Pasar Karbon, Investor dan Perubahan Iklim
Oleh: Mohamad Rayan M.Ec
Beberapa artikel sebelumnya telah menjelaskan secara komprehensif hubungan antara lingkungan, perubahan iklim, gaya hidup dan usaha penurunan emisi melalui konservasi hutan dan hutan rawa gambut yang masih tersisa di Sumsel. Kita juga telah membicarakan bagaimana proses usaha pemitigasian emisi karbon melalui Manajemen Hutan Berkesinambungan dimana isu perlindungan seperti bagaimana memitigasi pembalakan liar, meningkatkan governance atau sistem pemerintahan berarti mengurangi korupsi di industri kehutanan dan penegakan hukum, kegiatan pengembangan masyarakat untuk memutus mata rantai pembalakan liar, restorasi areal yang terdegradasi dan pengukuran karbon untuk kegitaan proyek persiapan REDD. Terakhir kita telah menyentuh bagaimana memperdagangkan stok karbon dan mendapatkan dana dari kegiatan proyek memitigasi perubahan iklim.
Perjalanan dunia untuk mencegah pemanasan global telah berlangsung beberapa tahun dimulai dengan COP 1 sampai COP 16. COP 1 Konfrensi para pihak (COP) untuk pertama kalinya di selenggarakan di Berlin yang berlangsung sejak tanggal 28 maret – 7 April 1995. Cop 2-Geneva. COP-3, konferensi para pihak ke-tiga (COP-3) diselenggarakan di Kyoto pada tanggal 1 – 11 Desember 1997. Hasil dari COP-3 ini selanjutnya diadopsi menjadi kesepakatan yang di sebut Kyoto Protocol. Protokol ini menciptakan target individual (dan terikat secara hukum) bagi negara-negara industri untuk mempersiapkan langkah-langkah positif dalam menurunkan emisi CO2 dan GHG lainnya.Setelah COP 3, baru di COP 13 di Bali ada signifikan kesepakatan yang mempengaruhi usaha global memitigasi perubahan iklim.
COP-13, di Bali menghasilkan Bali Road Map yang menyiapkan REDD untuk menggantikan atau suplemen Kyoto Protokol, COP-14 di Polandia dan COP -15 di Copenhagen Denmark menghasilkan deklarasi Copenhagen yang menyebutkan REDD sebagai salah satu mekanisme yang bisa diaplikasikan tapi tidak mengikat secara hukum. Dan COP-16 Cancun, Mexico diharapkan menelurkan prsetujuan mengikat dimana REDD + diimplementasikan, namun hanya menghasilkan kesepakatan yang tidak mengikat. Kalau mengambil sisi positifnya, maka REDD+ lebih berpotensi menjadi isi dari kesepakatan yang dapat mengganti Protokol Kyoto di tahun 2013.
Jika kita simak, sudah enam belas tahun konferensi dilakukan, namun dunia belum bisa bermusyawarah dan mufakat untuk bersama-sama menyelamatkan bumi. Kenyataan ini merupakan refleksi kenyataan politik dan politik ekonomi dunia. Negara-negara maju seperti Amerika, Jepang, Kanada selalu mengambil posisi mereka akan tanda tangan kesepakatan penurunan emisi seperti 40 % dari emisi level 1990 atau protokol yang baru apabila negara sedang berkembang seperti China dan India juga punya target pengurangan emisi seperti 40% dari tahun emisi level 1990. Memang pada kesepakatan mengikat Protokol Kyoto hanya negara maju atau annex 1 yang harus mengurangi emisi 20 % dari emisi level 1990.
Sedangkan dari sudut politik ekonomi, keengganan negara sedang berkembang untuk menandatangani penurunan emisi bisa berarti membatasi ruang gerak negara berkembang untuk tumbuh dengan cepat terutama untuk Cina dan India. Kalau kesepakatan mengikat negara berkembang maka negara maju bisa saja memberi kondisi semua produk ekspor dari negara berkembang harus memiliki label Carbon Neutral (Karbon Netral). Dan hal ini bisa menjadi alat politik dagang negara maju untuk memasang barriers of entries atau restriksi bagi barang impor dari negara sedang berkembang seperti dari Cina, India atau Indonesia.
