Watching Sunday’s announcement of the carbon price legislation, I felt relieved that Australia is finally taking action on climate change.

After backing down from Rudd’s CPRS, blowing vast amounts of hot air throughout the 2010 election campaign and battling the current scare campaign by the opposition, the Gillard minority government looks set to pass legislation for a price on carbon in late November.

Whilst there is much debate about the benefits of the proposed legislation – the move to a clean energy future, the new Climate Change Authority and the commitment to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by 80% by 2050 – there is little discussion of the global ramifications of Australia putting a price on pollution.

 Firstly, as the world’s biggest per-person polluter, Australia is taking an important first step in reducing its carbon pollution. However, Oxfam research released last month revealed that developing countries are making more of an effort to cut their greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries. So Australia still has responsibility to do more. In particular Australia needs to provide more support for poorer countries that have done the least to cause climate change and are already feeling the impacts through increases in droughts, floods, hunger and disease.

 Secondly, in the lead-up to the UN Climate Summit in Durban later this year, the world is watching to see what Australia will do. If the parliament passes legislation in November, Australia will go to Durban and be able to pressure other big-polluters like Canada, US and China to take further action.

 Thirdly, with the $10 billion investment in renewable energy, Australia is beginning to catch-up with the European Union, China and UK in the race to embrace a clean energy future.

 Later this week, I’m meeting with Australia’s Ambassador for Climate Change, Louise Hand in Canberra and will be compiling a list of comments and questions from you and other climate trackers. So please add your comments to this post and send a message to Australia’s lead negotiator, Louise Hand.

 You can become a fellow climate tracker and ensure the Australian Government works towards a global deal on climate change at the negotiations in 2011.

I am also blogging on our sister site, A Climate for Change. Check out my blogs and join the community (link: www.aclimateforchange.org)

Konstelasi Perundingan Perubahan Iklim

Konferensi Perubahan Iklim memasuki babak baru setelah pertemuan COP 16 di Cancun Mexico, Desember 2010 kemarin. Kekecewaan terhadap negosiasi di COP 15 di Kopenhagen, sedikit terobati dengan adanya itikad baik yang muncul di Cancun, dengan ratifikasi di salah satu artikel, serta keinginan duduk kembali dalam meja perundingan dari para delegasi negara berpengaruh. Harus diakui perundingan berjalan lambat, sementara dampak dari perubahan iklim sudah sangat terasa oleh semua manusia. Sejak dimulai di Rio pada 1992, kemudian menghasilkan Protokol Kyoto (PK) yang merupakan satu-satunya kesepakatan ‘mengikat’, banyak pihak gusar dengan belum adanya kesepakatan mengikat yang akan menggantikan PK yang akan berakhir pada 2012.

Pertemuan sela (Intersessional) digelar di Bangkok secara rutin setiap bulan April sedikit banyak memperlihatkan bagaimana prospek perundingan serta apa potensi hasil yang keluar dari perundingan, -minimal tahun ini-, di Durban, Afrika Selatan akhir 2011. Banjir yang melanda beberapa provinsi di Thailand di tengah Bangkok Climate Talks tersebut seakan menjadi pertanda, alam tidak akan menunggu lebih lama menuju kehancuran. Pertanyaan klise selalu muncul apakah akan ada hasil dari setiap pertemuan sementara bencana perubahan iklim terus mengintai? Tentunya tidak ada satupun pihak yang tidak sepakat bahwa upaya penyelamatan perlu segera dilakukan. Masing-masing negara pun telah memiliki target serta roadmap untuk menurunkan emisi karbon masing-masing, tapi apakah itu cukup? Kita terus berburu dengan waktu.

