Poor countries 'need carbon cuts' / Paises pobres 'necesitan disminuir sus emisiones de carbono'

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Poznan, Poland

People in developing countries will need to make big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if "dangerous" climate change is to be avoided, a report warns.
Researchers at the Third World Network calculate that even if rich nations make deep cuts, the developing world will face per-capita reductions of 60%.
It suggests this would pose challenges to these countries' development.
Meanwhile, another report warns that current proposals for cutting developed world emissions do not go far enough.

The Global Climate Network, an alliance of research groups, says that current pledges by the EU and by US President-elect Barack Obama will not put the world on track to halving emissions by 2050.
Both reports have been under discussion here at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Poznan, Poland.
Growth curve
"The figures are very grim," said Martin Khor, director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network.
"They're grim if we go for a 50% [global] cut by 2050, and we may need more - I think we only went for a 50% figure so as not to scare politicians."
Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to a 1990 baseline) would mean that they are unlikely to rise more than 2.5C above the pre-industrial average, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further IPCC analyses suggest this would avoid some of the most serious potential climate impacts.
The leaders of the G8 major industrialised nations endorsed the global target at their summit this year in Japan.
A number of countries, including the UK, want to keep their own emissions in 2050 80% below the 1990 baseline.

If the entire industrialised world took on this commitment, the Third World Network calculates, developing nations would have to cut their emissions by 23% in order for the world to hit its 50% target.
But because the populations of developing countries are growing, this 23% figure translates to a per-capita cut of 60%.
If the developing world made a more modest commitment, to keep its per-capita emissions constant at 1990 levels, population growth would still mean that the total emissions from these countries would double by 2050, scuppering any chance of a global 50% cut.
Although some developing countries have established plans for improving energy efficiency and curbing the rate at which their emissions are rising, there is no appetite within the bloc for an actual cut, and industrialised nations are not pressing them to take on firm targets.
Without such a commitment, this report suggests, there is little chance of avoiding temperature rises that are likely to bring major impacts, if the IPCC is right.
Cooking up
Ewah Eleri, executive director of the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, said there were some obvious easy ways for the poorest developing countries to reduce emissions.
One would be to replace traditional open wood-burning stoves with more efficient models.
"Being able to introduce efficient wood stoves is not rocket science," he told BBC News.
"But it holds a lot of promise in terms of reducing the health hazard to men, women and children who work in the kitchen."
Making the switch across Nigeria could probably reduce the country's emissions by 20-30%.

Globally, he said, about two billion people use wood as their primary fuel; and switching them all to locally-made efficient stoves would cost about $6bn.
Mr Eleri said that although developing countries could do more, the lead has to be taken by the West.
The EU has staked a claim to that lead by vowing to cut its emissions by 20% by 2020, or by 30% if there is a global deal.
Mr Obama has proposed a more modest goal - bringing US emissions down by 2020 to the level they were at in 1990.
The analysis by the Global Climate Network suggests these pledges are not enough to halve global emissions by 2050, even if they are implemented.
There is, it says, a "mitigation gap".
"We have got to unlock emissions growth in developing countries," said the organisation's co-ordinator Andrew Pendleton, who is based at the Institute for Public and Policy Research (IPPR) in London.
"But we have got to find an equitable way of doing that."
The clear message from putting these two reports together was, he said, that richer nations will have to get finance and clean technology into the developing world if they want to turn the goal of a 50% cut into reality.rii

G8 fails to set climate world alight

ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much.
Leaders are "committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change", and determined to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid "dangerous climate change".
In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success.
The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say "I won".
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."

So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%.
The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own.
And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities" as continued acknowledgement that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.
Off base
The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions.
One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness.
The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.
With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline.
But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalised, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded.

The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was "current levels".
This would be significant in at least three ways.
From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK's domestic targets also use 1990.
And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying "we're going to ignore what we said then and start again from here".
The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate.
But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.
Leadership question
So it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal.
WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialised countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required.
"The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem", said the director of the group's global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen.
"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution."
Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial.
"Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit," said international director Peter Grant.
"The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed."

