A few hours ago, early Saturday morning local time, the talks reached a consensus deal, with only Bolivia objecting. The Mexican chair of the conference ruled that “consensus” meant that the text could be approved over the objection of just one country.

I need to go through the text in detail to mark it against the criteria set out in post #6, but meanwhile here is a summary of what has been agreed. On first impressions, looks like 6 out of 10 – good to see the 2 deg goal reaffirmed; good to see the climate fund established and technology transfer provided for; weak on deforestation; weak on ongoing emissions reductions obligations for the big polluters like the US and China.

(1) Confronting Climate Change:

- The “deep cuts” in carbon emissions blamed for global warming to keep temperatures from called for in the Copenhagen accord are carried over, as is the key goal of preventing temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees C, and a study to look at how to keep them below 1.5 deg is called for;

- Requires developed countries party to the Kyoto Protocol (including NZ, but not the US) to cut emissions by 25-40% by 2020 over 1990 levels;

(2) Helping Developing Countries:

- New market mechanisms to help developing nations curb carbon emissions are to be discussed in detail at COP17;

- A Green Climate Fund is created to administer money from wealthy nations – the EU, the US and Japan have pledged $30bn now and $100bn after 2020 – to help developing nations adapt to climate change and move their economies away from reliance on polluting technology as they develop;

- The World Bank is to be interim trustee of the Fund, which is to have a 24-member board with equal representation by developed and developing nations, and include representatives from small island states;

- A new organisation is created to help distribute the technical know-how to developing nations to contain emissions and adapt to climate change;

(3) Deforestation:

- Asks developing nations to draft anti-deforestation plans;

- Urges all nations to respect the rights of indigenous people;

(4) The Future of Kyoto

- Developed nations to discuss a new round of emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol prior to its expiry at the end of next year;

- Does not require nations to record their post-2012 commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

I listened to Nick Smith present the NZ statement to COP16 at lunchtime yesterday, and I have been thinking a lot about it since. The statement was notable for two features. First, it declined to commit NZ to any greenhouse gas reduction target. The reason given – because the international rules around carbon stored in forestry don’t yet favour NZ’s position sufficiently – was a bit embarrassing. It was taken by many here as a fairly crude attempt at blackmail, by a bit player, to try to get a rule change that isn’t high on the forestry priority list. (People are a bit more concerned to make sure that there are rules and incentives in place to stop the Amazon being cleared for farming, or Indonesian forests being stripped for their hardwood).
It played well to the domestic forest lobby. And it will put the MFAT officials out of their misery. They’ve had to duck and weave at preparatory meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and elsewhere over the past year about by exactly how much NZ is willing to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution. Now Smith has confirmed what John Key intimated months ago – NZ doesn’t have any target whatsoever.
Countries with big forests, like our Umbrella Group partner Norway, have no problem naming pollution reduction targets. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change – an independent statutory body tasked with recommending emissions targets of the sort that I tried during the debate on the ETS last year to get agreement to create in NZ – has recommended a 60% cut from 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2030. The UK Government looks likely to take the recommendation – and the plan of action behind it – seriously.
The real reason we aren’t showing any ambition is twofold. First, National has watered down the ETS (and plans to do so further next year, when it takes agriculture out), and scaled back or scrapped every other policy in place – like the biofuels obligation, the Energy and Transport Strategies, the renewables preference legislation, the plan to phase out incandescent lighting, Enviroschools, etc – to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Their watered-down ETS will probably let Solid Energy and L+M mine and process South Island lignite (ours will almost certainly mean that is uneconomic). So there is actually no plan to get emissions down, meaning that it’s hard to set any reduction target. Secondly, the US’s reluctance to name any sort of ambitious or binding reduction target is increasingly giving cover to other non-EU developed nations to do so.
Smith no doubt thinks that by refusing a target this year, he may never have to name one on his watch as Environment Minister, if by the time COP17 comes around next year there’s a new government; or there isn’t, but he’s no longer Environment Minister; and the first Kyoto Commitment Period expires without a replacement being agreed in time to required developed countries to name and progress reduction targets.
The second notable feature in the speech was a reference to NZ’s call for action against nations that still subsidise the domestic consumption of fossil fuels. Our Mexican hosts haven’t been sure what to make of this. As part of the G20, they are committed to phasing out their $19bn pa domestic petrol subsidy, but it will take a while. It’s right that this should happen. But why did it come up in NZ’s statement yesterday? Some here are wondering if NZ was saying: “We know that we’re naughty to avoid a pollution reduction target, but in this game, everybody is naughty somehow. Instead of addressing our naughtiness, we’re going to remind you of one of the ways that you are naughty that hasn’t much been highlighted yet. That will distract you, and others, at least for a while, from focussing too firmly on our naughtiness.”
NZ takes the high moral ground on yet another issue under National. Makes ya proud, don’t it?