Perubahan iklim merupakan gejala global, bukan lokal, oleh karena itu memerlukan tindakan global (Global Action) pula. Yang kita butuhkan adalah kebijakan bersama yang mampu mengontrol kenaikan temperatur bumi di bawah 2 derajat celcius, karena jika itu terjadi akan menyebabkan kenaikan permukaan air laut yang membahayakan kehidupan manusia. Bahaya ini akan lebih terasa bagi kita di Indonesia, -dan negara kepulauan lainnya-, sebagaimana laporan yang dirilis oleh Badan PBB untuk perumahan (UN-HABITAT) beberapa waktu lalu. Berdasar laporan Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), telah terjadi peningkatan temperatur rata-rata sebesar 0.1-0.3 derajat C setiap dekade yang diukur dari 1950-2000, begitu pula permukaan air laut yang terekam sebesar 1-3 mm setiap tahun.

Isu perubahan iklim ini bukanlah isu elit, karena masyarakat langsung mengalami dampaknya. Seperti kita ketahui sebagian penduduk Indonesia terkonsentrasi di kawasan pantai, yang akan berhadapan langsung dengan naiknya permukaan laut, -diprediksi sekitar 70 cm sampai tahun 2100 berdasar laporan IPCC-. Mata pencaharian sebagian besar populasi yang bergantung terhadap pertanian akan sangat terpengaruh dengan kenaikan temperatur sekitar 4-8 derajat celsius pada periode sama. Produksi beras pun akan menurun hingga 50% sampai tahun 2100. Sungguh mengerikan, krisis iklim akan menular ke krisis pangan, juga krisis kesehatan. Bukankah ini bencana yang dapat menyebabkan kemusnahan.

Tidak banyak yang dihasilkan dari pertemuan Bangkok kemarin. Ad Hoc Working Group for Long Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) menyepakati roadmap yang akan ditempuh untuk membahas berbagai isu seperti Adaptasi, Mitigasi, Teknologi sampai Durban 2011. Yang alot adalah pembahasan di AWG untuk Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), di mana masih terjadi perbedaan tajam antara dua blok parties. Negara-negara maju menolak menandatangani periode 2 KP, sementara G77&Cina mendesak adanya komitmen untuk memperpanjang satu-satunya kesepakatan mengikat ini (legally binding). Dua AWG ini merupakan mandat dari Bali Roadmap tahun 2007 lalu.

Selain itu beberapa hal yang patut kita cermati dalam konstelasi negosiasi perubahan iklim tahun ini di antaranya adalah pembentukan Transitional Committee (TC) yang akan merumuskan konsep pendanaan untuk upaya mengatasi dampak perubahan iklim (Green Climate Fund). Dalam pembicaraan seputar delegasi RI di Bangkok, Indonesia akan mengusulkan wakilnya di salah satu dari 7 board director TC. Seperti disepakati di Copenhagen pada 2009, negara-negara maju akan mengalokasikan pendanaan mencapai US$100 billion sampai tahun 2020. Dana ini akan dipakai untuk upaya-upaya mitigasi, adaptasi, teknologi hijau, termasuk yang sangat spesifik untuk negara kehutanan seperti Indonesia, yaitu Reduction Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Pada poin ini Delegasi RI sepakat dengan suara masyarakat sipil Indonesia bahwa Indonesia tidak menginginkan pola-pola climate finance ini dalam bentuk hutang, tetapi lebih menawarkan pola Investasi. Yang perlu digarisbawahi dari sistem ini dan kita awasi bersama adalah bagaimana supaya semua program pendanaan ini harus sampai pada masyarakat yang paling rentan terhadap akibat perubahan iklim, tidak dibelokkan oleh kepentingan pemodal besar. Transparency International (TI) telah mengingatkan dalam laporannya kemungkinan dana masif tersebut menjadi sumber korupsi baru.

