Bcfr April 20 2010

The Failure of Copenhagen

What next for global energy and climate negotiations?Iain Murray MA(Oxon) MBA DICBirmingham Committee on Foreign RelationsApril 20, 2010

What Does Copenhagen’s Failure Mean?

What was Copenhagen meant to achieve?

What did it achieve? How did we get there? What are people saying now? Where does this leave us?

What Was Copenhagen About?

August 31, 2008. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: “We know what needs to be done. We now look to Poznan and Copenhagen negotiations to deliver a response that is commensurate with the climate change crisis that is upon us.”

September 11, 2008. Ban Ki-moon: “We have only 18 months until Copenhagen. The clock is ticking.”

January 28, 2009. Al Gore: “This treaty must be negotiated this year.”

February 16, 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change head Rajendra Pachauri: “It is crucial that in Copenhagen in December 2009 governments from across the world reach agreement on tackling the challenge of climate change on a collective basis.”

Then the spin changed…

Following some contentious pre-meetings, the science of expectations management intervened.

The line became that “The meeting at Copenhagen this year is just a step on the road to an international treaty on emissions reduction.”

The Copenhagen Accord

Until very last minute looked like no agreement would be reached

President Obama was snubbed on several occasions throughout the last day by China

Last minute meeting between US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa

Produced the Copenhagen Accord

What Does the Accord Say?

Boilerplate on need to tackle warming problem

Endorses continuation of Kyoto approach for mitigation

Stresses role of adaptation and agrees to $130 billion funding

Commits developing world to slower growth in emissions

What Doesn’t It Say?

Binding targets are gone – each “Annex I” party to submit its own plan

No reductions for developing world parties

No international cap-and-trade market (yet)

None of Europe’s demands met

Status of Copenhagen Accord

Over 110 countries are now "associated" with the accord but it has not been adopted by the 192-nation UN climate convention.

The US has denied aid to some countries that do not support the accord (Bolivia, Ecuador).

“All or nothing” approach alienated China, India and Brazil in Bonn.

How Did We Get to This Point?

Negotiations implicitly recognize the cost of reducing emissions

EU approach has self-evidently failed Developing world will not drop its

demands to develop Even slight reductions in growth will

have to be paid for by the most concerned

Benefits of Affordable Energy

“Energy is an indispensable ingredient of material prosperity. . . . Where and when energy is in short supply or too expensive, people suffer from lack of direct energy services (such as cooking, heating, lighting, and transport) and from inflation, unemployment, and reduced economic output.”

- John Holdren (President Obama’s Science Advisor)

The Economic Realities of Emissions Reduction

Replacing high-emissions fuel sources with low-emissions fuel sources is expensive

High prices mean less energy used Gas demand fell 3% thanks to $4

gas Burden falls mostly on the poor

45.1%

21.3%

9.9%

9.6%

9.4%

9.2%

6.8%

6.4%

3.9%

4.8%

0.1%

0.1%

-0.6%

-0.8%

-1.7%

-2.9%

-3.0%

-6.3%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

China **

Canada

India **

Indonesia **

South Africa **

Brazil **

Mexico **

South Korea **

Russia

Australia

EU-27

Italy

Japan

EU-15

Germany

UK

USA

France

Changes in Net GHG EmissionsChanges in Net GHG Emissions11 2000-2006 from 2000-2006 from17 Major Economies17 Major Economies

1 Includes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, as well as emissions and removals of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from land-use, land-use change and forestry activities.** No UNFCCC data available for time period; 2001 through 2005 IEA data used.

Sources: UNFCCC, 2008 National Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Formats and IEA Online Energy Services.

The Truth About Kyoto

How Expensive is the Gore Plan?

Energy Goals Demanded by European Approach are Unrealistic

Massive effort is required to cut emissions

‘Approved’ environmental fuels cannot meet energy demands

Developing world is not going to comply, even if we completely eliminate emissions

Massive Effort Needed to Meet Emissions Goals

Source: Clarke, L. et al. 2006. Climate Change Mitigation: An Analysis of Advanced Technology Scenarios. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Cumulative global emissions reductions ranging from about 1,100 to 3,700 gigatons of CO2 equivalent would be need over the course of

the century to meet a range of atmospheric concentration goals (450 to 750 ppm).

1st GtC Avoided

0

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

(GtC

O2/y

r)

Cumulative Emissions

Cumulative AvoidedEmissions

Unconstrained Emissions Scenario

CO2 Stabilization Scenario

≈1,100 to 3,700 gigatons of cumulative CO2 emission reductions will be needed

to meet a range of stabilization scenarios (≈750 ppm to 450 ppm).

