Climate Change Leadership

Page 4 of 10

Loss and Damage – The Litmus Test for COP26?

12 November 2021 /

Background

Over the past decade alone, extreme weather and climate-related disasters have resulted in the deaths of more than 410 000 people. The UNFCCC defines as the harms that stem from a combination of these sudden-onset events and slow-onset processes (like sea level rise) as ‘Loss and Damage’ (L & D). Sudden onset process include the lkes of flooding and wildfires, whilst slow-onset include the likes of sea level rise. Consequences of the both can include loss of land, life and large scale migration. However, it’s crucial to recognise that a fundamental part of Loss & Damage is also the loss of identity and culture.

There were a number of expectations for the Glasgow summit to unlock the political stagnation that has mired Loss and Damage talks in previous years, to meet the needs of the climate vulnerable, in the form of specific finance and compensation, technical support capacity building; and averting or at least minimising, further loss and damage. Loss and Damage has been a sticking point when framed in the context of climate debt, climate justice and moral responsibility – vulnerable countries argue that much like the context of war reparations, financial compensation is due them, due to the historical responsibility of the Global North in contributing to climate change. Many nations in the Global North however, have been resistant to making such financial contributions, fearing it will open them up to unlimited claims for damages. One important consideration for many Loss and Damage advocates here is that these contributions are not framed as charity handouts, but moreover, the paying of a debt.

The critical elements that were tabled for Loss and Damage talks during Glasgow included operationalising the Santiago Network on Loss & Damage (SNLD), a process led by G77 and China. Established in COP25 as a mode of offering technical support to non-Annex 1 countries, going into SNLD required definition and substance, in the form of a clear structure, mode of governance, financial feed, clear set of activities and communication. Another focus was to decide where to legally ‘store’ the COP19 Warsaw Implementation Mechanism (WIM) for Loss & Damage which has legal and practice ramifications for accountability and transparency. The call to label L & D as a permanent agenda idea since COP23 will continue, in quest to provide greater discussion space for L & D.  Advocation has also been made to include L&D as a core element in every country’s climate plan, in the same ways as NDCs are.  

And then the million (s) dollar question included  sourcing adequate and secure financing arrangements for Loss and Damage, through avenues including but not limited to Green Climate Fund. It is estimated that by 2030 the costs of L & D will be conservatively in the realm of 580 billion per year. L & D has typically received far far less financial support compared with adaptation finance, which in terms still receives vastly less than mitigation finance. The push from developing a call to establish a compensation fund for Loss & Damage has long been called for by vulnerable countries and civil society where, for example, high emitters (state and non state actors) would pay into a compensation fund. The campaign #PayUp4LossandDamage has been one of the strongest campaigns and focus points in Glasgow, something that many in corridors have reflected as quite the turn around in recent years,

So, heading into the final hours of COP26, or so we hope, where are we on Loss and Damage and what is the crux of the deals that need to be struck in the coming day? Here are the key takeaways.

The Outcomes we know

When it comes to form and function of the SNLD, the functions are agreed, but the form has been deferred to June intersessional. WIM governance questions remain contentious, with a tension over whether the WIM should be ‘stored’ under the COP (the preference of the G77 and ) or CPA (Paris Agreement, the preference of many in the Global North). Where the WIM is stored holds repercussions for accountability mechanisms. These decisions have been deferred to COP27.

When it comes to finance, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon headlined COP26 early on with a 1 million pound fund pledge exclusively for Loss and Damage, only to double that figure on Thursday evening. However despite the vastly popular reception from SIDs, LDCs and civil society, she cuts a lonely figure with this pledge – no other countries have followed suit.

The Outcomes still in Play

The G77 and China have tabled what is being referred to as ‘Glasgow Loss and Damage facility,’ a financial facility that would money would flow into. This would act as a delivery vehicle for funds raised now and into the future. There has been support from 130 nations, who in turn represent 85% of the global population. However, there has been significant push back behind closed doors from the likes of the EU and US. The initial draft of the so called COP26 cover decision text, which tables the key conference outcomes of this COP, initially explicitly referred to this facility. However, in the second iteration this reference was removed, to the dismay of many.

Discussions around how to separate financial flows between a. funding the coordinating body for L & D finance b. funding the actual L & D reparations themselves have been a source of debate and delay.

In a tale of good news, Philanthropists have offered funds to initiate any prospective Loss and Damage Facility, taking the responsibility for reparations beyond that of solely state actors. This sum is just the tip of the iceberg, and should by no means assuage the responsibility of state actors in financing Loss and Damage, nor structural mechanisms that see it built into long term agreements and commitments.

One thing is clear going into the weekend. As the negotiations run further and further overtime, this becomes more and more of an inclusivity concern, a concern that has plagued COP26. For those with pre-booked travel, high rebooking costs and visa extentions blocking many wiht most at stake from staying longer.

With both sides of the able strongly drawing lines, when the final ball lands remains to be seen.

More to come…

You can read more about Loss & Damage at COP26 here and here.

