Light at End of the Tunnel?
Someone I have a lot of respect for says all the Durban bashing is misinformed. To those who argue that the recent climate summit in South Africa produced nothing of consequence, Andrew Light counters:
The fact is that not only did Durban produce a package of agreements essential for any hope of a meaningful contribution to mitigation and adaptation to climate change out of this forum, but it also avoided a disaster that would have sent this process back to where it started in 1992.
Light makes a strong, detailed case for why the climate community should be more appreciative of the lemonade made out of the lemons:
Those who claim Durban is a failure are missing the big picture. It emerged out of an incredibly hard process with multiple trip wires for failure. If there is going to be an international agreement (or cluster of them) that helps bend down emissions to get us to the goals we need to achieve then Durban will be seen as essential to getting there.
UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr. says not so fast and elaborates here.
India has rendered moot Light’s reasons 3, 4, 5, 6:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/about-that-durban-deal.html
I think it pretty safe to assume that India and China will not cut emissions until they have reached their emissions peak ( their “Peak Coal). For China the reserve under current production is 35 years, for India 106.
So China will have to turn “green” after 2030 🙂
Again, Durban shows the reality that AGW is a zombie movement: It is dead but it still moves around, threatening, and incoherent. The AGW believers chose, instead of dealing with the reasonable quesitons about the diagnosis and prescription, to vilify those asking questions about the diagnosis and to ignore the failures of the prescribed solutions. now nothing is left but spin and blaming those who asked the reasonable questions.
I must think that the US and China are privately negotiating rather hard. Solving the emissions issue may feature in the larger solution to the $290,000,000,000/annum issue. What will China need to purchase or wishes to be able to purchase and how would that puts a dent in both issues.
Neither country wishes to impoverish the other but both may see a way to leave the pack behind.
I expect there are niggles in the China growth plan that could be smoothed at a price by the US. Additional capacity or capability that the US could jump start.
Alex
Roger, do you ever give your students guidance on how to quote material? Tips on how not mislead/misrepresent perhaps? Wouldn’t you agree that it’s bad form to end a block quote with the introductory sentence to a paragraph?
Consider how it changes the meaning from what you’re suggesting at your site:
” I must clarify that this decision does not imply that India has to take binding commitments to reduce its emissions in absolute terms in 2020. India has already announced a domestic mitigation goal of reducing the emissions intensity of its output by 20-25% by 2020 in comparison with 2005 level. This goal is relative in nature and allows India’s emissions to grow as the economy grows. Our National Action Plan on Climate Change is designed to meet this objective. Further steps to implement a strategy that will meet this domestic goal are being taken as part of implementation of the 12th Five Year Plan. India ensured that the new arrangements in 2020 are established under the Convention. This will ensure that the principles and provisions of the Convention will continue to apply to the arrangements to be developed. India will negotiate the nature of agreed outcome strictly in accordance with the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibility as provided under the Convention. Further, the Durban decision mandates that the “˜outcome’ has to be agreed by all parties before it is implemented through legal arrangements having force. The decision allows India the necessary flexibility over the choice of appropriate legal form to be decided in future. This choice will be guided by our national development imperatives and the principles of the Convention. Hon’ble speaker We are fully conscious of the immense responsibility that the Durban decisions have now placed on us. It is of paramount importance that the issue of equity is brought to the centre-stage of negotiations in future. With this objective in mind, India had proposed at Durban that the issues of equity, unilateral trade measures and technology related intellectual property rights should be included in the agenda of the conference of parties. ”
“Some Parties led by the European Union wanted to delete the option relating to “˜legal outcome’ which was originally mooted by India., We successfully resisted this pressures and in turn suggested a similar expression “˜agreed outcome with legal force’ which found acceptance with all the Parties. The post 2020 arrangements, when finalized, may include some aspirational CoP decisions, binding CoP decisions, setting up of new institutions and bodies, and new protocols or other legal instruments as necessary to implement the decisions covering various issues with various degrees of binding-ness as per domestic or international provisions of law under the Convention.
I must clarify that this decision does not imply that India has to take binding commitments to reduce its emissions in absolute terms in 2020. India has already announced a domestic mitigation goal of reducing the emissions intensity of its output by 20-25% by 2020 in comparison with 2005 level. This goal is relative in nature and allows India’s emissions to grow as the economy grows. Our National Action Plan on Climate Change is designed to meet this objective. Further steps to implement a strategy that will meet this domestic goal are being taken as part of implementation of the 12th Five Year Plan.