Time

How Big is One Gigaton* of CO2?

*Gigaton = 109 Metric Tons

Install 1,000 sequestration sites like Norway’s Sleipner project (1 MtCO2/year)—Only 3 sequestration projects of this scale exist today.

Geologic Sequestration

Build 273 “zero-emission” 500 MW coal-fired power plants—Equivalent to about 7% of current global installed coal-fired generating capacity of 2 million MW.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

Convert a barren area of about 4,800,000 km2—Equivalent to about 20 times the size of the United Kingdom.

Biomass Fuels from Plantations

Install capacity to produce 273 times the current global solar PV generation instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS.

Solar Photovoltaics

Actions that Provide One Gigaton CO2/ Year of Mitigation or Offsets

Technology

Convert a barren area of about 900,000 km2—Equivalent to more that the size of Germany and France combined.

CO2 Storage in New Forest

Install capacity to produce 14 times the current global wind generation capacity (about 74 GW) instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS—Equivalent to more than 1 million 1 MW wind turbines.

Wind Energy

Deploy 273 million new cars at 40 miles per gallon (mpg) instead of 20 mpg (or at 14 km/L instead of 7 km/L).

Efficiency

Build 136 new nuclear power plants of 1 GW each instead of new coal-fired power plants without CCS—Equivalent to about one third of existing worldwide nuclear capacity of 375 GW.

Nuclear

2050 Reference Emissions

2050Annex I

ReferenceEmissions(18.2 Gt)

Annex I Countries Non-Annex I Countries

2050Non-Annex IReferenceEmissions(32.4 Gt)

Annex I Emissions at20% 2000 Emissions

Annex I Emissions at50% 2000 Emissions

-100%(-18.2 Gt)

-84%(-15.2 Gt)

-59%(-10.7 Gt)

-62%(-20.1 Gt)

-71%(-23.1 Gt)

-85%(-27.6 Gt)

1 Includes fossil and other industrial CO2.2 50% of 2000 global GHG emissions equals 12.3 Gt.3 Equals reduction from 2050 reference for that group (i.e., Annex I or Non-Annex I).Source: Climate Change Science Program. 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Model results).

2050Annex I

Emissions(0 Gt)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions(12.3Gt)

2050Annex I

Emissions(3.0 Gt)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions(9.3 Gt)

2050Annex I

Emissions(7.4 Gt)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions(4.9 Gt)

Annex I Emissions at “0”

2000

2000

To Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global COTo Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global CO22 Emissions by 2050, Emissions by 2050,

Need Significant Reductions from Developing CountriesNeed Significant Reductions from Developing CountriesAnnual Gigaton CO2 and Percent Reductions from 2050 Reference3

CO

2, E

mis

sio

ns

(G

t C

O2/

yr)

RealityReality of EU’s Failed Experiment of EU’s Failed Experiment

Did Did notnot reduce emissions (slight growth reduce emissions (slight growth 2000-2006) however still led to:2000-2006) however still led to:

Leakage Leakage (e.g., steel jobs to the US, aluminum plant simply (e.g., steel jobs to the US, aluminum plant simply closed)closed)

Idling/Gaming Idling/Gaming (e.g., ceramics, pharmaceuticals)(e.g., ceramics, pharmaceuticals)

Price spikes and windfall profits for utilitiesPrice spikes and windfall profits for utilities Reduced energy security, increased Reduced energy security, increased

likelihood of rolling blackoutslikelihood of rolling blackouts So successful that they threaten a trade war So successful that they threaten a trade war

if we don’t do it to ourselves, too.if we don’t do it to ourselves, too.

What Does This All Mean?

Reducing emissions is extremely expensive

Even reducing emissions slightly is very expensive

Attempts to ‘do something’ are generally all economic pain for no climate gain

The Developing World’s View

Emissions are tied to growth Growth is necessary for

development Emissions reductions have proved

extremely expensive Requiring emissions reductions of

developing world is immoral Developed world caused problem

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

(Gt

CO

2/y

r)Important Transitions in Emitting Countries Over the Coming Important Transitions in Emitting Countries Over the Coming

Decades: CODecades: CO22 Emissions Emissions11 by Region - 2000 & 2050 by Region - 2000 & 2050

About 80 to 90% of the expected increase in GHG emissions between now and 2050 will come from developing countries, primarily China,

India & SE Asia.