COP26 and the importance of frontrunners

11 November 2021 /

COP26 has been flooded by joint group frontrunner initiatives, trying to move beyond the painstakingly slow process of raising ambitions by consensus, from new alliances to tackle methane emissions and deforestation to a number of initiatives to phase out coal and the launch today of a new alliance to phase out oil and gas. From one perspective most of these initiatives only make a small dent to the emission gap to meet the Paris goals. From another perspective group frontrunner initiatives are key to accelerate climate action and push overall ambitions.

The first perspective was highlighted today when scientists and experts in the Climate Action Tracker collaboration presented an assessment on how much the new frontrunner initiatives at COP26 would effect the emission gap until 2030. According to the calculations the new initiatives would close the 2030 emission gap for the 1.5°C target by around 9%. This could be compared to the updated NDC:s themselves, which according to Climate Action Tracker close the gap by 15-17%, arriving at a total number around 24-25%.

These 9% might feel small and unimportant. However, as the scientists behind the new assessment emphasized, the effect of these initiatives are not restricted to the short term impacts on emissions among the current signatories. The broader potential of frontrunner alliances is both to accelerate techno-economical change and to put political pressure on other countries to join in.

“It is not surprising that the effect of the COP26 sectoral initiatives beyond national climate targets is initially small. These initiatives are designed for those that do NOT sign immediately. The pressure of being put on the spot will help to grow the membership of the initiatives and enhance the effect beyond national climate targets in the long run”, professor Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute stated in a press release on the assessment.

One example on this are the new and enlarged alliances to phase out coal, finance to new coal power plants, and to support a just transition away from coal. At face value the promises made by the countries only give a small dent to the emission curve up until 2030. However, all in all the countries involved represent a total coal capacity of 267 GW, more than that of US or India, and also include coal dependent countries like Indonesia. Adding promises to dry up international public funding for new coal plants – including from China – the initiatives underline a clear and definite trend: coal is dying. This is the reason why the official language in the cover text of COP26 can – and probably will – include wordings to phase out coal.

From a deeper perspective the death spiral for coal is a prime example on how frontline initiatives in a relatively small number of key countries can initiate an unstoppable global trend. Coal has been the first fossil fuel to take the hit by ever cheaper renewable energy. And the breakthrough for renewable energy, in turn, was pushed by public support for industrial scale up in countries like Germany, Denmark and China. Globally, coal consumption actually reached its maximum already in 2014. And today the death spiral for coal is enhanced by both decreasing costs for renewable energy and sharpened climate policy.

Indeed, as the scientists in the Climate Action Tracker collaboration emphasize, this is not enough. The transition away from coal needs to be speeded up significantly. In order to hold on to the 1.5°C target, coal would need to be phased out around 2040 globally, and probably around 2030 in the developed world. This is a tall order, not the least for countries like China, with a huge fleet of relatively new coal plants. The techno-economical development itself will push the process. But it will not be enough. And this is where frontrunners and new alliances are important. If the EU and US for example could lead by showing that a just transition away from coal is possible in 10-15 years, and financial support for a just transition could be expanded, the chances to close the gap would enhance significantly.

Transforming the Future and Societal Metamorphosis

11 November 2021 /
Ahead of the Climate Change Leadership Friday event in the COP26 Nordic Pavilion, titled “Fair Climate Transformation Governance”, Laila Mendy at CCL reflects on the concept of metamorphosis.

Climate change and the need for just societal transitions to low carbon economies are not a new topic for us here at Climate Change Leadership. We hear all the time about the importance of societal transition to mitigate severe climate change, but transition has not grasped the more transformative nature of rapid reductions in emissions and lifestyle changes needed to reach this goal. How, though, might we transform into something which has already been decided? We look to nature for inspiration: Metamorphosis.

Perhaps this transformation could be considered in terms of societal metamorphosis. We know the quantified end goals and limitations that we need to follow in our transformations, whether they are mainly guided by the science of planetary boundaries, of carbon budgets or science-based climate laws. Here in Sweden the present end goal of our societal transformation means reaching Net Zero 2045. But the act of transformation into this fossil free future has yet to be decided and described. Contributing pathways have been proposed by industry in Fossil Free Sweden, and midway targets have been committed to by the Swedish Government and parliament. But the collective gathering of roadmaps and pathways in order to frame and name this transformative process, itself, leaves something to be desired. Transformation infers an openness that does not quite fit in this context.

When it comes down to it, the inevitably important but still nitty-gritty debates over priorities and rates of mitigation are fiery, particularly when justice and equity principles are centred. Electric cars are an important solution, but the mining of cobalt for batteries have dangerous consequences for human rights (read more on nature.com). Nature-based solutions are an option, but access and property rights within the broader implications of off-setting can be problematic. The responsibilities of wealthier countries, with higher cumulative emissions, to reduce emissions rates faster is likewise an issue for climate justice debates. For example in Sweden, whose Net Zero goal in 2045 is 25 years ahead of the goal recently declared for India, there is now pressure on the government to act faster. In essence, the process of societal transformation, like the metamorphosis of the butterfly, is a turbulent, bloody and challenging time guided by core principles and ends.