Disinilah posisi Indonesia menjadi unik sejak COP 13 di Bali. Indonesia telah dianggap negara terdepan dalam memitigasi perubahan iklim dan dilihat sebagai pemain strategik dari usaha mencapai kesepakatan global menangani pemanansan global dan perubahan iklim. Konferensi PBB Perubahan Iklim 13 atau COP 13 tahun 2007 dianggap COP yang paling berhasil setelah COP 3 tahun 1997 di Kyoto Jepang. Kepiawaian dalam melobi Indonesia diakui dunia karena pada COP 13 Bali tersebut telah disetujui Bali Road Map atau peta perjalanan untuk menyepakati protokol pengganti Protokol Kyoto.
Sayang sampai COP 16 tahun ini di Cancun Mexico, negara-negara yang berpartisipasi di dalam PBB Perubahan Iklim belum bisa mencapai kesepakatan yang mengikat. Di Cancun disepakati kesepakatan tidak mengikat yang merinci secara detail mengenai skema REDD + yang berpotensi menggantikan atau memperkuat Protokol Kyoto.Yang jelas hasil COP 16 merupakan kabar baik bagi negara-negara yang masih memilki hutan yang luas seperti Brazil, Congo, Indonesia dan Guyana. Negara-negara maju juga berkomitmen untuk menambah bantuan untuk kegiatan adaptasi, mitigasi dan teknologi sebanyak $ 100 miliar dolar diatas komitmen $30 miliar dolar dijanjikan di COP 15 di Copenhagen, Denmark tahun lalu.
Dalam kesepakatan COP 16 di Cancun telah disepakati aksi untuk adaptasi, mitigasi dan transfer teknologi dalam menangani perubahan iklim. Pada Bagian III, disepakati usaha memitigasi perubahan iklim melalui pencegahan deforestasi dan degredasi hutan. Dalam poin C dari bagian III di jelaskan yang termasuk skema Reduction Emission From Deforestation and Degredation + atau REDD + adalah sbb: Sebelumnya hanya dua definisi saja untuk REDD. Sekarang REDD + definisinya menjadi lima yaitu: penurunan emisi dari deforestasi ;Penurunan emisi dari degradasi hutan; Konservasi stok karbon di hutan (Conservation of forest carbon stocks); Penurunan emisi dari pengelolaan hutan lestari (Sustainable management of forest) dan Penambahan stok karbon di hutan (Enhancement of forest carbon stocks).
Dari 30 proyek REDD+ yang ada di Indonesia, hampir semua mengacu dan mengharapkan mendapatkan penjualan karbon pada pasar mengikat. Hanya ada tiga proyek yang fokus pada potensi penjualan karbon di VCM, Pasar Karbon Sukarela yaitu proyek di Restorasi Ekosistem di Jambi dan Sumsel, Proyek Rimba Raya di kalteng yang telah mendapatkan stadar VCS dan Proyek Katingan di Kalteng. Ketiga proyek ini mengajak investor untuk menanamkan modal untuk mengelola hutan demi menjual jasa lingkungan karbon.
Dengan adanya kenyataan belum adanya pasar karbon mengikat maka bagi proyek REDD yang dirancang dan didanai oleh swasta ingin menjual sertifikat karbon mereka ke Pasar Karbon Sukarela atau Voluntary Carbon Market. Standar yang dipakai oleh VCM adalah VCS yaitu Voluntary Carbon Standard yang sangat fokus pada isu additionality (penambahan), permanance (permanensi) dan leakage (kebocoran).