India ensured that the new arrangements in 2020 are established under the Convention. This will ensure that the principles and provisions of the Convention will continue to apply to the arrangements to be developed. India will negotiate the nature of agreed outcome strictly in accordance with the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibility as provided under the Convention. ”
IOW, the Idian Minister is s
bah. my kingdom for a preview button.
The article was a remarkable experiment in ignoring reality for the most part, but I was struck by his admission at the end that Kyoto really was killed by the US Senate in a 95-0 vote during the Clinton administration. The past 11 years have been a non-stop harangue about “Republicans”, “Tea-Partiers” and “deniers” gumming up the works. Well, no, it was every single Democratic party senator gumming up the works and the works were gummed up for very, very good reasons. Reasons which continue today.
The admission:
“And finally, something I did not discuss previously in this piece, before Durban the ability of the United States to sign onto any international climate treaty coming out of this or any other international process was hamstrung by the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution where the Senate stated unequivocally (95-0) that they would not even look at a climate treaty that divided the world between the responsibilities of developed and developing countries. This decision kept the Clinton administration from even trying to get the United States into the Kyoto Protocol. ”
Ah, but at least now there is a pathway to a promise to hold more meetings about the framework for the discussion about the possibility of some progress toward a possible (non-binding) agreement to actually do something about emissions that, as Pielke Jr. points out, have already failed.
So this is success. I wish you more of it in 2012!
Those who think India is actually making any sort of sacrifices should read the Financial Express (Indian Financial daily) article that says what it is really about: By maintaining high growth rate, carbon intensity will by itself go down.
Carbon intensity, India’s new gambit
KG Narendranath, MK VENU
Posted: Saturday, Dec 05, 2009 at 0026 hrs IST
New Delhi: An internal note prepared by the Planning Commission, and endorsed by the Prime Minister, says India by simply maintaining the current growth tempo, can cut its carbon emission intensity of GDP by up to 39% by 2020 from the 2005 base. Therefore, the voluntary target of 20-25% cut in emission intensity announced by the government in Parliament on Thursday actually does not commit to any big reduction in carbon emissions in absolute terms. In fact, India’s new proposal merely seeks to keep its own carbon space for development while pushing the developed economies to respond to the new formulation of “carbon intensity of GDP.”
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/carbon-intensity-indias-new-gambit/550122/
-5-Marlowe Johnson, feel free to explain what you think is misleading. India has said that their business-as-usual is just fine thanks, and that legal stuff is as it was under Bali.
And on those Indian BAU decarbonization targets:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2793-2009.53.pdf
See Jarmo in #8.
Roger that’s easy. It appears that the last part of your block quote is meant to convey that India will not accept binding commitments (i.e. no progress towards international agreement). Otherwise why did you bold it? However, that sentence was followed by statements that suggest that India is reducing its emissions regardless of negotiations taking place at the international level. Surely I don’t have to explain the basic rules of grammar and paragraph structure to you? Since when are poli sci grads exempt from english courses?
Frankly I’m surprised that you haven’t spent more time on the green tech fund commitments given your particular interests.
@Keith
Does ‘elaborate’ mean the same thing to you as it does to me? Cuz I don’t see much elaborating over at Roger’s on this topic.
-10-Marlowe Johnson
I welcome the exchange of views, but I could do without the insults.
You are simply incorrect (sorry;-) when you write:
” that sentence was followed by statements that suggest that India is reducing its emissions regardless of negotiations taking place at the international level”
That is not at all what India has said. India has committed to a goal to reduce its emissions intensity of GDP, which is not the same thing as reducing emissions. In fact, India has in effect committed to growing its emissions — from the Minister’s statement: “This [emissions intensity] goal is relative in nature and allows India’s emissions to grow as the economy grows.”
Finally, India has said that they have not committed to binding reductions from 2020 (which stands in stark contrast to how many are presenting the Durban Platform), again, the Idian environment minister: “I must clarify that this decision does not imply that India has to take binding commitments to reduce its emissions in absolute terms in 2020.”
So despite what some may wish that India has said, it is clear that they view Durban (at least for now and officially, such things could of course change) as institutionalizing BAU, which is far from the spin you get at CAP and elsewhere.
Thanks!
#10,
India did not say it was reducing its emissions regardless, it said it was reducing its emissions intensity. This is the same trick China pulled after Bali. The Americans got them to agree that everyone would face emissions targets, answering the Byrd-Hagel objection, and enabling the USA to enter negotiations. Once the conference was over, China announced they had only meant emissions intensity – the emissions per unit GDP – and what they really meant was that they would be increasing emissions, but increasing their efficiency as well by using more modern Western technology. Which of course they were planning to do anyway.
