitable is ambiguous.
Numerous equity definitions have been proposed, and below is a partial list
assembled from (Ringius et al. 1998) and (Aldy et al. 2003):
− Egalitarian equity – equal emissions per capita
− Sovereign equity (or Proportional equity) – equal reductions from, e.g.,
2000
− Horizontal equity – equal net change in welfare, e.g. in GDP
− Vertical equity (or Comparable effort) – equal net cost, e.g., relative to
GDP
− Equal responsibility – effort based on historical emissions.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Uncertainty
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Effort sharing
www.leonardo-
energy.org
COP 14 in Poznań - highlights
What happens now is that the wheels are in motion toward Copenhagen. The
countries agreed that a negotiating text must be on the table by the June
negotiating session that will take place in Bonn, a necessary step.
Developing countries expressed frustration throughout the two week Conference that
discussions were veering away from some basic principles, including equity and the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that provides that all countries
should act in a manner commensurate with their circumstances and resources. Small
Island countries reminded all delegations that they stood to suffer the most from
climate change, namely from the inundation of their countries.
Progress was made on a number of issues that includes making the Adaptation Fund
operational. In addition to the funding that the Fund will receive through a levy on
Clean Development Mechanism transactions, Sweden offered $500 million to the
fund over the next three years.
Agreements were also reached on technology transfer, on financing and on
improving the operations of the Adaptation Fund. One area of major disappointment
for developing countries was the failure to reach agreement on a system to share
proceeds from emissions trading systems for adaptation purposes.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Al Gore on COP 14
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
G77 and China
calls to mind Bali decision to enhance and enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of
the Convention through long term cooperative action in order to reach an agreed outcome and
adopt a decision at COP15 in Copenhagen:
Undoubting Fourth IPCC Report and its conclusion on serious, perhaps beyond reversal, climate
change with the role of human beings accelerating this change
GHG emissions of Annex I Parties continued to increase after 2000, when under Convention they
should have peaked and begin to fall
Annex I Parties have not delivered on their commitment to enhance the transfer of technologies
and increase financing to developing countries to meet the full cost of adapting to the adverse
impacts of climate change and facilitate their mitigation actions
The Group has submitted concrete and detailed proposal on financial and technology mechanisms
Requests from Annex I Parties how they intend to begin to reduce emissions now, how they intend
to commit for 2012 to 2020 and beyond
China
Outlines past efforts
Chinese Government issued National Climate Change Program in 2007. Energy per GDP has
dropped in one year 2007 by 3,66%. In 2006 and 2007 China avoided 355 mln tons CO2 emissions
by introduction of energy efficiency improvements .
In 2008 hydropower in China has installed capacity of 164 GW, 10 GW of wind power and 120 MW
of PV. In 2007 China phased out 84 mln tons of backward steel making and iron smelting and 52
mln tons of cement production capacity. Finally 2322 small coal mines have been closed down . All
in all it avoided emissions of 500 milion tons in 2007 alone.
Developed countries should... limit emissions between 25% and 40% at least, in mid term, support
“South “with financial resources, build capacity and transfer technologies.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
USA
Barack Obama’s victory in the US Presidential elections was a reason for optimism in Poznań and is
expected to dramatically change the dynamics of negotiations. Obama has promised to make
climate change a high priority and highlighted a green energy economy as a remedy for the
ongoing economic crisis. In Poznań, the US was still represented by the Bush administration and
remained relatively subdued during the official negotiations. Some felt that uncertainty about the
US position in 2009 caused other countries to refrain from making significant political advances in
Poznań, and few expect developing countries to make significant moves before developed countries
have clarified their positions on emission reductions and financing.
„Looking forward to the meetings ahead that can lead to a ambitious and practical outcome in
Copenhagen. Post-2012 agreement must reflect global changes since the 1990s.”
Australia
60% long term.
Australia leads Global Initiative on CCS by incorporating an Institute that will drive and disseminate
CCS technology and know how around the world. This is practical example of technology transfer in
action.
Brazil
stands on extending the CDM eligibility criteria for afforestation/ reforestation project activities
Saudi Arabia
stands on the inclusion of CCS under the CDM.
Canada
stated the objective of meeting 90% of electricity needs from non-emitting sources by 2020.
New Zealand
proposed focusing first on the rules governing commitments before focusing on the
commitments themselves, and urged further consideration of land management and forestry.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
Japan
G8 leaders during Hokkaido Toyako Summit shared a long term target of GHG reduction by at least
half in 2050. Japan has the long term goal of reduction of current emissions by 60-80% in 2050.
Now Japan is working on setting a quantified mid term target and will announce it at an appropriate
time in 2009.
Japan primarily stands on adoption of at least 50% GHG reduction by 2050 under UNFCCC.