Beradasarkan metode standar Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), terdapat 5 kategori program Penegelolaan Hutan Berkesinambungan (SFM), yaitu: (1) Perubahan dari sistem penebangan konvensional menjadi pembalakan berdampak rendah (Reduced Impact Logging-RIL), (2) RIL + penurunan jatah tebang tahunan > 25%, (3) Perubahan dari hutan produksi menjadi hutan konservasi (Restorasi), (4) Perpanjangan daur tebang, dan (5) Peningkatan produktifitas.
Standard VCS seperti standard ISO tetapi untuk standar perdagangan karbon merupakan salah satu standar yang harus diikuti kalau sebuah proyek karbon dan REDD ingin setelah melalui verifikasi memperdagangkan karbon yang dikonservasi di areal proyek. VCS adalah standar yang dipakai oleh Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM). VCM adalah pasar karbon sukarela dimana sertifikat dari jumlah karbon yang dihitung di satu proyek diperdagangkan. Jadi yang diperdagangkan hanyalah sertifikat menyatakan jumlah karbon yang dikonservasi setiap tahun kalau ada kegiatan atau intervensi di areal proyek dibanding business as usual, bisnis seperti biasa.
Untuk mendapatkan sertifikat ini, maka penghitungan karbon yang dikonservasi di areal proyek harus dilakukan. Dan pengukuran harus mengikuti standar VCS. Setelah terukur, maka perlu disertifikasi oleh badan standar VCS tadi. Baru Sertifikat bisa diperdagangkan di pasar karbon sukarela yang sudah ada di Chicago, Selandia Baru, London dan mulai tahun depan di California.
PT. Rimba Raya Conservation bekerja dengan investor termasuk Infinite Earth dari Amerika dan Gazprom dari Russia. Pihak swasta inilah yang menjadi proyek proponent ke Kemenhut. Secara simultan mereka mengajukan permohonan izin restorasi ekosistem untuk mengelola hutan di Kabupaten Seruyan kalteng seluas 91,215 ha hutan rawa gambut dan mempersiapkan Project Development Description (PDD) untuk diajukan pada Voluntary Carbon Standard. Adapun metoda yang dipakai adalah avoidance from planned deforestation from government policy and palm oil company yang bermakna menghitung karbon yang dikonservasi dengan menghindari penebangan berencana oleh kebijakan pemerintah yaitu izin yang dikeluarkan dan rencana pembuatan kebun kelapa sawit di areal tersebut.
Jadi karbon yang dilindungi dengan adanya proyek konservasi karbon apabila rencana proyek pemerintah dan perkebunan kelapa sawit yang telah diberikan pada areal tersebut dibatalkan dan diganti dengan proyek REDD + PT. Rimba Raya Conservation. Nah proyek ini telah mendapatkan stempel VCS Standard namun masih menunggu izin Restorasi Ekosistem dari Kemenhut. Kita berharap Kemenhut cepat-cepatlah memberikan izin pada proyek ini sebab mereka telah mempunyai pembeli sertifikat karbon yaitu perusaan gas Rusia Gazprom.
Kabar baik juga kami dapatkan dari Sekretariat Jendral Kemenhut Bapak Hadi Daryanto pada tanggal 21 Desember 2010 lalu di acara workshop kemenhut mereview semua proyek REDD di Indonesia, investor besar George Soros bekerjasama dengan Wetlands Indonesia telah mengajukan permohonan proyek REDD seluas 450.000 ha di Kalteng untuk dikelola dan mengkonservasi karbon untuk mendapatkan Certified Emission Reductions (CER) atau sertifikat karbon yang akan dijual di Pasar Karbon Sukarela.
Pada acara tahunan itu, GTZ MRPP mendapat kesempatan memaparkan kegiatan proyek yang telah diimplementasikan bersama 18 proyek lainnya yang hadir pada rapat tersebut. Dan dapat dilaporkan proyek GTZ MRPP secara totalitas merupakan proyek yang paling depan dari 30 proyek yang ada.