1 Includes Fossil and other industrial CO2.

Source: Climate Change Science Program. 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Results).

Non-Annex I RegionsAnnex I Regions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

Foss

il a

nd Indust

rial

CO

2 Em

issi

ons,

Gt CO

2/yr

Africa

Middle East

Latin America

Southeast Asia

India

China

Korea

FSU

Eastern Europe

J apan

Australia_NZ

Western Europe

Canada

USA

Non-Annex 1 Emissions Equal with Annex 1 Emissions

Annex

1N

on-A

nnex

1

Data derived from Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate Change: Phase 2 Findings from an International Public-Private Sponsored Research Program, Battelle Memorial Institute, 2007.

Business-as-Usual CO2 Emission Projections by Region

2050 Reference Emissions

Annex I Countries Non-Annex I Countries

Annex I Emissions at20% 2000 Emissions

Annex I Emissions at50% 2000 Emissions

-100%

-84%

-59%

-62% -71%-85%

1 Measured as MMTCO2 per million people, excluding LULUCF.2 50% of 2000 global CO2 emissions equals 12.3 Gt.3 Equals reduction from 2050 reference for that group (i.e., Annex I or Non-Annex I).Source: Climate Change Science Program. 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (MINICAM Model results).

Annex I Emissions at “0”

To Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global COTo Achieve a 50% Reduction in Global CO22 Emissions by 2050, Emissions by 2050,

Per Capita Emissions from Developing Countries Must Go DownPer Capita Emissions from Developing Countries Must Go Down

Percent Reductions from 2050 Reference3

2000Annex I

ReferenceEmissions/

Capita(12.7)

2000Non-Annex IReferenceEmissions/

Capita(4.4)

2050Annex I

Emissions/Capita

(0)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions/Capita(1.7)

2050Annex I

Emissions/Capita(2.1)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions/Capita(1.3)

2050Annex I

Emissions/Capita(5.2)

2050Non-Annex I

Emissions/Capita(0.7)

CO

2, E

mis

sio

ns

pe

r C

ap

ita

(M

MT

CO

2 p

er

mil

lio

n p

op

.)

20002000

20002000

Scale of Biomass Land AreaLand Use Scenario ≈550 ppmv

Source: Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate Change: Phase 2 Findings from an International Public-Private Sponsored Research Program, Battelle Memorial Institute, 2007. Land Use Scenario with 0.5% annual agricultural activity growth.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

Unmanaged Ecosystems

Managed Forests

Crop Land

Pasture Land

BioEnergyBy 2050, land use required for bioenergy

crops may account for

approximately 4 to 5% of

total land use; by 2095

approximately 20%.

This Explains DW’s Position

“Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh told Clinton that ‘there is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.’

“During an hour-long private meeting with Clinton, Ramesh also accused the US of threatening to impose carbon tariffs on Indian exports if it failed to sign up to international emission redcuction targets.”-- BusinessGreen, July 21, 2009

Reality of an Energy-Starved World

The Undercover Economist Speaks

“If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”-- Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist, 2006

Reality of Future Negotiations

DW will not accept limitations on its energy use

EU-biased Kyoto structure has gone EU is sidelined Adaptation will increase in

importance Developed World will have to pay

for Developing World mitigation

What is Obama’s Position?

Internal memo left on European hotel computer

"Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.“

“Manage expectations,” bypass traditional media

"Create a clear understanding of the CA's [Copenhagen accord's] standing and the importance of operationalizing ALL elements."

Developing World’s Position

Will not accept binding emissions reductions targets for itself

Demands further emissions reductions from developed world

Regards Copenhagen Accord as starting point and incomplete

EU’s Position

Dominated by Sarkozy Sarkozy and Berlusconi issued joint letter “A border-adjustment mechanism" is "an

indispensable lever that the European Union must have the power to use if we want to preserve the environmental integrity of our efforts while ensuring the engagement of our principal partners“

Trade war is the only leverage left

What Shape Will Future Negotiations Take?

Depends heavily on future of emissions reduction paradigm

If paradigm is not rejected, likely to cause vicious cycle

If paradigm rejected, hope for achieving benefits based on adaptation and technology investment and transfer

Have We Entered a Post-European Era in International Diplomacy?

All indications are that EU has lost its dominant role in climate negotiations

US and BRIC dominant EU reduced to protectionism Liberal internationalist view of the

world must reflect this new reality EU a failed experiment as a model of

global governance – nation state as strong as ever