Hal lain adalah peluang yang besar bagi stakeholder energi dunia dari laporan yang dirilis IPCC baru-baru ini, bahwa 80% kebutuhan energi dunia pada 2050 dapat dihasilkan dari renewable energy (RE), jika didukung oleh kebijakan pemerintah yang tepat serta kerjasama dunia. Sekitar 120 peneliti memaparkan statistik, trend, serta peta jalan bagaimana kontribusi masing-masing sektor RE seperti energi matahari (solar), angin, air, geotermal, serta biomassa. Tak ada salahnya bagi kita untuk menjadikan roadmap ini sebagai benchmarking dari Kebijakan Energi Nasional (KEN). Lebih penting lagi dari sekedar roadmap adalah bagaimana upaya untuk meningkatkan implementasi dari berbagai sumber energi terbarukan tadi di Indonesia dan memangkas berbagai hambatan klasik. Kita telah melihat ternyata sangat sulit mengimplementasikan hasil-hasil dari perundingan tersebut ke upaya nyata di lapangan. Dalam kasus REDD, walau sudah ditandatangani kerjasama antara Pemerintah Norwegia dan Indonesia tapi tidak mudah untuk menjalankannya, yang berpangkal pada perbedaan kebijakan antara Pemerintah pusat dengan Pemerintah Daerah.

Lalu kembali ke pertanyaan awal, apakah itu semua cukup untuk mengatasi perubahan iklim? Saya meyakini itu semua tidak akan pernah cukup. Tidak akan pernah cukup kalau perundingan hanya sebatas di atas kertas, tidak akan cukup pula apabila isu perubahan iklim hanya menjadi konsumsi elite. Hal yang sangat harus segera dilakukan adalah merubah pola hidup menjadi pola yang ramah lingkungan. Pada pendidikan dan teladanlah kita berharap generasi baru yang menganut prinsip sustainable development. Tindakan-tindakan kecil yang dijalankan secara berkelanjutan oleh jutaan atau milyaran orang akan lebih berarti. Begitu pula peran sektor swasta yang sangat vital. Tak ada gunanya skeptis berpikir bahwa apapun yang dilakukan, hal itu sudah terlambat. Lebih baik tetap berharap dengan melakukan tindakan nyata. Karena tanpa harapan tidak ada kehidupan. Karena global warming membutuhkan global action, ya tindakan anda semua, tindakan kita.

Canada’s lead negotiator, Mr. Guy Saint-Jacques, gives Adopt a Negotiator an update on negotiations and the future of Kyoto from the latest UN Climate Conference in Bonn.  I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Saint-Jacques for giving us this update.  As always, dear readers, the comment thread is yours: how do you see a strong climate future for Canada?

AAN: What is your general sense of the meeting in Bonn and how does the Canadian Delegation view the meeting process?

The negotiations in Bonn have been generally productive. We have a team of very dedicated negotiators, who have been working hard to move the Cancun Agreements forward and we have some outcomes from this session that we can take forward to Durban in South Africa later this year. However, a lot of work remains before Durban.

Our goal is still to achieve a comprehensive, legally-binding post-2012 agreement that is fair and effective and, while discussions have certainly been challenging, these negotiations have been taking us in that direction.

Little known fact: Bonn is home to the UNFCCC, UNCCD (Convention to Combat Desertification), UNEP Conventions... a whole lot of environmental bodies for a small city.

AAN: What is your anticipated outcome for COP17 in Durban, especially regarding the legal form of a second commitment period? Is Bonn generating progress towards a legally binding outcome?

Canada continues to be actively engaged in the international negotiations aimed at developing a new, fair and effective international post-2012 climate change regime.

We have joined our international partners in adopting the Cancun Agreements. These are a set of significant decisions that together represent a concrete step forward in establishing the type of global climate change regime necessary to achieve real environmental results. The Cancun Agreements acknowledge the global reality that all major emitters need to take action if we are to succeed in effectively addressing climate change.

Negotiations to advance the Cancun Agreements will continue at COP17 in Durban, South Africa this November, possibly preceded by another intersessional session in early fall. In the lead-up to this meeting, Canada will continue to participate and engage proactively in all preparatory meetings and discussions. This will certainly position us to help advance the progress that has already been made.

With respect to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol,there are some Parties that have said they are willing to consider taking targets, but only in the context of meaningful and comparable commitments by all major economies.

In Canada’s view, however, a second commitment period alone will not achieve the global goal that we have set ourselves in the Cancun Agreements and is not sufficient to truly reduce global emissions.