Ini merupakan berita baik bagi Muba dan Sumsel dari acara presentasi semua proyek baik yang mengacu pada Pasar Karbon Mengikat ataupun mengacu pada Pasar Karbon Sukarela, proyek GTZ MRPP merupakan proyek terdepan. Salah satu capaian yang luar biasa adalah diadopsinya metoda pengukuran karbon atau akutansi karbon oleh Indonesia sebagai metode rujukan untuk mengukur karbon di setiap proyek REDD+. Capaian yang kedua adalah proyek MRPP telah bergerak pada tahap implementasi serta berbagi mengenai pengalaman dan telah membentuk Kelompok Masyarakat Peduli Hutan yang beranggotakan 200 penduduk di dalam dan sekitar hutan gambut alami Merang. Capain yang ketiga secara legalitas sejak Juli 2010 menjadi proyek Demostration Activities (DA) REDD + yang telah memenuhi semua persyaratan proyek REDD+ dan siap menerima dana kucuran dari Letter Of Intent Norwegia dan Indonesia. Semoga. (GTZ MRPP)
Penulis adalah ICVKM Specialist di Proyek GTZ MRPP.
Selasa, 15 Februari 2011
Senin, 22 Februari 2010
latest clipping
Garuda, IATA sign MoU on carbon emission cuts
Novan Iman Santosa , The Jakarta Post , Singapore | Wed, 02/03/2010 11:00 AM | Business
Indonesian flag carrier Garuda Indonesia signed Tuesday an MoU on reducing carbon emissions in the aviation sector with the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
The MoU on carbon offset was signed by Garuda president director Emirsyah Satar and IATA director general and CEO Giovanni Bisignani at IATA’s Green Pavilion on the first day of the 2010 Singapore Airshow at the Changi Convention Center.
Emirsyah said the MoU would enable passengers to decide whether or not to pay to cover their own the carbon footprint for their flight when booking online on the Garuda website. Once fully implemented, the program would allow passengers to calculate the compensation required, the volume of reduced CO2 emissions needed and available emission reduction activities.
Emirsyah said the airline and IATA had been talking on the carbon offset program since mid-2009. “Garuda is the 15th airlines to participate in the initiative,” he said.
IATA’s carbon offset program is a ready-to-use software which airlines can offer to their passengers to compensate for carbon emissions by contributing to carbon reduction projects in developing countries.
Bisignani said aviation contributes about 2 percent of total carbon emissions but IATA and the aviation sector in general were taking the issue seriously.
“It is not only IATA and airlines but also aircraft producers and engine makers who are working together to reduce emissions,” he told reporters after signing the MoU. He said there was a reduction of 7 percent of carbon emission in the aviation sector through various efforts in 2009.
Meanwhile, Garuda vice president for safety, security, and environment Capt. Novianto Heru Pratomo said the airline would work with IATA to find appropriate projects for the carbon offset initiative. He said Garuda previously had reforested some 250 hectares of forest in the Sebangau National Park in Central Kalimantan and another 250 hectares along the Arakundo River water basin in Aceh.
When asked whether Garuda would soon use biodiesel for its aircraft, Novianto said the use of biodiesel for commercial airlines was still at a trial stage.
Novianto explained that Garuda is modernizing aircraft cabins in its new Boeing 737-800 aircraft. All seats in both Executive and Economy Classes are being equipped with individual in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems.
Boeing senior vice president East and Southeast Asia sales, commercial airplanes, Robert K. Laird, claimed to reporters that Garuda is the only airline to equip all its Boeing 737 aircraft with IFE systems for all seats.
Laird said that was the reason why Boeing asked Garuda to display one its latest aircraft to represent Boeing’s commercial product in Singapore. Garuda officials said the new 737-800 is already operational in the Garuda fleet.