To stretch the metaphor further, metamorphosis is also the aspect which separates juvenile and mature specimens. They occupy different habitats and engage in radically different activities. Rejecting the categorisations of countries in as mature and juvenile, which is highly problematic in terms of climate justice and the historical responsibility of climate change, it is the separation that interests me. In the international climate politics sphere, the concept demonstrates how wealthier countries who may afford a quick metamorphosis have a responsibility to support developing countries with their transition or risk broadening a divide, continue to rely on fossil fuels and risk exclusion from the full potentials that new, green, technologies and 1.5 degree living might have to offer.

The open-ended term of “transforming the future” does not suggest an unknown future in the landscape of Net Zero, Fossil Free Sweden’s road-maps, and planetary boundaries. A metamorphosis, which describes a process of transforming into something already known, may offer a better description of the process ahead of us.

This reflection is written ahead the event Climate Change Leadership is organising at the COP26 Nordic Pavilion. Here we ask how societies may transform in order to fit within carbon budgets? The seminar describes Paris Agreement-based carbon budgets as a foundation for discussing the merits and shortcomings of various governance strategies, including potential COP26 outcomes, with a focus on social fairness and effectiveness in meeting climate targets. Key speakers include our own senior lecturer, Mikael Karlsson, and previous Zennström professors Doreen Stabinsky and Kevin Anderson. The event is facilitated by Jens Ergon and Isabel Baudish. Join us in CEMUS Friday 10.00 – 11.30 (CET) to watch the livestream or watch online here: https://www.norden.org/en/event/glasgow-fair-climate-transformation-governance

COP26 Live: US-China deal give surprise turn in Glasgow

11 November 2021 /

Wednesday evening saw one of the most surprising developments during COP26, when giant emitters and political contenders US and China announced a joint agreement to enhance climate action. The deal breaks the trenches in Glasgow and could boost the odds for a positive outcome at COP26, and potentially also for climate action in the years to come.

The US-China deal was presented with short notice during two consecutive press conferences by US climate envoy and former secretary of state John Kerry and China’s climate envoy and former climate minister Xie Zhenhua.

According to Kerry and Zhenhua, US and China have worked on the agreement for ten months, during some 30 virtual meetings since the beginning of the year. The 16-point agreement covers a number of areas where the two global top emitters and major economies will cooperate in order to enhance ambitions and accelerate climate action, from deployment of renewables and electrification to CCS and slashing methane emissions.

The deal underlines the importance of rapidly closing the ambition gap in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement and keep the 1.5-degree target alive. The text reiterates the ambition of the Biden administration to make US electricity “100% carbon pollution-free” by 2035, while China promises to “phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.” The 15th Five Year Plan means the period from 2026-2030, indicating that China seems to count on peaking coal emissions by 2025 and reduce them thereafter. The two countries also say that they intend to establish a “Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s.”

Views on the deal are split between observers, with some underlying it’s importance as a potential game changer, while others view it as a negotiating spectacle. Many of the items in the joint declaration were present already in a statement made by China and the US when Kerry and Zhenhua met in Beijing in April, while other parts, as the plan to slash methane emissions, are new and more elaborated. The deal was first handed out as a simple Google-document after the press conferences, giving the impression of an event not planned for a long time.

The deal includes several statements about the COP26 negotiations, such as to “pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C” and “taking ambitious action during this critical decade to keep the above temperature limit within reach, including as necessary communicating or updating 2030 NDCs and long-term strategies”. The two countries also state that they will “work cooperatively to complete at COP 26 the implementing arrangements (“rulebook”) for Articles 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement, as well as common time frames for NDCs.” Both countries say that they “intend to communicate 2035 NDCs in 2025”. Nothing concrete, however, is mentioned on crucial issues such as ramping up finance for developing countries.

While the ‘Glasgow Declaration’ to some extent is similar to previous statements issued by the two countries, it is important to not underestimate the potential impact on the negotiations this new statement may have in the coming days, says Jens Ergon, PhD student at CCL, Uppsala University. A strong US-China collaboration could boost the climate negotiations and bring further emissions reductions in the two giant economies during the coming years. That is crucial for achieving the Paris goals and keep the 1.5 degree target alive, he adds.

The first key test for the renewed cooperation between the two countries will be the final days in Glasgow. So far, the two countries have belonged to coalitions with opposing views on many make-or-break items. If the collaboration between US and China is grounded, the chances for a successful outcome increase substantially.

Some observers also hope that the deal might soften the hardened diplomatic relations between the two major powers. Zhenhua does not belong to the hardline camp around Xi Jinping, and is generally considered a progressive force in the countries’ climate efforts. Kerry and Zhenhua were heavily involved in striking the deal between the US and China in the uprunning towards the Paris Agreement. The deal turned out to be pivotal then, and could very well have large impacts this time around as well.

COP26 Live: 1.5℃ target kept alive in new draft

10 November 2021 /

There is momentum in the negotiations and 1.5 degrees is still within reach. The COP presidency is now pushing parties in the right direction and we hope that developed countries responds by improved commitments on finance instead of downplaying what is now on the table, says Mikael Karlsson, research leader at CCL.

With three official days left, three new draft texts appeared at COP26 on Wednesday morning. The 1.5℃ target is kept alive, but the draft calls parties to strengthen NDC pledges within a year, as well as for yearly analysis and reporting of all NDC:s.

