This document is intended for professional clients
january 2010
The Copenhagen Accord: nothing changes, everything changes « On the one hand, the Copenhagen Summit (COP15) is an enormous disappointment insofar as legally binding and empirically verifiable carbon reduction pledges by the world’s major polluters did not materialize; on the other hand it signals the possibility of a "leap forward", but only if the leaders of the major carbon emitting countries are sincere in their expressions of deep concern and in their aspirations for significant emissions reduction. What has become clear to public opinion worldwide is that the issue is clearly not scientific uncertainty about climate change or the economic viability of actions to control climate change and its impacts but rather a matter of political will, leadership courage and the decision‐making boundaries of the UN system. The UN Framework Commission on Climate Change mechanism (UN FCC) is severely compromised. »
Carlos Joly(1),
n Failures relative to expectations
President of the Scientific Committee Climate Change of Natixis Asset Management
No global, regional or country emissions limits defined for 2020 or 2050. No legally binding internationally agreed commitments; instead, continuing action is encouraged by national governments on voluntary basis (like China or India national plans) or regional The Scientific Committee Climate Change action: like EU Emissions Trading Scheme, US states like of Natixis Asset Management California car emission standards, or Norwegian financing for impact adaptation in Africa.
Natixis Asset Management launched the Climate Change Scientific Committee, bringing together renowned experts in order to enlighten the Natixis Asset Management teams on the challenges of climate change. Chaired by Carlos Joly, an expert in responsible and sustainable investment and one of the co-founder of UNEP-FI, this Climate Change Committee meets twice a year. Further information: www.am.natixis.com/climatechange/eng
No agreement on fixing ceilings based on per capita emissions, which would more equitably reflect historical and current emission realities(2) and allow for continued industrialization of emerging economies. No global mechanism for emissions trading or carbon taxation. Aspirational and inadequate commitments by rich countries to pay or finance the adaptation costs by poor and most vulnerable countries for damages to urban areas, infrastructure, public health, agriculture and industry from climate change that is caused primarily by historical emissions from the rich countries. In this sense, nothing changes.
n What the Accord says It acknowledges that greater than 2 degrees Celsius increase in global warming would be catastrophic, and to avoid that, countries shall by 31 January 2010 submit to the UN FCCC(3) their individually or jointly quantified economy wide emissions targets for 2020. The target levels are, it follows, a matter of decision by each country and no overall worldwide or regional emissions targets are defined. This would appear to allow a weakening of the common commitments established under Kyoto for developed countries (Annex I countries(4)) or altogether abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, and it opens the likelihood of bilateral or multilateral deals between the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU without consultation or real voice or vote by all other countries. In this sense, everything changes. (1) Carlos Joly, Chairman of the Scientific Committee Climate Change, is a specialist in Socially Responsible Investment. Co-founder of the UNEP-FI, he co-chaired the working group that wrote the United Nations' Principles for Responsible Investment. (2) US per capita emissions are 10 times India´s and 5 times China´s. (3) UN FCCC : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (further information on http://unfccc.int/). (4) Further information about the Kyoto Protocol on http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf
www.am.natixis.com/climatechange/eng
The Copenhagen Accord: nothing changes, everything changes
n Behind the numbers… “Actions speak louder than words: the reality behind the numbers…” The US offer to reduce emissions 17% relative to 2005 means 4% reduction relative to 1990 levels. The inadequacy of this indication is revealed in the fact the US has increased emissions 16% since 1990. The US offers $3.6 billion for adaptation for the most vulnerable countries through 2012. The EU has offered $10.6 billion and Japan $11 billion the same three years period. China has announced it will increase energy efficiency such that its carbon emissions per unit of production (known as “carbon intensity”) will decline by 40 to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. This is following an improvement by a factor of 4 in the past 20 years. This dramatic efficiency improvement, important as it is, glosses over the fact that its emissions total will double by 2030 assuming it keeps up 7 to 8% annual GNP growth. In short, the US proposition is far from fair or adequate given its emissions history and actuality (20 tons carbon per person per year); and the Chinese goal is far from adequate albeit arguably fair (it emits now 5 tons carbon per person per year) given the need to achieve a worldwide average of 2 tons carbon emissions per person per year by 2050 in order to maintain global warming at an increase that does not exceed +2°C.