India has now just said the same thing. They’re going to emit more and more CO2, but by modernising their industries they’ll make more wealth per unit of CO2. It’s a way of saying ‘business as usual, full speed ahead’ in a way that sounds like it’s agreeing to cutbacks.
As I’ve said already, this is not a fight between people who believe in climate change versus those who do not, but between those who believe that dealing with climate change requires all emissions to be cut unconditionally, versus those who think only Western countries will have to cut their energy use, and at the same time hand all their defence budgets and advanced technology over to everyone else for free. India are not planning to cut one iota off their emissions, unless the West pay the entire bill.
Roger’s not reading my post very carefully. You can disagree with me but I don’t think the most important thing to come out of Durban is the road map to a post-Kyoto agreement. You can’t count emission reductions from an agreement that doesn’t yet exist. What’s most important is the guts of the Cancun Agreements on the Green Climate Fund, the Climate Technology Center, the new MRV process for unsupported actions from developing countries, etc.
As for Natarajan’s comments, they are completely in line with comments that were made again and again by her predecessors who signed on to progressive changes in the framework convention (such as last year’s Cancun Agreements) and then walked them back in front of parliament. That’s what these ministers have to do or the hard liners will rip them apart.
Second, she’s totally right that nothing in the Durban platform implies that “India has to take binding commitments to reduce its emissions” in 2020. The Durban decision doesn’t require anyone to do anything in terms of taking on binding reductions, only to a process to produce an agreement that could do that in the future. This was why I wrote from Durban that many of the objections by the major emitters to the EU proposal were pointless. This is a diplomatic process not a magical agreement for an outcome by fiat. But do I think it better to have this process in place rather than the alternative, which was concluding the meeting with the probable end of the CDM as part of the KP and the climate fund as part of the Cancun Agreements? Yes I do. And what Natarajan says here doesn’t change my views on that a bit.
Roger,
Re-re-reading the entire thing, I see how that paragraph is ambiguous and that your reading of it (that India isn’t binding itself to a 2020 legal agreement) is fair. It looks like my beef may be with the Minister’s speechwriter not you 😉
Having said that, it seems to me that your comment regarding intensity vs absolute emission reduction targets misses the point. In both instances you get an emission reduction relative to a BAU. In fact, you could argue that the former is more likely to get you real reductions and avoid Russian hot-air situations. And frankly, if the events of the last 4 years have taught us anything, it’s that economic predictions are fraught with enough uncertainty that baking in absolute emission commitments are foolhardy.
It remains to be seen if the tech fund and other cooperative initiatives take a greater hold at future CoPs, but given the inertia of the current setup, it’s unlikely IMO that we’ll see the target-centric approach fade into the sunset anytime soon.
I think we’d both agree that therein lies the real tragedy of the process that started in Berlin 16 years ago. National governments will never commit themselves to policies that don’t have domestic support, and it’s been clear for long enough now that climate policies do not have sufficient support in any of the countries that matter, with a few notable exceptions.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and I often wonder how different things might be know if a few chads had fallen a certain way or a certain bubble had waited a couple of years to burst, but as they say, it is what it is….
Andrew Light,
This is like when the grand eugenics legislation effort failedin the UK in the early 20th century. The eugenics believers thoguht it was just a road bump, but it was really the beginning of the end. we can only hope that AGW dies a mcuh quieter death than the eugenics movement finally did.
@12
Let me expand on the point about absolute vs intensity targets. At the end of the day, it’s not the denominator that really matters, it’s your start and end points and your expectations for future growth. What is better? Russia committing to absolute reductions relative to 1990 or China committing to intensity reduction targets relative to 2010 levels?
The awnser, I would think, depends on how aggressive those targets are relative to the business as usual case, and that is where the rubber hits the road. It’s no secret why 1990 was chosen as the baseline for Kyoto (think of events relating to a certain wall).
In the case of India, if a credible BAU shows their emission intensity declining by 1% a year and they adopt an intensity target of 3% a year, why is this a bad thing? If Russia adopts an absolute emission reduction target of 10% below 1990 and their emissions end up being 15% below 1990, is this a good thing? Does it matter that the only reason they hit the target is because their economy imploded for reasons unrelated to climate policy?
Hi Andrew-
You write:
“The Durban decision doesn’t require anyone to do anything in terms of taking on binding reductions, only to a process to produce an agreement that could do that in the future.”