The draft of the cover decision text also calls for parties to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels” – in an unusual mention of the infamous f-world: fossil fuels.

I have followed many COP meetings, but I’ve never seen the word “fossil” in formal texts before. This time it should be included and the wording needs to be strengthened. After all, it is basically fossil fuels that all this is about, says Jens Ergon, PhD student at CCL.

Would it hold, it would be the first time fossils fuels are explicitly included in the official agreement. However, the language is short and vague. Only coal is specified and a phase-out of oil and gas is not mentioned.

The wordings on the 1.5℃ target and the effort to speed up the ratcheting up mechanisms of the Paris Agreement can expect pushback, however, and the texts on finance, adaptation and loss & damage are still considered very weak by developing nations and many observers, even though steps forward has been taken on loss & damage.

Reactions on the new texts are mixed. On the one hand, what is proposed opens for a speeded-up process to strengthen short term ambitions on mitigation. On the other hand, the measures are voluntary, and key issues on finance, adaptation and loss & damage remain unresolved.

The language on the 1.5℃ target and strengthened ambitions is apparently pushed by vulnerable countries and the so called High Ambition Coalition, and seemingly also being endorsed by the EU and the USA. Key questions during the coming days are the development on finance and adaptation, as well as how the giants China, India and emerging economies are reacting to any wordings on near term ratcheting up of NDC:s.

Progress, especially on finance and adaptation, seems to be vital. As for now, the feeling among many developing countries is that of an unbalanced agreement, where ambitions to ratchet up mitigation and NDC:s are not met by concrete measures to ratchet up finance and support.

“The text we have now is not enough, let’s acknowledge that”, Mohamed Adow, director of the energy and climate think tank Power Shift Africa, told the audience at a press conference today, adding that “the real dealmaking will go on from now.”

Nästan alla svenskar tror att människan påverkar klimatet

10 November 2021 /

Klimatförnekelse har länge varit en allvarlig flaskhals för beslut i klimatfrågor. Även om stats- och regeringscheferna på COP26 i Glasgow överlag betonade både allvaret i klimatkrisen och vikten av att vidta åtgärder betyder det inte att förnekarna är utspelade, än mindre att fossilbolagens företrädare kryper tillbaka, tvärtom är den i hög grad närvarande på COP26.

Av den såvitt känt största sammanställningen av forskningen om vetenskapsförnekelse, som forskare vid CCL varit med om att genomföra, framgår att klimatförnekelsen är utbredd i en rad länder och att den inte sällan är organiserad. Nyligen påstods det på DN debatt att många svenska är klimatskeptiker, men vid närmare genomgång visar sig det påståendet vara felaktigt, säger Mikael Karlsson, docent på CCL, i en replik på DN debatt. I själva verket anser nästan alla svenskar att människan bidrar till den globala uppvärmningen.

COP26 Live: “Massive credibility gap in Glasgow”

9 November 2021 /

Today climate scientists again underlined the urgency of backing up long term net zero climate goals with real policy measures and pledges to reduce emissions sharply until 2030. This means that an agreement in Glasgow need to include promises to sharpen today’s pledges substantially during the next few years, at least if the Paris goal to keep global warming close to 1.5℃ is to be kept alive.

The number of countries handing in long-term goals to reduce emissions to net zero has increased substantially during the last year, including the worlds largest economies and emitters: from the EU, USA and many others going for net zero in 2050, to China in 2060, and India promising in net zero in 2070 during the COP26. This is a substantial step forward. Not only does net zero greenhouse gas emissions essentially mean an end for fossil fuels. If all the net zero promises would be fulfilled, global warming might be limited to 1.8-1.9℃, according to recent estimates by IEA and others.

The crucial issue is the “if”. As for now, these long term targets are not backed up by robust plans, finance and policy measures. Quite contrary, as reported earlier, if the long term goals are taken out from the equation, current policy measures and short term pledges up until 2030 instead points towards a global warming of 2.4-2.7℃ (or more, might be added, as the temperature estimates are given with a 50% chance of exceeding them).

This gap between the Paris goals and the net zero promises in the far future on the one hand, and the short term pledges and actual policy measures here and now on the other, has increasingly come into focus in Glasgow. Today scientists in the collaboration Climate Action Tracker presented a new report, again highlighting this mismatch.

“There is a massive credibility gap here in Glasgow”, Bill Hare of Climate Analytics and Climate Action Tracker told the audience during a press conference at COP26 today.

The problem is not only the credibility gap itself. Nobody in Glasgow believes that substantially sharpened pledges will be presented during the last few days of COP26. At least not pledges that will be nearly enough to close the ambition gap in emission reduction targets until 2030. The crucial issue during the next few days, according to the scientists in the Climate Action Tracker collaboration, is if the negotiating countries at COP26 will be able to nail down an agreement that says that these targets are to be sharpened next year, and the year after that, and so on. As it is, the ratcheting up mechanism of the Paris Agreement only kicks in every five year – a tempo that in effect would make the 1.5℃ target impossible to reach, at least within the context of the Paris Agreement, and thus also undermining the whole idea behind the agreement, as a serious tool to step-by-step increase the climate ambitions of the world, and to eventually be in line with the original goal of keeping global warming well below 2℃, and if possible 1.5℃.