Secondly each developed country should set its quantified limit while developing countries should
be classified in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Switzerland
Will follow the aims of EU and proposes to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020 and 30% if other
countries pledge to do the same. All countries should adopt binding commitments. For example,
emissions in specific sectors. We must invest in technologies and infrastructure as well as in
improving energy efficiency.
Switzerland renews proposal for a CO2 levy in line with the “polluter pays” principle in order
to repair some of the damage caused by climate change and prevent further damage.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
EU (by Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for Environment)
„First and foremost, the developed countries should, as a group, reduce their emissions by 30% by
2020”
Sweden
The developed countries must take the lead and make major emission reductions, as well as assist
developing countries to adapt. The midterm target to reduce emissions by 25-40% is needed. That
should be accompanied by a long term target to reduce emissions by 80-95% until 2050.
Need for pricing mechanisms. So let’s put price on CO2 globally
2 Celsius as overall reference objective
At least 50% long term target
Germany
Negotiations have by far not progressed fast enough. No progress was made on critical issues
There are attempts to exploit the current financial crisis as an excuse for moving away from
committed climate protection
What has been learnt from the financial crisis is that trading in bad loans leads to loss of trillion
euros or dollars and the worst loan we are trading in globally is the climate loan.
Germany has already achieved Kyoto target in 2008 and will exceed it in 2010. Germany has set
itself the target of 40% GHG reduction in 2020 compared to 1990. If these targets are
implemented effectively, the country will save 17 billion euro on energy imports in 2020.At the
same time it will generate demand in employment intensive domestic sectors, thus creating 500000
new jobs by 2020.
The central obstacle on the Road to Copenhagen is the question of financing. Current funds from
CDM projects are not sufficient for the Adaptation Fund and additional money from carbon market
for adaptation is required
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Germany position evolution
EU leaders contentiously disagree on how to structure their own region-
wide goal of reducing carbon emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by
2020.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the head of a country that has long
been considered a leader in climate and renewable energy policies, is
causing a stir by announcing that Germany is pulling back from earlier
commitments to the structure of a carbon cap and trade program. In order
to protect Germay's large industrial base from higher carbon prices, Merkel
is urging the EU to give away more allowances than originally proposed.
Without additional protections, argues Merkel, steel manufacturers,
chemical producers and shipping companies could lose their competitive
edge, thus shedding jobs. Angela Merkel said that jobs come first and then
climate. Her position has steadily shifted over the last year as the EU
works out the details of its carbon reduction plan.
Both climate protection advocates and detractors have criticized the
German government for its inconsistent message to the international
community.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Powerlessness
The irony of the climate crisis is that those most affected, have not
only contributed the least to the problem, but have the least
capacity to cope with, or solve it. …
Time is not on our side. The science indicates that a narrow
window of opportunities exist for action to prevent an
unprecedented climate catastrophe. We must act boldly and we
must act together. We can only share a vision for the future, if we
have a future
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Main barriers to Climate Agreement
Still some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and
developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed
countries need to reduce their emissions.
Some countries claim that their costs of following the Convention requirements will
stress their economy.
COP 14 pronouncedly showed differences between extreme climate change positions
of North and South, Developed and Developing, Rich and Poor
Uncertainty about the US position in 2009 caused other countries to refrain from
making significant political advances in Poznań, and few expect developing countries
to make significant moves before developed countries have clarified their positions
on emission reductions and financing.
Parties now, are by far better prepared to defend their own benefits and preferences
in climate deal
The current financial crisis is a serious obstacle for moving away from climate
agreement
As long as we have no clear position toward the mechanisms of emissions trading,
it's very difficult to establish something meaningful
In case of no success in Copenhagen , the Treaty with all last commas and every last
rule, whatever, is expected between 2010 and 2015 with 2020 targets postponed
until 2030 or 2050, fairly agreed and monitored.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Carbon Market
In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the
carbon market was 11 billion USD in 2005, 30 billion USD in 2006[40],
and 64 billion in 2007[42].
Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems
overall, as groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest
bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient and
challenging reduction of allowances available in the system.
Regulatory agencies run the risk of issuing too many emission credits,
diluting the effectiveness of regulation, and practically removing the cap.
In this case, instead of any net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,
beneficiaries of emissions trading simply do more of the polluting activity.
The National Allocation Plans by member governments of the European
Union Emission Trading Scheme were criticised for this when it became
apparent that actual emissions would be less than the government-issued
carbon allowances at the end of Phase I of the scheme.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Carbon trading
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CER/ERU demand from around the world
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CER / ERU supply and demand
www.leonardo-
energy.org
EUA prices
www.leonardo-
energy.org
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 of the Protocol,
allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment
under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction
project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission
reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted
towards meeting Kyoto targets.
The mechanism is seen by many as a trailblazer. It is the first global, environmental
investment and credit scheme of its kind, providing a standardized emissions offset
instrument, CERs.