The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late.
Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that "a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them" - without specifying what these goals should look like.
Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly.
There is support for the rapid development of "clean coal" demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.
Place in the world
It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve.
The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December's UN climate summit in Bali to next year's in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future.
Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that.
What this week's gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process.
On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of "big emitters" or "major economies", the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration.
The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.
So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it.
Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Key climate summit opens in Bali

Governments at a key UN climate summit will discuss how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after the current Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012.

Talks will centre on whether a further set of binding targets is needed.

It is the first such meeting since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that evidence for global warming was "unequivocal".

The two-week gathering in Bali, Indonesia, will also debate how to help poor nations cope in a warming world.

The annual high-level meeting, organised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is under pressure to deliver a new global agreement on how to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Rachmat Witoelar, the Indonesian environment minister who was named president of the conference, pledged to do his best to deliver a deal.

"Climate protection must form an integral part of sustainable economic development, and it is critical that we act and we act now," he said.

UNFCCC Executive Director Yvo de Boer urged the international community to use the summit to take "concrete steps" towards curbing climate change.

"We urgently need to take increased action, given climate change predictions and the corresponding global adaptation needs," he said in his welcome message to delegates.

"In the context of climate change, projections of economic growth and increases in energy demand over the next 20 years, especially in developing countries, point to the urgent need to green these trends."

Earlier this year, the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report (A4R), in which it projected that the world would warm by 1.8-4.0C (3.2-7.2F) over the next century.

Mr de Boer added that the IPCC's conclusion that climate change was "very likely" the result of human activity ended any doubt over the need to act.

Climate for consensus?

At the top of the conference's agenda is the need to reach a consensus on how to curb emissions beyond 2012.

This marks the end of the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialised nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 5% from 1990 levels.

Critics of the existing framework say binding targets do not work, and favour technological advances instead.

Recent studies show that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are rising faster than they were a decade ago.

Meanwhile, US President George Bush - who favours voluntary rather than mandatory targets - issued a statement saying that the nation's emissions had fallen by 1.5% in 2006 from levels in 2005.

Mr Bush used the reduction as an endorsement of his climate policy, saying: "Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

"We must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

However, the European Union backs the use of binding targets. The 27-nation bloc has already committed itself to cut emissions by 20% by 2020.

A number of observers believe the difference between the two economic powerhouses will result in the Bali conference failing to deliver a policy roadmap for "Kyoto II".

Softening the blow

The conference is also scheduled to consider how to fund projects that will help developing nations deal with the impact of climate change.

Ahead of the climate conference, another UN agency published a report criticising global efforts to date.

The UN Development Programme's annual Human Development Report said funding currently amounted to $26m (£13m), roughly the same amount as the UK spent on its flood defences in a week.

"Nobody wants to understate the very real long-term ecological challenges that climate change will bring to rich countries," said lead author Kevin Watkins.

"But the near-term vulnerabilities are not concentrated in lower Manhattan and London, but in flood-prone areas of Bangladesh and drought-prone parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

"Allowing the window of opportunity to close would represent a moral and political failure without precedent in human history."

La pugna por el clima

por: Jorge Eduardo Navarrete

Es probable que Bush, quien acaba de reunir en Washington a delegados de otros 15 grandes emisores de CO₂, vea en el cambio climático el campo de su última batalla. Como otras, ésta se endereza contra el multilateralismo y, en especial, la ONU. Para júbilo de los neoconservadores, desea que su herencia sea desembarazar a la superpotencia del muro de contención que le significa, a veces, el organismo mundial.