“I can say what I do not want to happen, and that is that we come out of Glasgow with no agreement about this, and in effect saying: ‘let’s do nothing in five years’. That would be catastrophic”, professor Niklas Höhne at NewClimate Institute and Climate Action Tracker told us during a conversation after the press conference.

In the next few days we will know. Pressure to keep the 1.5℃ goal – and the reputation of the Paris Agreement – alive will surely increase. Will it be enough? It seems likely, at least in some diplomatic way. For instance, the UK hosts will probably not want Glasgow and COP26 to go down in history as the event where the 1.5℃ target finally slipped out of reach. And to end up on a positive note: Yes, the gap is huge. But it has began to shrink, even though annoyingly slow. The crucial issue for the world is where the final landing zone will be: 2.4℃ warming, 1.9℃, 1.7℃, or perhaps even close to 1.5℃? At the end of the day, every tenth of a degree will matter.

Read more about COP26

COP26: Som man räknar får man svar

8 November 2021 /

Under FN-mötets första vecka har det florerat vitt skilda budskap om vart dagens klimatambitioner gentligen pekar. På väg mot 2,7℃ eller mer, långt över Parisavtalets skyddsbarriärer – eller för första gången tillräckligt för att hålla uppvärmningen under 2℃. Vad stämmer egentligen?

Inför COP26 konstaterade FN:s egna organ att de nationella åtaganden som rapporterats in till FN-systemet är långtifrån tillräckliga för att begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till 1,5-2℃. Enligt sammanställningen av åtagandena inför COP26 beräknas utsläppen i världen plana ut under 2020-talet, vilket är lång ifrån den halvering till 2030 som exempelvis krävs för att ha en någorlunda chans att begränsa uppvärmningen till 1,5℃. Enligt FN:s miljöorgan UNEP innebär det att världen med nuvarande klimatambitioner är på väg mot en uppvärmning runt 2,7℃ eller mer.

I veckan kom emellertid ett helt annat budskap från den internationella energibyrån IEA. För första gången tyder världens klimatambitioner, enligt IEA, på att den globala uppvärmningen kan begränsas till 1,8-1,9℃. Hur kan IEA och FN-organen komma till så vitt skilda slutsatser? Svaret är att man räknar på olika saker, och att IEA dessutom tagit med nya klimatlöften som presenterats efter FN-rapporterna.

Den avgörande skillnaden handlar om de långsiktiga klimatambitionerna. En stort antal länder säger sig idag ha som målsättning att nå nettonollutsläpp av växthusgaser 2050 (EU, USA med flera), 2060 (exempelvis Kina) eller 2070 (Indien). Inkluderas inte de här långsiktiga målen så tyder de mer närliggande klimatambitionerna fram till 2030 på en utsläppskurva som pekar mot 2,7℃ uppvärmning eller mer. Tas däremot de långsiktiga mål som inkommit i god tid inför COP26 med så blir resultatet ett helt annat. Utsläppen förväntas i så fall pressas ner rejält efter 2030 och den globala uppvärmningen beräknas landa runt 2,2℃. Läggs därtill de nya löften som tillkommit, framför allt från Indien och Kina, så kan den förväntade utsläpps- och temperaturkurvan bändas ner ytterligare, mot 1,8-1,9℃ uppvärmning.

Vilket av de här sätten att räkna man väljer beror inte minst på vilken tilltro man har till att de långsiktiga målen faktiskt kommer att backas upp med handfast politik. Men också på hur man ser på den underliggande tekniska och ekonomiska utveckling som antas realisera målen – många hoppas att den snabba utvecklingen för förnybar energi ska lösa en hel del, andra menar att det krävs betydligt tuffare åtgärder för att få ned utsläppen. Kalkylerna i sig rymmer också en osäkerhet, både när det gäller klimatsystemets känslighet och antaganden om framtida möjligheter att nyttja så kallade minusutsläpp. Räknas möjligheterna för minusutsläpp bort så blir ekvationen betydligt tuffare.

Ur ett optimistiskt perspektiv pekar temperaturskattningarna och de långsiktiga målen på något avgörande: Den snabba utvecklingen för förnybar energi har gjort det möjligt för världens utsläppsjättar att lova att utsläppen ska nå nettonoll 2050-2070. Nettonollutsläpp är ett kodord för att fossila bränslen – kol, olja, gas – ska försvinna. Världens stora ekonomier är med andra ord numera inriktade på att den fossila eran är över inom 30-50 år. Det här är en stor skillnad från hur det såg ut för bara 5-6 år sedan. Har man en god tilltro till att de långsiktiga målen faktiskt kommer att uppfyllas, inte minst genom den tekniska utvecklingen, så förefaller Parisavtalets lägre ribba, tvågradersmålet, numera väl inom räckhåll.