Asia’s sustainable growth
Emil Salim , Jakarta | Fri, 02/19/2010 10:38 AM | Opinion
Indonesia as part of Asia suffered economic crises in 1997-1998 and 2008-2009. The first crisis was severe and practically wiped out most of Indonesia’s major economic achievements.
Indonesia’s response to the crisis by tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates created a deep drop in Indonesia’s growth rate by 13 percent during 1998. Since then, Indonesia has slowly recovered from this deep crisis
But then a second crises, originating from the US sub-prime credit system, hit the Indonesian economy in 2008. This time the road of fiscal stimulus has been followed to prevent a serious recession. Indonesia’s robust export growth, as is the case in Europe and many other economies, has been hampered by a waning US economy.
This means that economic leadership from the US is unlikely to come for years to come.
It is hence with great anxiety to discover that Japan’s GDP of US$5.1 trillion surpassed China’s GDP of $4.9 trillion in 2009. The Japanese government’s stimulus measures apparently stimulated its exports and global trade, accompanied by rising household domestic spending.
Meanwhile China’s economy grew by 8.7 percent in 2009. On the other hand, the European economy is struggling with the financial crises in Greece and a low growth performance in Germany.
Given all these projections, it can be predicted the gravity of the global economy will move to Asia with China and Japan as the major driving forces.
ASEAN in general and Indonesia in particular, can ride the wave of Asian growth and free itself from the grip of the recent global crisis. It is hence appropriate to now explore the opportunities for Asia’s sustainable growth beyond the global crisis and to search for venues of development in infrastructure, environment and finance.
The weakened economic situation, opens up opportunities to search for better development models that will be more resilient to competition with foreign economies and better equipped to meet the developmental challenges of the 21st century.
Asia needs to conduct its development process in a difficult and different environment along the following lines.
First, China with 1.4 billion and India with 1.1 billion people are the major source of Asian growth. Both
have huge labor and consumer power.
It means that Indonesia with 250 million people will face difficulties in competing with these two giants on the basis of labor-intensive industries. Indonesia has to find a special niche in its production that is competitive against these two countries.
Indonesia’s special niche lies in its unique natural, tropical, terrestrial and marine resources that China and India, as well as Japan, don’t have.
The new mindset of development must then be to shift from resource exploitation to resource enrichment. The basic strategy must be to raise the value of our unique tropical natural resources.
The bark of our tropical trees has ingredients used in medicine for cancer. The leeches in our tropical soil release hirudin that acts as a medicine against the thickening of blood that causes heart attacks and strokes.
Indonesia has the highest diversity of butterflies in the world, which opens up the opportunity of raising cocoons with different natural colors for textile development.
Indonesia’s sea is the home of deep-sea sharks, whose liver extract is the ingredient of squalene, a medicine used to slow aging. Its fast sea currents between islands are sources of wave energy and its coral reefs are rich in diversity and fertility.
Exotic fruits are widely distributed in Indonesian forests that stretch in a distance “from London to Cairo” on islands with distinct micro-climates and ecosystems. And we can go on listing the various features of our country.
In brief, Indonesia has unique tropical, biological, natural, terrestrial and marine resources that can be utilized as competitive commodities through scientific and technological development.
Second, Indonesia has diverse ethnic groups with rich cultures, arts and customs that support unique textile materials, batik, handcrafts, exotic food, etc.
It is a fertile ground for creative industries that are emerging as a new economic activity. It also gives impetus for high-quality tourism development.
Third, Asia is confronted with the need to achieve low-carbon growth. China, India and Indonesia have massive sources of coal for hundreds more years. It is the cheapest source of energy for development.
Fourth, Indonesian infrastructure development must be geared toward the dispersion of economic activities along numerous islands. To prevent agglomeration of population into mega-cities, it is necessary to plan a dispersion of urban development supported by a viable rural sector that takes into account the natural environment.
The Kitakyushyu type of Japanese cities combined with the Sato-yama type of rural and Sato-umi type of coastal developments, already widely adopted in Japan, demonstrates that it is possible to cope with population growth within the boundaries of nature’s carrying capacities.