No-one expects anything like enough to be achieved here at Cancun to address the real problems of climate change. We certainly won’t see the binding, ambitious, global deal that the science says is now overdue. Instead, the narrower interests of individual countries will dictate that we’ll put the problem off again till next year, when adverse effects are likely to have worsened. Let’s not be in doubt that, again, according to the science, that means loading more urgent mitigation – and, as mitigation becomes less feasible – adaptation to the new climate realities – onto the next generation.

Today, it feels that least the talks themselves might yield an outcome. True, expectations are so modest that, barring a major-player walkout, anything is likely to be branded a success. Negotiators privately admit that any deal is unlikely to be hammered out till as late as Saturday, a day after the official talks expire. Given the realities of the stances adopted by the various negotiating blocs (I hope to post more on these as we learn over the next day or two about how positions are shifting), I thought it might be useful to try to pre-empt the spin that will inevitably emerge as the week draws to a close over how great or how terrible any such deal is. In other words, what would be the hallmarks of a passable Cancun deal, applying the ‘art of the possible” test?

I’d suggest the following four minimum achievements:

1) Better transparency and accountability by nation states for the concrete actions they are taking to reduce emissions, and otherwise combat the effects of climate change.

Greater transparency around countries’ mitigation actions—and support for developing countries—would greatly strengthen confidence in the international climate regime. A satisfactory enhanced measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system would need to have at least the following three minimum aspects:

•Annual greenhouse gas inventories (phased in for developing countries); increasingly more detailed and regular national reporting on emissions reduction policy actions and outcomes, and of support provided or received; and regular reporting on implementation and support. The least developed countries, including some of the Pacific states, should have longer reporting cycles.
•Expert public review of all reporting inputs for accuracy, completeness and consistency with UNFCCC guidelines.
•A new and public system for peer review of mitigation actions, and publicly available information on non-compliance.

(more…)

The second week of the climate conference is due to get underway here. It’s the time when the political big guns arrive and we should get an idea of whether any progress can be made toward the sort of binding, ambitious global deal that I mentioned in my first post last week.

Expectations were low – no progress on binding national emissions targets, but maybe some formalisation of the status of last year’s Copenhagen Accord, the setting up of a mechanism to finance developing world technological expertise in renewables, new rules on deforestation. Not astounding breakthroughs, but these would be important achievements toward a more comprehensive deal next year at COP17 in South Africa.

There is some pessimism that even these relatively modest goals will be achieved. Much attention is focussed on what stance the US will take. It is rumoured that if it doesn’t see progress toward its desired position – all countries to adopt binding emissions reduction targets, but no extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its expiry date next year in the event that no new climate deal is reached – then its negotiatiors may walk away from the UN climate mechanism.

New Zealand is seen here as strongly sympathetic to the US position, as are the other members of the Umbrella Group – including Canada, Australia, Japan and Norway. Many commentators have drawn a link between that support, and the recalibration of many of our foreign policy positions under National, such as neutrality in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with the desire to obtain a free trade deal with the US. No coincidence, then, perhaps, as Trevor points out in one of his recent posts, that the next round of talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the framework for any US trade deal) start in Auckland today.