Yes, well that is also what the 1992 UN FCCC did;-) How is that success — isn’t that what the COPs have always been about?
If you think that is is just India’s “hard liners” (e.g., ike Rajendra Pachauri, Manmohan Signh;-) [note to all that is a joke, they are not hard liners, but people who see India’s economic growth as non-negotiable] who prioritize economic growth over emissions reductions then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Clearly India interprets Durban to reinforce the long-standing view of “common but differentiated responsibility.” I don’t think that the most charitable (to your argument) reading of India’s position has that wall coming down. But we can agree to disagree and see how it plays out over the next 8 (!) years, because that is what it will take to resolve our different views.
You did say that Durban offers a “workplan” (#3) and a “process” (#4) and a promise (#5) to do something in the ill-defined future. My how success has been defined down;-) Judging from the comments at CP, including those of your host, not many folks there are buying your argument either.
Unquestioned faith in the international process is one of the key factors that has gotten us to today. Are their any circumstances under which you’d say, let’s abandon the process? If so, I’d be curious to hear what they are.
“In the case of India, if a credible BAU shows their emission intensity declining by 1% a year and they adopt an intensity target of 3% a year, why is this a bad thing?”
Marlowe, it’s only “a bad thing” if you think emissions increases (which India is promising) will cause some problem related to global warming or climate change or something. “Intensity” is irrelevant to anyone who is “climate concerned.” Are there any of those left?
I can see that none of you have ever done business/negoatiated in India or china.
or if you have you forgot everything that experience teaches.
for that matter I warrant that none of you have done business/negotiated in russia.
people who see Durban as progress will get the clue by 4 some day.
The sad thing is that people continue to hold out hope for an agreement.
a crack computer whiz AND an expert in international relations. Does your awesomeness know no bounds Steve? One wonders how you manage to stay so humble.
@18
I used to see the trade-off between absolute and intensity targets in much the same way as between C&T and a carbon tax (i.e. quantity or price uncertainty). However, having seen how both policies play out at ground level, I’m no longer convinced that there is a meaningful distinction between the two approaches. While a carbon tax doesn’t provide quantitative certainty, experience has shown us that neither do absolute caps. With all the jockeying that goes into cap setting process (i.e. baselines, free allowances, banking provisions, etc.) and the pretty obvious fact that future government administrations won’t bind themselves to decisions of their predecessors if the consequences (i.e. allowance costs) are too high, it’s difficult to see how you get the quantitative certainty that is the main selling feature of the C&T approach.
Mosher,
Yup. There will never be an agreement until/unless the costs of inaction become obviously higher than the cost of action, for all participants. From the point of view of politicians, the “cost horizon” is an election cycle or two. For business people, that horizon lies a decade or less away. For economists, application of any reasonable discount rate for the present investment value of future benefits (100 years to centuries away!) means nothing but token costs can be rationally justified today. Only utterly certain absolute climate castrophe will change this situation….. and climate science is a very long way from that.
#21- I get where you’re coming from but, you’ll pardon me if I think this is a rationalization derived from being too close to the issue.
An “intensity” target is no less of an example of denial than is a claim that GHGs don’t matter. Worse is the fact that this is obvious to any neutral observer. This argument is not being made in a vacuum. At the same moment that the climate concerned are trying to shut down lucrative natural gas and oil pipeline projects in the US and Canada, they are cheering a proposal that lets India and China continue going coal crazy based on a “intensity of GDP” ruse.
Many more people will notice this contradiction than will ever grace the websites of Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre or hear a speech by Monkton. This joins the continuing fairy tale about wind/solar as the principle “denier” or “stasis” mechanism. The only people who can support this are either process freaks or those who think of Global Warming in terms of a partisan tool to further redistribution and regulation goals.
My “iron law” about the information deficit- if you don’t care (about the actual emissions), nobody else will and there will be no “action” on climate change. You’ve known this at least since 1997 when 95 US Senators from both sides of the political aisle told you so in no uncertain terms.
@19 steven,
I have the distinct impression that few of the Durban-success spinners have done any business anywhere. My Chinese experience was brutal expensive and revealing. But my chinese friends were almost always nice while they took my company to the cleaners.
Business in Mexico is also a revealing arena, but the Mexicans are not doing much irt AGW.
If Durban was a success then what would failure look like?
#25,
Pretty much the same.
OK it’s December 31 and your resolution for the New Year is that next year’s New Year resolution will be to make a plan to quit smoking.
The real ‘light at the end of the tunnel’
WallStreet Journal declares –
The coal age is nearer to the end
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577114642286810250.html