Emil Salim is an economist and a former Indonesian minister of state for population and the environment. This is text from a key-note address delivered in the “JBIC Forum for Asia” in Jakarta, last month.
Forest policy undercuts SBY’s emission pledge
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 01/13/2010 9:19 AM | National
The Forestry Ministry’s plan to allow more mining firms operate in forests could hinder the government’s efforts to meet emission reduction targets, as pledged by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The ministry said it planned to allocate 2.2 million hectares of forests for mining activities between 2010 to 2020.
“The plan to convert 2.2 million hectares of forests for mining could release about 550 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere,” Greenomics Indonesia executive director, Elfian Effendi, said.
“This policy runs counter to President Yudhoyono’s speech [in Copenhagen] on emission reduction targets.”
The government has pledged to cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020 using its own budget of Rp 83 trillion over five years. President Yudhoyono also said the country could reduce emissions by 41 percent if developed nations provided about Rp 168 trillion in financial aid to mitigate climate change in Indonesia.
Given current trends, Indonesia is forecasted to emit 2.95 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2020.
With a reduction of 26 percent as targeted, Indonesia could reduce this figure by 0.7 billion tons, mostly from forests and wetlands.
The country’s carbon emissions come mostly from the change in land use and forestry (accounting for 48 percent of total national emissions), energy (21 percent), peat fires (12 percent), waste (11 percent) and agriculture (5 percent).
The climate change working group chief at the Forestry Ministry, Wandojo Siswanto, said the ministry would tighten permits on the use of forests for mining activities.
“The ministry receives many proposals to convert forests into mining areas, but we need to issue permits selectively and consider the expected emissions,” he said.
He said the ministry would slash about 20 percent of hotspots to minimize forest fires and combat deforestation.
Wandojo said emissions would be cut through means such as combating illegal logging, avoiding deforestation, rehabilitating land and forest watersheds, restoring production forest ecosystems and improving fire management.
Between 2004 and 2009, the ministry allocated 1.2 million hectares of forests for mining activities.
The government has long been under pressure from environmental activists over mining activities in forests that has damaged the environment and kept surrounding villagers in poverty.
Indonesia is home to 120 million hectares of rainforest, making it the third-largest rainforest country after Brazil and the DR Congo.
Deforestation in Indonesia — claimed to be the world’s worst with an area the size of Switzerland lost every year — has already led to the damage of 59 million hectares of the country’s forests.
Stop converting peatlands, govt study recommends
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Mon, 01/18/2010 10:07 AM | National
A study by the government has recommended a moratorium on peatland conversion if the country wants to meet its pledged emission cuts to tackle climate change.
The study commissioned by the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) also proposes a land-swap scheme to relocate existing licenses in the peatlands, but not in other degraded forests.
“Land swaps coupled with a revision of spatial planning to conserve unlicensed peatlands could contribute up to 37 percent in potential emission cuts,” Basah Hernowo, the director of forestry and
water resources conservation at Bappenas, told The Jakarta Post at the weekend.
Indonesia has around 21 million hectares of peatlands, mostly in Sumatra with 7.2 million hectares, Kalimantan with 5.8 million hectare and Papua with 8 million hectares. Most of the peatland in Papua is untouched.
The study predicted that peatlands contributed about 1 billion tons of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year, or half of the country’s total emissions.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, the study predicted emissions from peatlands would contribute 1,387 million tons by 2025.
“The utilization of the peatlands probably contributes less than 1 percent of GDP, yet accounts for
almost 50 percent of emissions,” Basah said.
The second phase of the study to assess economic aspects of peatlands will be conducted this year.
A number of plantations, industrial timber concessions (HTI) and forest concession holders (HPH) run business in the peatlands.
The Agriculture Ministry issued a 2009 decree allowing plantations to convert peatlands with a thickness of less than 3 meters.