n The spectrum of interpretations “Most rich and rapidly developing states have sought through these talks to seize as great a chunk of the atmosphere for themselves as they can, to grab bigger rights to pollute than their competitors”, G. Monbiott, The Guardian. “The conference upheld the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities’ recognized by the Kyoto Protocol, and made a step forward in promoting binding emissions cuts for developed countries and voluntary mitigating actions by developing countries”, China´s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts the stakes like this: "We are facing impending disaster on a monstrous scale... A global goal of about 2°C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development" [because +2°C worldwide average increase means +3.5°C for Africa]. Matthew Stilwell of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development says the negotiations are not really about averting climate change but are a pitched battle over a profoundly valuable resource: the “right to the sky”. “There is a limited amount of carbon that can be emitted into the atmosphere. If the rich countries fail to radically cut their emissions, then they are actively gobbling up the already insufficient share available to the South”. What is at stake, Stilwell argues, “is nothing less than the importance of sharing the sky". Venezuela described the accord as a “coup d’Etat” by wealthy countries. Sergio Serra, Brazil’s ambassador for climate change issues, described the result of the talks as “disappointing”. He added: “There is a big job ahead to avoid climate change through emissions reduction targets, and that was not done here.” Every day, solutions that would cut our emissions of warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and protesters – and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of North America and Europe. Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen. The Bolivian delegates – who have seen their glaciers melt at a terrifying pace – objected. They said “if countries are serious about reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International Environmental Court that has the power to punish people”, J. Hari, The Independent, UK. French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a news conference that the agreement reached was “not perfect”, but that it was “the best one possible.” Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency until December 31, declared more explicitly that “this is not a perfect agreement, (and it) will not solve the threat of climate change.”
www.am.natixis.com/climatechange/eng
The Copenhagen Accord: nothing changes, everything changes
For Djamila Sonzogni, spokesperson for the French Green Party (les Verts): “the result is as disheartening as the issues are important. China and Obama are the main culprits, but Europe is also to be blamed for its disunity and lack of leadership.” “Developed countries again showed their unwillingness to deliver on previous commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, even though historically they have been responsible for 75% of greenhouse gas emissions”. According to Argentinean foreign minister Taiana, it is the industrialised countries that “must make the greatest effort and provide the funding to mitigate the impact of global warming and move to clean technologies. Instead, though, they strove to water down commitments and betrayed the hopes of countries taking part in the Conference and world public opinion”, he charged.
n Does Copenhagen mean the UN COP process is defunct? Yes, inasmuch as a small group of nations has negotiated the Accord behind closed doors, constituting a de facto acknowledgement either that leading nations are unwilling to undertake consensual decisions in plenary or that consensual decision is impossible given the diversity of positions and the uncompromising stance of different countries.
n What now? The reality of increasing frequency and severity of climate events, and their economic and social consequences, will continue to keep climate change in the media and visible and real in everyday life. Politicians and governments will have to demonstrate progress in measures to fight climate change locally as a result of public awareness. Greening the economy is one of the few stimulus roads to growth. Between now and 31st January 2010, when Annex I and Annex II countries are expected to report their targets to the UN FCCC, much behind the scenes negotiation will take place. The next tangible, material indication of what people the world over can realistically expect from their governments will be read off of the two pages left blank in the Copenhagen Accord (Appendix I for developed countries, Appendix II for developing countries), pages that by their silence speak louder than the Copenhagen Accord itself (5).
Written by Carlos Joly, President of the Scientific Committee Climate Change of Natixis Asset Management 19 December 2009
(5) Further information on the Copenhagen Accord: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf
Disclaimer This document is destined for professional clients. None of the information contained in this document should be interpreted as having any contractual value. Natixis Asset Management will not be held responsible for any decision taken or not taken on the basis of information contained in this document, nor in the use that a third-party may make of it. The opinions expressed in the research and analyses are the sole responsibility of their authors and are not necessarily shared by Natixis Asset Management. Natixis Asset Management shall not be held liable for the accuracy and exclusivity of the information provided.
www.am.natixis.com/climatechange/eng