Från ett pessimistiskt perspektiv säger löftena och kalkylerna emellertid något annat. Det är lätt att lova saker som ska inträffa om 30, 40, 50 år, långt bortom nuvarande mandatperioder. Ser man däremot till de löften och åtaganden som gäller här och nu, fram till 2030, så ser bilden annorlunda ut. Även om de mest ambitiösa klimatplanerna för världens länder förverkligas så kommer utsläppskurvan som bäst bändas ner några få procent fram till 2030. Det är helt otillräckligt om världen ska ha en chans att hålla uppvärmningen nära 1,5℃, och ställer dessutom stora krav på snabba utsläppsminskningar och framtida minusutsläpp om temperaturökningen ska hållas väl under 2℃.

Den stora utmaningen idag handlar med andra ord om de politiska ambitionerna i närtid. Det är de som avgör om världen har en rimlig chans att begränsa uppvärmningen en god bit under 2℃ – utan att behöva luta sig mot gigantiska framtida minusutsläpp. Det här gäller världen som helhet. Länder som Kina behöver bända ner sin utsläppskurva märkbart före 2030 – vilket innebär att landets enorma kolkonsumtion måste börja minska på allvar inom några få år. Sverige och EU måste i sin tur vässa sin klimatpolitik, med stärkta ambitioner och åtgärder i närtid. Förmodligen skulle utsläppen i vår del av världen behöva minska med 70-80 procent till 2030. Åtminstone om ambitionen är den som slagits fast i Parisavtalet: att hålla den globala uppvärmningen väl under 2℃ och så nära 1,5℃ som möjligt.

Climate Change Leadership at COP26
Read more about COP26

Vad Handlar COP26 om?

COP26: Kan vi världen enas om ett pris på koldioxid i Glasgow?

5 November 2021 /

Läs mer på 2050.org

English summary:

While the costs of climate change is considerable, countries continue to disagree about a standard rate on carbon emissions, write Daniel Lindvall and Mikael Karlsson. Current laws in Finland and Sweden demonstrate that a high tax can be effective in reducing emissions, but the average global rate in 2019 is recorded at only 2 dollars per tonne (compared to Sweden’s over 110 dollars). Some criticisms concern the unfair costs on developing countries or poorer populations.

Full translation to come.

Vad handlar klimatmötet i Glasgow om?

The climate science every climate negotiator needs to know

4 November 2021 /

New report breaks down ten key insights from Earth Systems Science that every climate change negotiator at COP26 needs to know. Read the noted bulletin, watch Johan Rockström’s presentation below, or read the full report:

  • 1.5 temperature change limit remains possible, but overshoot is likely. At a minimum we need a global reduction of 2 gigatons of CO2 per year ( or 5%) starting now. For a 66% chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees we need 4 gigatons reduction starting this year. Current annual rates are 42 gigatons per year.
  • Methane and Nitrous Oxide are worsening globally. Climate models suggest we need a rate of reduction of these gasses at the same rate as CO2. Paradoxically, air pollutants are currently cooling the planet or “camoflaging” some global warming.
  • We have entered the age of “Mega Fires”, a global warming amplifier.
  • Risk levels of tipping points have been lowered to between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming. Tipping points are thresholds of climate changes that lead towards cascading effects of climate change or irreversible changes in earth systems.
  • Climate justice is key: “The richest 1% must reduce emissions by a factor of 30, the poorest 50% can increase emissions by a factor of 3 to remain within the global carbon budget.”
  • Behavioural change includes not only electrification and transition of societies but also 1.5 degree lifestyles. Lifestyle and behaviour change is overlooked in negotiations.
  • Political sciences give insight into policy measures for carbon pricing that can increase and ramp up transition. Only 22% of global carbon emissions are covered by a price. (Read more on this)
  • Robust, resilient nature-based solutions are critical for the Paris Agreement, but off-setting measures should not be accounted for twice in carbon budgets.
  • Ocean protection is critical not only for limiting climate change but also for other conservation agendas. Oceans face multiple threats today.
  • Costs and benefits of mitigation need to account for the Health impacts of emissions and pollution today.

Read more about COP26

Can Glasgow reach an agreement on an emissions trading scheme?

3 November 2021 /

This is a translation of the article posted on 2050. Läs på svenska här.

On Sunday, the annual COP26 climate summit began in Glasgow. For two weeks, countries from all over the world will negotiate solutions to reduce emissions in line with the goals set in Paris 2015. Daniel Lindvall, researcher at Uppsala Unversity, and Mikael Karlsson, senior lecturer at Uppsala University, and both scientific advisers to the 2050 rganisation, are present during the negotiations and comment on the discussions on Article 6 in The Paris Agreement.

One of the most important issues in the negotiations regards the application of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which is about emission reductions through trade and cooperation between countries. Essentially, it is about how one country may be enabled to take action in another country that lacks the resources to implement action itself. For example, emissions could be reduced through investments in renewable energy replacing fossil energy in resource-poor countries. It also concerns the creation of carbon sinks through afforestation or compensation for protecting forests from unsustainable use. The idea is that these measures are cost-effective, at least in the short term, and should be included in the calculations of the emissions reductions of the funding country.