Many said the decree was contrary to the ministry’s letters to governors in 2007, asking local administrations to stop the conversion of peatlands into oil palm plantations.
“Enforcing the law on existing forest and the plantation concessions operating in the peatlands could yield about 338 million tons in CO2 reduction, or 24 percent by 2025,” he said.
Basah said the rehabilitation of peatlands and preventing fires could also cut about 430 million tons of CO2 emissions.
Indonesia has pledged to abate the country’s emissions by 26 percent by 2020, of which 14 percent will be cut from forest and peatlands.
The study said that emissions from peatlands were dominated by anthropogenic fire emissions, peat oxidation and the removal of above-ground biomass from deforestation and forest degradation.
“The current emissions from the peatlands come mostly from Sumatra and Kalimantan, whereas Papua has extensive shallow peatlands that have the potential to increase Indonesia’s emissions if they are developed in the future,” he said.
Forest campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia Yuyun Indradi, said the study should be made as a basis to cut emissions from peatlands.
“The problem is poor law enforcement against those companies that have already converted the peatlands,” he said.
Greenpeace has protested the destruction of peatlands in Riau, including in Semenanjung Kampar, which they say store around 2 gigatons of carbon, with peat layers of more than 15 meters.
The Bappenas study also recommended the need for effective institutions to overcome overlapping mandates on the management of peat and lowland areas in the country.
It also proposed the need to develop peatland carbon policies to attract financial incentives under the current Carbon Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme
Novan Iman Santosa , The Jakarta Post , Singapore | Wed, 02/03/2010 11:00 AM | Business
Indonesian flag carrier Garuda Indonesia signed Tuesday an MoU on reducing carbon emissions in the aviation sector with the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
The MoU on carbon offset was signed by Garuda president director Emirsyah Satar and IATA director general and CEO Giovanni Bisignani at IATA’s Green Pavilion on the first day of the 2010 Singapore Airshow at the Changi Convention Center.
Emirsyah said the MoU would enable passengers to decide whether or not to pay to cover their own the carbon footprint for their flight when booking online on the Garuda website. Once fully implemented, the program would allow passengers to calculate the compensation required, the volume of reduced CO2 emissions needed and available emission reduction activities.
Emirsyah said the airline and IATA had been talking on the carbon offset program since mid-2009. “Garuda is the 15th airlines to participate in the initiative,” he said.
IATA’s carbon offset program is a ready-to-use software which airlines can offer to their passengers to compensate for carbon emissions by contributing to carbon reduction projects in developing countries.
Bisignani said aviation contributes about 2 percent of total carbon emissions but IATA and the aviation sector in general were taking the issue seriously.
“It is not only IATA and airlines but also aircraft producers and engine makers who are working together to reduce emissions,” he told reporters after signing the MoU. He said there was a reduction of 7 percent of carbon emission in the aviation sector through various efforts in 2009.
Meanwhile, Garuda vice president for safety, security, and environment Capt. Novianto Heru Pratomo said the airline would work with IATA to find appropriate projects for the carbon offset initiative. He said Garuda previously had reforested some 250 hectares of forest in the Sebangau National Park in Central Kalimantan and another 250 hectares along the Arakundo River water basin in Aceh.
When asked whether Garuda would soon use biodiesel for its aircraft, Novianto said the use of biodiesel for commercial airlines was still at a trial stage.
Novianto explained that Garuda is modernizing aircraft cabins in its new Boeing 737-800 aircraft. All seats in both Executive and Economy Classes are being equipped with individual in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems.
Boeing senior vice president East and Southeast Asia sales, commercial airplanes, Robert K. Laird, claimed to reporters that Garuda is the only airline to equip all its Boeing 737 aircraft with IFE systems for all seats.
Laird said that was the reason why Boeing asked Garuda to display one its latest aircraft to represent Boeing’s commercial product in Singapore. Garuda officials said the new 737-800 is already operational in the Garuda fleet.