Días antes, en Nueva York, el secretario general había convocado a los líderes políticos que asistirían a la Asamblea General –de los que Calderón se excluyó vergonzosamente a última hora, por razones baladís– para abordar el mismo tema y dejar en claro que corresponde al más amplio de los espacios multilaterales. En Washington –con México representado por el descolorido titular de la Semarnat– Bush pretendió que los 16 definieran por sí mismos los alcances y contenidos de lo que será dable acordar en el ámbito del Acuerdo Marco sobre Cambio Climático de la ONU, es decir, que impusieran a los demás los términos de su acuerdo. En Nueva York, Ban Ki Moon y los líderes asistentes se esforzaron por preservar la integridad de la legitimidad negociadora de Naciones Unidas ante las pretensiones de la coalición ad hoc bajo el mando de Estados Unidos. Así, desde finales de septiembre, quedó definida con nitidez la pugna por el clima.

La retórica en Washington, a cargo de Bush mismo y de Condoleezza Rice, fue muy diferente de esta realidad. Se empeñaron en mostrar que el esfuerzo se realizaba en auxilio de la ONU, al invitar a un funcionario de esa organización. Trataron de negar la brecha que en la materia existe con la Unión Europea, al convidar a delegados de la Comisión y de la Presidencia del Consejo. Proclamaron que Estados Unidos, conspicuo adversario del Protocolo de Kyoto, ahora sí se preocupa por el calentamiento global y está dispuesto a negociar, en ese grupo ad hoc, un vago compromiso global de reducción de emisiones, cuyo cumplimiento sería la suma de esfuerzos nacionales independientes, no coordinados y voluntarios. La mano invisible encargada de contener y disminuir emisiones y alejar la amenaza del cambio climático.

A Bush no le funcionó tan bien como esperaba la primera escaramuza de su last stand. Contó, desde luego, con la adhesión entusiasta de Australia y algún otro correligionario. No se sabe qué posición asumió México. Un magro boletín de la Semarnat sobre “las actividades en Washington de su titular” recoge algunas expresiones coincidentes con los planteamientos de Bush. Los delegados europeos reiteraron la imperiosa necesidad de compromisos cuantitativos obligatorios de reducción de emisiones, claramente calendarizados. Los de países en desarrollo defendieron el papel de la ONU como único foro negociador en la materia. Brasil, China y Francia, entre otros, manifestaron su incomodidad con la iniciativa haciéndose representar a nivel inferior al ministerial.

El resumen de conclusiones de la reunión de Washington, formulado por el delegado de Estados Unidos, no pudo omitir la referencia a propuestas planteadas por varias delegaciones que coliden con las presentadas por Bush. Así, entre los temas que deberán seguirse examinando, se alude a “las acciones de todas las naciones para lograr el objetivo global [de reducción de emisiones] en forma mensurable y ambientalmente efectiva, de acuerdo con el principio de responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas”; el objetivo global mismo deberá “tomar en cuenta las emisiones históricas acumuladas, las emisiones per cápita y las necesidades de desarrollo de los países en desarrollo”, así como la definición de “reducciones obligatorias, de corto y mediano plazos, para los países desarrollados”.

Además, lo que quizá sea más importante, se difirió la siguiente reunión del grupo ad hoc para después de la Conferencia de Bali en diciembre. De este modo, se afirmó, aunque de manera indirecta, la primacía de la ONU como foro negociador en la materia. ¿Le salió por la culata el disparo al vaquero de Crawford? Es muy pronto para decirlo.

La reunión especial de alto nivel de la Asamblea General sobre cambio climático, días antes del cónclave de Washington, fue, sobre todo, un acto de afirmación política. Como expresó el secretario general al resumir el debate: “Esta reunión no tuvo un propósito negociador, sino el objetivo de expresar, al más alto nivel, la disposición política de los líderes del mundo para enfrentar el desafío del calentamiento global a través de acciones concertadas. Los participantes han reafirmado, una vez más, que el único foro en que esta cuestión puede ser decidida es el de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático”.

Tras estos episodios –en los que el papel de México ha sido equívoco, por decir lo menos– todo dependerá de lo que pueda avanzarse en la conferencia de Bali para situar en el campo de batalla apropiado, que no es el delineado por Bush, la pugna por el clima.