The issue of cooperation and emissions trade has been discussed at virtually all climate summits and is both complex and controversial. A system of emissions trading was a central part of the Kyoto Protocol. Although this has been widely criticised for being ineffective, a similar mechanism was included in the Paris Agreement. This is regulated in Article 6, which includes both a market mechanism and rules on cooperation. But it is still unclear how the article will be applied and despite intense discussions at the climate summits in both Katowice and Madrid, the issue is not fully negotiated. It would of course be good to have a breakthrough in Glasgow, but there are still several difficult issues to solve.

Emissions trading is controversial
Firstly, parts of the climate movement and some climate change researchers are generally opposed to the idea of emissions trading. The criticism describes emissions trading as a form of climate confession where the sinner can pay for themselves through a carbon offsetting mechanism and then continue emitting as usual. Several companies that state that they are climate neutral – such as Google – do so by compensating for some of the emissions. The criticism is also that many of the measures that are financed and implemented as compensation are not effective. In the light of this discussion, there have been demands for “real” climate neutrality, which would mean that it would be impermissible to include compensatory measures in the countries’ national climate plans, or at least that the reduced emissions are not counted twice. Another part of the criticism is about how these measures can significantly delay the more costly transformative systems changes needed to reduce emissions.

At the same time, there is some research that shows that compensation can actually play an important role in societal transition, especially when new green technology is underdeveloped. During these periods of transition, it may be better for the climate for investments to be made in resource-poor countries where larger emission reductions can be achieved for a smaller cost. It is often easier and cheaper to reduce a tonne of carbon dioxide in a relatively poor and carbon-dependent country than in the opposite. A research study from the University of Maryland shows that an exchange of emissions in accordance with the meaning of Article 6 could save the countries of the world close to 250 billion US dollars per year. According to this study, emissions could be reduced by 5 billion tonnes per year or by a total of 50 percent by 2050.

However, this presupposes a functioning emissions trading, and there is still disagreement on several key issues. The issue that seems most difficult to solve concerns so-called double reporting. Both the country that pays for the measure and the country where the measure is implemented may want to take it into account. This is particularly problematic as several countries concerned are those that lack a developed climate policy with absolute goals and transparent reporting. There are also conflicts between some countries, such as Brazil and India, that do not want an overly strict regulatory framework and the EU, for example, that wants full clarification. Following the first day’s negotiations on Article 6, several hundred pages of text have been written, with a whole 373 parentheses where agreement could not be reached.

Transparency, Previous Actions and an Additive
There is also a discussion on whether previous actions in the system established by the Kyoto Protocol can be counted today. In addition, issues of transparency in the system as well as the assurance that the measures are appropriate and effective are of great importance. The measures included must also be additive, meaning that they would not have been implemented without compensation anyway. The latter is extremely difficult to work with.

All of these may appear to be technicalities, but are central issues because they have a major impact on individual countries’ climate plans. It is also important for the perception of climate justice, as several resource-poor countries are more affected by both the adjustment and climate change itself and thus require some form of compensation.

Who administrates this?
A challenge is also that a stricter regulatory framework could mean that some kind of international administration needs to be established that oversees and reviews the reporting. Some, however, believe that there is no need for bureaucracy around an emissions trade that is already underway and that is under development. With pressure from investors and consumers, more and more companies are paying to compensate for their emissions, while the system for reviewing, calculating and quality-assuring various measures has been developed. Moreover, the costs of compensation are expected to increase as demand increases at the same time as countries that reach closer to zero emissions will provide less and less scope for compensation. That all said, it requires uniform standards, which could be achieved by agreeing on the application of Article 6.

There is still hope
Although challenges remain, both the Chinese and US negotiating delegations have made hopeful statements that it is possible to create a functioning system of emissions trading and cooperation in Glasgow. For a large number of Swedish companies, this could be of great importance. There are therefore good reasons to monitor developments in the coming days.

Daniel Lindvall and Mikael Karlsson

Read more about COP26

Klimatambitioner och COP26

3 November 2021 /

Det som har i särklass störst betydelse för den globala uppvärmningen är hur mycket växthusgaser som släpps ut. Allt annat lika så ger ökade utsläpp ökad uppvärmning, och därmed ökad klimatförändring och ökad skada på samhälle och natur. Även om det är fullt möjlighet att skapa sänkor för koldioxid så behöver utsläppen minskas snabbt och rejält. Snart sagt varje scenario för samhällsutvecklingen som leder till att ambitiösa klimatmål med hög sannolikhet kan nås innehåller en nära nog fullständig minskning av utsläppen, även om stora sänkor skapas.

Mot denna bakgrund är det avgörande att alla länder i världen minskar sina utsläpp ytterligare. De mål och planer som finns dagsläget innebär en uppvärmning på omkring 2,7 grader, vilket är långt över Parisavtalets mål. Därför finns en stor förväntan på klimatmötet i Glasgow om att länderna ökar sina ambitioner. Länder och regioner med stora utsläpp – både totalt sett och per person – som USA, Kina och även EU har visserligen skärpt sina åtaganden inför Glasgowmötet men ambitionerna är fortfarande alldeles för låga.

