Top Banner
Road to Copenhagen Michael Hitchens, Chief Executive Officer, 25 November 2009
27

Road to Copenhagen

Jan 21, 2016

Download

Documents

Joylyn Trinidad

Road to Copenhagen. Michael Hitchens, Chief Executive Officer, 25 November 2009. A Post-Kyoto Agreement. Dump the ‘developed’/‘developing’ country paradigm ‘advanced’/‘least-developed’ solution ‘advanced’ = Annex I plus some high/middle income developing countries Kyoto architecture flawed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Road to Copenhagen

Road to Copenhagen

Michael Hitchens, Chief Executive Officer, 25 November 2009

Page 2: Road to Copenhagen

A Post-Kyoto Agreement

Dump the ‘developed’/‘developing’ country paradigm• ‘advanced’/‘least-developed’ solution• ‘advanced’ = Annex I plus some high/middle income

developing countries Kyoto architecture flawed

• USA, China and others cannot commit• Canada, Spain, Japan, Italy, Ireland cannot meet their

‘targets’ The concept of ‘comparable effort’

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 2

Page 3: Road to Copenhagen

Kyoto Protocol Performance Kyoto Protocol

Assigned Amount (% of 1990) Estimate 2010 (%)

Kyoto Protocol Assigned Amount

(% of 1990) Estimate 2010 (%)

Australia 8 7 Latvia -8 -48.6

Austria -13 -1.2 Liechtenstein -8 4

Belgium -7.5 1.9 Lithuania -8 -30.4

Bulgaria -8 -40.4 Netherlands -6 -2.2

Canada -6 38.2 New Zealand 0 15

Croatia -5 -11.8 Norway 1 23.3

Czech Republic -8 -26.7 Poland -6 -26.1

Denmark -8 -2.2 Portugal 27 42.7

Estonia -8 -56 Romania -8 -30.8

EU -8 -6.8 Russia 0 -21.3

Finland 0 -2.5 Slovakia -8 -24.7

France 0 0.2 Slovenia -8 -1.4

Germany -21 -22.5 Spain 15 27

Greece 25 27.5 Sweden 4 0.5

Hungary -6 -28.7 Switzerland -8 -3.2

Iceland 10 37.7 Turkey 98

Ireland 13 22.8 Ukraine 0 -47.9

Italy -6.5 3.7 United Kingdom -12.5 -19.4

Japan -6 3.6 United States -7 26.4

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 3

Page 4: Road to Copenhagen

Who Needs To Contribute?

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 4

Page 5: Road to Copenhagen

Who Can Afford to Contribute?

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 5

Page 6: Road to Copenhagen

Government’s Negotiating Position

“… reduce Australia’s emissions by 25 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of stabilising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 ppm CO2-e or lower…and… to unconditionally reduce Australia’s emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, and to reduce emissions by up to 15 per cent by 2020 if there is a global agreement which falls short of securing atmospheric stabilisation at 450 ppm CO2-e, and under which major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s.”

Joint submission to the UNFCCC by Australia, Belarus, Canada, and the European Community, May 2009

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 6

Page 7: Road to Copenhagen

“Reduce Australia’s Emissions”

It is not an emissions ‘target’ It is a share, or national allocation, of

international emission rights

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 7

Page 8: Road to Copenhagen

Australia’s Emissions -5% By 2020

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 8

Page 9: Road to Copenhagen

Comparable Effort

“Mitigation will be best enhanced by countries making a comparable effort to others at a similar stage of development, taking into account differing national circumstances. Comparable effort would be represented by the entire portfolio of a country’s effort, including but not limited to economy wide emission reduction targets for advanced economies.”

Australia’s Low Pollution Future: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Dec. 2008

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 9

Page 10: Road to Copenhagen

Indicators of Comparable Effort

Access Economics report Reference to base year Per capita Business as usual Economic or welfare impact – GNP

Australia, USA, EU, Canada

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 10

Page 11: Road to Copenhagen

Country Commitments

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 11

Page 12: Road to Copenhagen

Baseline Year: Indicator 1

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 12

Page 13: Road to Copenhagen

Per Capita Indicator 2: -20% Production Based

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 13

Page 14: Road to Copenhagen

Production versus Consumption

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 14

Page 15: Road to Copenhagen

UK Emissions

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 15

Page 16: Road to Copenhagen

BAU Indicator 3: -20% Reduction

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 16

Page 17: Road to Copenhagen

Why is EU’s -20% So Little?Kyoto Protocol

Assigned Amount (% of 1990) Estimate 2010 (%)

Kyoto Protocol Assigned Amount

(% of 1990) Estimate 2010 (%)

Australia 8 7 Latvia -8 -48.6

Austria -13 -1.2 Liechtenstein -8 4

Belgium -7.5 1.9 Lithuania -8 -30.4

Bulgaria -8 -40.4 Netherlands -6 -2.2

Canada -6 38.2 New Zealand 0 15

Croatia -5 -11.8 Norway 1 23.3

Czech Republic -8 -26.7 Poland -6 -26.1

Denmark -8 -2.2 Portugal 27 42.7

Estonia -8 -56 Romania -8 -30.8

EU -8 -6.8 Russia 0 -21.3

Finland 0 -2.5 Slovakia -8 -24.7

France 0 0.2 Slovenia -8 -1.4

Germany -21 -22.5 Spain 15 27

Greece 25 27.5 Sweden 4 0.5

Hungary -6 -28.7 Switzerland -8 -3.2

Iceland 10 37.7 Turkey 98

Ireland 13 22.8 Ukraine 0 -47.9

Italy -6.5 3.7 United Kingdom -12.5 -19.4

Japan -6 3.6 United States -7 26.4

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 17

Page 18: Road to Copenhagen

GNP Indicator 4: Allocation Budgets

The year 2020 allocation is interesting

but

The real test of ‘comparable effort’ is the allocation budget from 2013 to 2020 (or 2017)

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 18

Page 19: Road to Copenhagen

Country BAU Emissions

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 19

Page 20: Road to Copenhagen

Government’s Illustrative Allocation

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 20

Page 21: Road to Copenhagen

Comparative GNP Impact

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 21

Page 22: Road to Copenhagen

Comparative Employment Impact

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 22

Page 23: Road to Copenhagen

Alternative Allocation Budget For Australia

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 23

Page 24: Road to Copenhagen

Graduated v Straight-line GNP

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 24

Page 25: Road to Copenhagen

Comparative GNP Effects - 2015

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 25

Page 26: Road to Copenhagen

Comparative Employment Effects 2015

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 26

Page 27: Road to Copenhagen

References

AIGN http://www.aign.net.au/ Department of Climate Change

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/index.html

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV02033_7331_FRP.pdf

UNFCCC http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php

World Resources Institute www.wri.org

A U S T R A L I A N I N D U S T R Y G R E E N H O U S E N E T W O R K 27