(more…)

I never read kiwiblog, the site where David Farrar, pollster to the National Party and certain other right-wing organisations, writes spin disguised as commentary. I get more than enough of that when I have to go down to the House and listen to Paul Quinn, Nicky Wagner or any one of about 15 other talentless National backbenchers reading out word for word what is written for them by Farrar’s fellow-travellers in the National Party Research Unit.

But I got an email today from NZ telling me that kiwiblog has criticised 3 aspects of my first post from Cancun. Apparently, Farrar:

1. expresses astonishment that I would attend the Climate Change Conference as part of a trade union delegation, and asks his readers to imagine the outcry if a National MP came to something like this as part of a delegation from big business;

2. decrees that only modest prgress will be made at this climate change conference, and wonders why I have bothered to pay for myself to attend; and

3. mocks my concerns for some of my family members whose house in Tahiti is about 6m from the high tide line on their island, saying I’m scaremongering.

In reply, briefly, because I’m going to spend the time from now on posting from here on things that actually matter:

1. I’m proud to be here with union leaders. Their members in NZ and elsewhere will be profoundly affected by the moves we all need to make to a low-pollution economy. It is essential that transition should be a just one, internationally, and in NZ. When we’re next in Government and we reconfigure National’s unaffordable and unfair ETS, making this happen will be a key design element.

As for National MPs attending COP16 as part of a delegation from big business – well, given the total surrender to big business interests by National – why would they bother? Reading the posts from Cancun from Business NZ, you’d think that they’d been written in Nick Smith’s office. But then, if you knew that Smith’s climate change advisor went straight into that role from Business NZ, you’d hardly be surprised by the commonality in thinking and language.

2. That thinking is this – that NZ in and of itself can do little to affect global temperature changes, so we should try to hide behind the inaction of others, like the US, and take as few steps as possible to deal with climate change. Never mind the damage we do to our international reputation, or to strategic and trade relations with the Pacific, the EU, China, India and others. It’s the thinking that will lead the Nats next year to exempt farmers from the ETS. It’s the thinking that may lead to these talks collapsing completely because the US – the biggest industrial emitter, backed by NZ – says that it won’t accept an obligation to reduce pollution unless even the poorest and least developed country on the planet does so as well. And when the least developed object to that logic, Tim Groser labels them “extremists” and suggests that if the talks collapse or fail to make any decent progress, it will be their fault.

There’s nothing inevitable about making progress here, and only by keeping the pressure on, and exposing this thinking for what it is, can we hope to keep prospects for any international agreement at all on climate change alive. I paid for myself to get here, with thousands of other NGO representatives and private citizens, to help keep that pressure on, and to expose that thinking for the nonsense it is. That’s the only way forward to one day get the ambitious, binding, global agreement which we need, and to which I refer in my initial post.

3. I don’t usually refer in public to my family, out of respect for their right to privacy. But being an NZ MP of Pasifika ancestry, I can’t help but feel a highly personal connection with the climate change problem, which is one of the reasons I took on the spokespersonship. As I said in my first post, my aunts in Tahiti live 6m from the high tide line on their island. But that 6m is a sloping line over a gradient of no more half a metre (it’s only in Niue where you can safely measure distances from the sea vertically). In other words, they’re 500cm above above sea level. Like hundreds of thousands of other dwellings in the Pacific, it will be catastrophically affected by the sort of sea level changes predicted in the latest IPCC research (which the scientists now say is excessively conservative). It’s of frankly little comfort to anyone that those changes might occur over a timeframe that leaves the current occupants ok, but the next generation, or the one after that, homeless.

Still, why would I expect anyone from the National Party, with a misunderstanding of our Pacific neighbourhood so complete that it is switching our foreign aid policy away from poverty reduction, to grasp a point like this? I guess it needs more experience of the Pacific than you’d get by spending your summer holidays in a condo n Hawaii.