As we have been saying, Canada is looking for a single, new comprehensive climate regime that addresses both mitigation and adaptation and that includes commitments by all major emitters. That is why Canada is not taking a target under a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Ourpost-2012 target has been taken as part of the Cancun Agreements.

AAN: What is Canada’s stance regarding the legal nature of a second commitment period?  According to the Fossil of the Day Awards, the Delegation has indicated publicly that a legal framework is not a shared goal by the Delegation.

As we work towards the development of a new international climatechange agreement beyond 2012, we need to take advantage of the experience gained through the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to strengthen our efforts in meeting the objectives of the UNFCCC and enhance the environmental effectiveness of the existing global climate change regime.  We believe the Cancun Agreements form a solid basis for an effective, rules-based global post-2012 regime that will include all major emitters.

AAN: Can you offer clarity on why Canada excluded the tar sands from the National Inventory Report, and consequences this has on our reporting at the UNFCCC?

Our UN reporting is very detailed and in full compliance withUNFCCC requirements, and as always, it includes all emissions from oil sands.

Oil sands emissions are included in several categories of activities, including fossil fuel production and refining, mining and oil and gas extraction, and fugitive sources. Our UNFCCC report does not calculate a total for emissions from the oil sands sector. We did calculate a total an as additional information item only once on a pilot basis in 2010, but discontinued it due to issues regarding the data methodology.

Separate from the UNFCCC report, Environment Canada now has a preliminary estimate that the oil sands sector made up about 6.5 percent oftotal emissions in 2009. We will be publishing more data on the oil sands in the fall.

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) still sits in troubled waters, as three of its signatory countries
threaten to jump ship on its continuation beyond 2012.

A version of this post appeared on the Worldwatch Institute’s climate and energy blog, ReVolt.

Hooray – we’ve wrapped up another session in good ol’ Bonn under the UNFCCC. If the international climate talks are a ship, the two week voyage saw equal parts clear sailing, stormy seas, and listless drifting, as nations advanced toward agreements on addressing ocean carbon storage and clean technology transfer, fought over the future of the Kyoto Protocol, and wasted nearly three days just trying to agree on the agenda for parts of the meeting.

The Bonn negotiations, held June 6-17, began more like a dreary, repeat survey of some crumbling harbor than the next leg of a mighty quest to stop climate change. Exactly like the first few days of April’s Bangkok negotiations, delegates spent their time bickering over the list of agenda items to be discussed, down to the level of disagreeing on the very name of a negotiation on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (commonly called REDD+). Bolivia preferred to talk about “measures with regard to forests”, opposing a focus on REDD+ and developing countries. The “+”-related policies (focusing on conservation, enhancement, and sustainable management of forest carbon) were agreed to at the 2010 Cancún negotiations, where Bolivia was the sole objector.

After three days of debating (and finally agreeing on) the terms and titles of their fight on several agenda items, countries finally started lobbing legal cannonballs, and no issue saw more intense debate than that of the future of the Kyoto Protocol. As I mentioned in my summary of the Bangkok talks for Worldwatch, Kyoto’s most significant provision, legally binding greenhouse gas pollution reductions for many industrialized nations, will expire after 2012. Many nations, especially economically poorer ones, want Kyoto to continue, with a new period of commitments for developed nations, the so-called Annex I countries. Three major Annex I emitters — Japan, Canada, and Russia — have said they are jumping ship and refuse to join a second commitment period. Without a sizable crew of nations committing to further cut their climate pollution, Kyoto would essentially be dead in the water.

While hardly a new war, this round of battling over Kyoto seemed all the more intense as the hourglass drained that much further toward the start of  the uncharted territory a gutted Kyoto would bring. There were some bright sights on the horizon, though, as the European Union (EU) seemed to solidify its commitment to furthering Kyoto. Negotiation insiders whispered that Japan might stick with Kyoto, if only to save face from being labeled a mutineer on a ship christened its own city’s name, and that the EU could easily give up a little treasure (unspecified political concessions) to keep Russia on board.