Det största nyheter i Glasgow när det gäller klimatambitioner kom den 1 november, när Indien annonserade sitt nationellt beslutade bidrag (kallat NDC, nationally determined contribution). Siktet ställs in på nettonollutsläpp vid 2070. Begreppet nettonoll syftar på att utsläpp som kvarstår i exempelvis ett visst land vid ett visst årtal ska kompenseras genom åtgärder som binder koldioxid, eller genom att landet genomför åtgärder som minskar utsläppen på annat håll. Det är i grunden en bra idé, särskilt eftersom ambitiösa klimatmål förutsätter att stora mängder koldioxid i ökad grad binds upp under hela detta århundrade, men fel tillämpad blir nettotanken problematisk. En risk är att åtgärder som kan minska utsläppen skjuts på framtiden, en annan att de kompensatoriska åtgärderna inte är verksamma eller ändå skulle ha genomförts.

För att säkerställa att kompensationen inte blir dålig förhandlas regelverk om detta på Glasgowmötet. Det är ur klimatsynpunkt viktigt att förhandlingarna kan slutföras men ännu viktigare att resultatet blir bra.

Viktigast är dock att klimatambitionerna skärps. Inget är så viktigt för klimatet som minskade utsläpp.

Vad handlar klimatmötet i Glasgow om?
Läs mer om COP26

Klimatfinansiering och COP26

3 November 2021 /

På det tidigare klimatmötet i Köpenhamn (COP 15) år 2009 fanns stora förhoppningar på en stark global överenskommelse om klimatet. Tanken var att komma överens om minskade utsläpp och En ram för minskade utsläpp var utlovad och Obama skulle som relativt nyvald president ge ny energi till en överenskommelse. Men mötet blev ett misslyckande.

Utfallet från Köpenhamnsmötet blev en text som kallas Copenhagen Accord. Den antogs aldrig och fick inte unisont stöd på konferensen, vilket annars är det önskvärda och vanliga. Överenskommelsen är inte legalt bindande. När det gäller klimatförändringen omnämns endast ett vagt formulerat mål om att hejda uppvärmningen vid 2 grader.

Däremot innehåller texten ett politiskt förpliktande löfte om ekonomiskt stöd till klimatarbetet i utvecklingsländer, först i form av 30 miljarder USD inom tre år, en siffra som ska ökas till 100 miljarder USD vid år 2020.

Det är denna finansiering som spelar en central roll på klimatmötet i Glasgow. Om löftet infrias kan det bli ett viktigt smörjmedel i förhandlingarna under kommande veckor. Om det inte infrias riskerar det motsatta ske.

Läs mer om COP26

Vad handlar klimatmötet i Glasgow om?

2 November 2021 /

Toppmötet i Glasgow i Skottland handlar i grunden om hur länderna i världen ska samarbeta för att hantera klimatkrisen. Det som räknas ur klimatsynpunkt är storleken av de samlade utsläppen. Ju mer utsläpp, desto större global uppvärmning och klimatförändring. Varje kilo utsläpp som kan undvikas är en lönsam affär. Därför behöver världens alla länder utarbeta och genomföra planer för snabbt minskade utsläpp. Störst ansvar faller på de som har störst utsläpp idag och genom historien.

Men för att utsläppen ska kunna minska snabbt måste det ske rättvist och de rikare länderna i världen har sedan tidigare lovat att finansiera en del av de åtgärder som behöver ske i fattigare länder. Det är ganska självklart eftersom de rikare länderna står för merparten av utsläppen.

På tidigare klimatmöten har de flesta länder förbundit sig att minska utsläppen och de rikare länderna har, som en miniminivå, utlovat 100 miljarder dollar varje år i global klimatfinansiering (klicka för mer om klimatfinansiering). Målsättningen är att i bästa fall begränsa den globala uppvärmningen till 1,5 grader, något som världen enades om på klimatmötet i Paris 2015. Exakt hur ländernas genomförande av avtalet ska ske och redovisas är inte bestämt. På Glasgowmötet ska länderna därför förhandla fram ett regelverk.

Men trots stora positiva klimatinsatser på senare år störs förhandlingarna av att inget land har gjort den hemläxa som krävs för att klara Parisavtalet. Allvarligast är de rikare ländernas finansiering i skrivande stund till enbart omkring 80 miljarder dollar per år. Det skapar spänningar mellan de förhandlande länderna. Därför kan det politiska spelet runt mötet blir avgörande för resultatet.

Mötet kallas COP26 (Conference of the Parties, COP), vilket syftar på det 26:e mötet mellan parterna till FN:s ramkonvention om klimatförändringar.

COP26

COP26 Live: Colombia pushing to implement deforestation commitments next year

2 November 2021 /

Colombia announced today it will already implement forest positive policies by next year, far outpacing the other commitments to halt deforestation by 2030 by other countries. 100 world leaders, representing 85% of the worlds forested land, committed to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030. Read more on twitter by following the #GlasgowLeadersForestDeclaration conversation.

This announcement comes the day after David Attenborough gave an impassioned plea for the world leaders to redirect policy into forestry conservation rather than exploiting this important natural resource.

How does this change the nature of the debate in Swedish forestry management and their aim to use forest as an energy transition fuel? Watch this space.

Watch LIVE:

David Attenborough’s full statement at COP26, via PBS News Hour on Youtube
« Older posts Newer posts »

Contact us

© 2024 Climate Change Leadership

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