It’s day 2 at the Climate Conference in Cancun. Groser is due to show up tomorrow on day 3, in the wake of a blaze of triumphal press releases issued by him in NZ about the ‘key role’ he is due to play here. That has been parrotted in much of the domestic media so far, but is a bit of a joke here given the way things could well turn out.

Groser, when he gets here, will assume the chair of the working group on mitigation, monitoring, reporting and verfication. Adrian Macey, NZ’s former climate change ambassador, is co-chair of the working group on land use change, forestry rules and emissions markets, an appointment approved last year only after a bit of a stoush with developing countries who have come to see NZ under National (with some justification, sadly – see below) as overly committed to the US position at these talks.

If more progress had been made at Copenhagen last year, these would be important roles. As it is, pessimism is the dominant mood, as rumours circulate that the US may abandon the talks if developing countries are not “more reasonable” in their “attitude and demands”. This is code for the US and its “umbrella group” partners (the non-EU developed nations Canada, Japan, Norway, Australia and – yes – NZ) resisting demands that the US join up to an extended Kyoto Protocol process in the event that there isn’t time to agree a Kyoto replacement before its expiry next year, and characterising as “extremism” demands that the US should do so.

A US walk out would set things back horribly, and lead to the formation of climate ‘blocs’ of nations, as has happened in the trade area. Apart from the umbrella group, most nations or groups of nations here have increasingly lost patience with the US – the largest historical emitter on the planet by a wide margin – because it is seen as having consistently dragged the chain on meaningful climate action. Last year, the US delegation came to COP15 and said that it wished it could present more ambitious pollution reduction targets, but because it hadn’t been able to pass domestic cap and trade legislation, it needed more time. Now, there is no prospect of such legislation passing, it seems that the negotiating tactic is to leak the suggestion that its delegation could simply walk away if things don’t go according to its liking. Wow. Anyone would still think they ran the world.

(more…)

I’m in Cancun, Mexico, at the 16th UN Climate Change Conference. Like last year at the 15th Conference in Copenhagen, I am representing Labour as its climate spokesperson; I paid my own way to get here; I am part of the delegation from the International Trade Union Confederation (thanks to Helen Kelly and Sharan Burrow). I’ve done it this way so as to retain an independent voice from the NZ Government delegation to the Conference. I’m here to support efforts to get an ambitious, binding, global deal to limit the problems that we are all likely to face as a result of human-induced climate change, and to support a just transition to the different world we are all to shortly going to find ourselves living in.

Unlike last year, climate change isn’t the big topic on everyone’s mind. John Key hasn’t had to bow to public pressure and agree to come to the conference. Expectations are low for progress to be made this year, especially given Democrat losses at the mid-term elections, and the developing world’s (understandable) reluctance to move to reduce carbon emissions while the US looks unlikely to do so.

So why am I here? Well, just because the media isn’t talking about it so much doesn’t mean that the issue isn’t just as serious as it was last year. My aunts’ home in Tahiti, 6m from the high tide line, is no less likely to be washed away by rising sea levels than it was last year. Millions of people in their position in developing countries are no more able to afford to mitigate or adapt to the effects of human-induced climate change than they were in December last year. The figleaf of a much watered-down ETS aside, National is still failing to put in place any meaningful policies at home to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and also still failing to provide any moral leadership internationally on the climate issue.

In fact, if anything, the situation has worsened since Copenhagen. According to Oxfam, twice the number of people died from extreme climate events in the first 9 months of 2010 as died from them in the whole of 2009. Global GHG emissions continue to rise. Temperature increases over the medium term seem likely to be in the 4 degree range, rather than the 2 degrees that was regarded only last year at Copenhagen as the minimum acceptable level. Don’t even get me started on how much more is now understood about the the likely disastrous effects of increased ocean acidification.

We can all do so much better. We need to get human-induced climate change back on the media’s agenda and back on the minds of the public. And we need to promote and be part of ambitious, binding, and just global solutions to the problem.

I’ll be posting from Cancun every couple of days on progress (positive and negative) made here.