No specific agreements on Kyoto emerged from Bonn, however. The urgency of resolving Kyoto’s future did at least compel countries to put up the booty (a couple million U.S. dollars) for another port of call on the voyage to December’s climate summit in Durban, South Africa. The new meeting, scheduled for late September or early October, provides wind in the sails for countries to navigate through contentious issues like Kyoto in time to potentially arrive at major decisions on them by the end of Durban. Countries also agreed that the new session would function as a continuation of Bonn, rather than a brand new negotiation, meaning that time drag normally imposed by formal speeches and opening and closing ceremonies will be trimmed.

In Bonn, governments progressed on issues related to REDD+, particularly toward agreement on verifying emissions and carbon storage from changes in forest cover, how to compare changes to historical deforestation trends so as to calculate market credits for carbon storage, and precise definitions to differentiate between natural forests and tree plantations. Countries also agreed to develop technical work plans to address the role of “Blue Carbon” (the oceans and marine ecosystems) in storing greenhouse gases and regulating the climate. Nations also made progress on the launch of a coordination center and network of experts to facilitate the transfer of clean energy production and other climate-fighting technologies across countries, especially to economically poorer countries. This Climate Technology Centre and Network, seen as an important outcome of the Cancún meeting, had yet to be realized.

The international climate negotiations sail onward, buoyed by these modest gains. But, battered by major disagreements like Kyoto, international verification of pollution reductions, and new sources of funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation, it remains unclear whether they will reach their agreed goal to limit global average warming to two degrees Celsius or less. Most countries by now have successfully mapped the space between where they are and where many aspire to go in terms of international agreement. As any good sailor knows, however, there is a big difference between a map and a chart, and governments have yet to fill in all of the policy details or plot their entire course. While not lost on climate negotiation insiders that South Africa sees many ships rounding its  Cape of Good Hope every day, it’s worth noting just how far from Durban that is.

Climate Trackers keeping a watchful eye over the talks in Bonn

Tracking the two weeks of talks at the UN Climate Change negotiations in Bonn, I have seen some positive signs emerge on the path for a global deal on climate change; however action on climate change is more urgent than ever, especially the role of Australia in putting a price on pollution and reducing emissions.

As reported in one of my previous blogs, the total emission cuts pledged by all countries are not sufficient to prevent global temperatures rising above the two degrees target agreed by governments last year at the UN Climate Change talks in Cancun, Mexico. Releasing figures at the start of the negotiations in Bonn, Oxfam estimates that 60 per cent of emissions cut by 2020 are likely to be made by developing countries.

Australia, the world’s biggest per-person polluter, has a responsibility to set the bar high internationally and commit to stronger targets to reduce emissions through a price on pollution and other measures. Action by Australia will influence how other big polluting countries such as Japan, USA, Canada and New Zealand tackle climate change.

The talks also failed to provide funds for the Climate Fund set-up in Cancun to provide life-saving support to help the world’s poorest people fight the effects of climate change. Sadly, the world’s leaders are still not sure where the money, up to US$100 billion a year by 2020, will come from. On day seven of the talks, some merry men and women arrived in Bonn reminding everyone of the Robin Hood Tax – a small levee on transactions of financial institutions – which could raise billions of dollars for the fund to tackle climate change and poverty every year. You can take action today by writing to your local MP and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, asking that Australia support a Robin Hood Tax.

Playing a mostly positive role at the negotiations, Australia managed to obtain greater access and participation for Non-Government Organisations and included agriculture and food security in discussions around how poorer countries will adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

Back in Australia, the debate on climate change continues to heat up. With Tony Abbott’s plan for a plebiscite on a price on pollution failing, coming a week after Ross Garnaut and the Productivity Commission released reports calling on Australia to do its fair share globally to reduce emissions and put a price on pollution.

You can become a Climate Tracker today and pressure the Australian Government to put a price on pollution and play an active role in getting a global agreement on climate change.

In a few weeks, I’ll be going to Canberra to meet with Australia’s lead negotiator, Louise Hand and will compile some key points from your comments. So please add comments, hopes and questions to this post…

I am also blogging on our sister site, A Climate for Change. Check out my blogs and join the community (link: www.aclimateforchange.org)