A CDM project activity might involve, for example, a rural electrification project
using solar panels or the installation of more energy-efficient boilers.
The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while
giving industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission
reduction or limitation targets.
A CDM project must provide emission reductions that are additional to what would
otherwise have occurred. The projects must qualify through a rigorous and public
registration and issuance process. Approval is given by the Designated National
Authorities. Public funding for CDM project activities must not result in the diversion
of official development assistance.
The mechanism is overseen by the CDM Executive Board, answerable ultimately to
the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
www.leonardo-
energy.org
New approaches to CDM:
Programmatic CDM (PoA)
UNFCC established special working group for energy efficiency under Meth Panel and
the same for PoA – Programmatic CDM Approach which was established 3 years ago
in Montreal. Programmatic Approach is about converting policy into projects. This
approach is to help many dispersed projects with different sizes and delivery
periods. and will do it.
Two basic approaches are used benchmarking (generic) and deemed savings.
CDM has promised to develop all guidelines and procedures in February 2009.
The implementation of CDM activities under a programme of activities (PoA) may
reduce some barriers to energy efficiency but not all.
The restriction to one technology in PoA is perceived as a barrier.
Policies as a PoA. Policy, itself cannot demonstrate additionality required by CDM but
policy implementation can
Labelling under the CDM
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM methodology issues related to energy
efficiency projects
It was noted that energy efficiency methodologies suffer the highest rate of rejection
by the EB.
The participants called for more top-down guidance from the EB and Meth Panel on
methodologies for energy efficiency project activities. Some common reasons for the
rejection of energy efficiency methodologies were highlighted:
− Failure to provide method/procedure for selecting the baseline scenario;
− Lack of clear definition of project boundary;
− Lack of justification for the appropriateness of benchmark period
− Failure to consider variables that would affect future emissions (i.e. autonomous
energy efficiency improvements);
− Inadequate monitoring and verification plans;
− Deficiencies in accounting for leakage;
− Lack of distinction between discretionary retrofit, planned replacement and new
equipment projects;
− Lack of methodological specificity to allow DOE to verify reductions.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
The current forecasts for increased output
from wind energy and GHG saving potential
Source: JRC - EC
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Cross-country comparison of carbon
abatement costs by technology
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation Fund
The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in
developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is to be financed with a share
of proceeds from clean development mechanism (CDM) project activities and receive funds from
other sources. (The share of proceeds amounts to 2% of certified emission reductions (CERs)
issued for a CDM project activity.)
The CMP 3 decided that the operating entity of the Adaptation Fund shall be the Adaptation Fund
Board and invited the GEF to provide secretariat services and the World Bank to serve as the
trustee of the Adaptation Fund on an interim basis. These interim institutional arrangements will be
reviewed after 3 years. The Adaptation Fund Board is composed of 16 members and 16 alternates
and its meeting will take place at least twice a year in the country hosting the UNFCCC secretariat.
Main Functions:
− Opertaional principles and criteria
− Decide about projects, including allocation of funds
− Monitor and review implementation
− Establish working bodies, secure expert advice
− Approve draft legal and administrative arrangements
− Responsibility over monetization of CERs
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation Fund
The success on the Adaptation Fund was tempered by the inability to secure
additional resources for the Fund due to lack of agreement on extending the share of
proceeds (or “adaptation
levy”) to Joint Implementation and emissions trading under the second review of the
Protocol under Article 9.
As many had predicted, these consultations were difficult and were unable to
produce an agreement, leading COP/MOP 4 to conclude the second review of the
Protocol without any substantive outcome.
Most developing countries expressed deep disappointment at the failure to increase
adaptation funding.
While many parties and private sector representatives had also hoped for
improvements to the CDM under the Article 9 review, the lack of outcome on the
review meant that the improvements negotiated in Poznań were not adopted. The
AWG-KP, however, agreed to further consider issues related to the mechanisms in
the post-2012 period in its March/April session.
www.leonardo-
energy.org
References
General
Climate Change 2007 – Assessment Report, IPCC;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Assessing the effort sharing for greenhouse gas emission reductions in ambitious global climate
scenarios; VTT Research Notes 2453; http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2008/T2453.pdf
Climate Action Series Published by Sustainable Development International in partnership with the
United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/books/2008/
energy [r]evolution, A Sustainable Global Energy Outlook, EREC , Greenpeace;
http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution2009.pdf
Realizing the Potential of Energy Efficiency - Targets, Policies, and Measures for G8 Countries, UNF
Expert Report;
http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/unf_website/PDF/realizing_potential_energy_efficiency
UNFCC
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/items/2625.php
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf
COP 14 Reports
http://www.twnside.org.sg/
UNFCC Side Events
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop14/enbots/
Poznan at UNFCCC
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php
www.leonardo-
energy.org