Asia’s sustainable growth
Emil Salim , Jakarta | Fri, 02/19/2010 10:38 AM | Opinion
Indonesia as part of Asia suffered economic crises in 1997-1998 and 2008-2009. The first crisis was severe and practically wiped out most of Indonesia’s major economic achievements.
Indonesia’s response to the crisis by tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates created a deep drop in Indonesia’s growth rate by 13 percent during 1998. Since then, Indonesia has slowly recovered from this deep crisis
But then a second crises, originating from the US sub-prime credit system, hit the Indonesian economy in 2008. This time the road of fiscal stimulus has been followed to prevent a serious recession. Indonesia’s robust export growth, as is the case in Europe and many other economies, has been hampered by a waning US economy.
This means that economic leadership from the US is unlikely to come for years to come.
It is hence with great anxiety to discover that Japan’s GDP of US$5.1 trillion surpassed China’s GDP of $4.9 trillion in 2009. The Japanese government’s stimulus measures apparently stimulated its exports and global trade, accompanied by rising household domestic spending.
Meanwhile China’s economy grew by 8.7 percent in 2009. On the other hand, the European economy is struggling with the financial crises in Greece and a low growth performance in Germany.
Given all these projections, it can be predicted the gravity of the global economy will move to Asia with China and Japan as the major driving forces.
ASEAN in general and Indonesia in particular, can ride the wave of Asian growth and free itself from the grip of the recent global crisis. It is hence appropriate to now explore the opportunities for Asia’s sustainable growth beyond the global crisis and to search for venues of development in infrastructure, environment and finance.
The weakened economic situation, opens up opportunities to search for better development models that will be more resilient to competition with foreign economies and better equipped to meet the developmental challenges of the 21st century.
Asia needs to conduct its development process in a difficult and different environment along the following lines.
First, China with 1.4 billion and India with 1.1 billion people are the major source of Asian growth. Both
have huge labor and consumer power.
It means that Indonesia with 250 million people will face difficulties in competing with these two giants on the basis of labor-intensive industries. Indonesia has to find a special niche in its production that is competitive against these two countries.
Indonesia’s special niche lies in its unique natural, tropical, terrestrial and marine resources that China and India, as well as Japan, don’t have.
The new mindset of development must then be to shift from resource exploitation to resource enrichment. The basic strategy must be to raise the value of our unique tropical natural resources.
The bark of our tropical trees has ingredients used in medicine for cancer. The leeches in our tropical soil release hirudin that acts as a medicine against the thickening of blood that causes heart attacks and strokes.
Indonesia has the highest diversity of butterflies in the world, which opens up the opportunity of raising cocoons with different natural colors for textile development.
Indonesia’s sea is the home of deep-sea sharks, whose liver extract is the ingredient of squalene, a medicine used to slow aging. Its fast sea currents between islands are sources of wave energy and its coral reefs are rich in diversity and fertility.
Exotic fruits are widely distributed in Indonesian forests that stretch in a distance “from London to Cairo” on islands with distinct micro-climates and ecosystems. And we can go on listing the various features of our country.
In brief, Indonesia has unique tropical, biological, natural, terrestrial and marine resources that can be utilized as competitive commodities through scientific and technological development.
Second, Indonesia has diverse ethnic groups with rich cultures, arts and customs that support unique textile materials, batik, handcrafts, exotic food, etc.
It is a fertile ground for creative industries that are emerging as a new economic activity. It also gives impetus for high-quality tourism development.
Third, Asia is confronted with the need to achieve low-carbon growth. China, India and Indonesia have massive sources of coal for hundreds more years. It is the cheapest source of energy for development.
Fourth, Indonesian infrastructure development must be geared toward the dispersion of economic activities along numerous islands. To prevent agglomeration of population into mega-cities, it is necessary to plan a dispersion of urban development supported by a viable rural sector that takes into account the natural environment.
The Kitakyushyu type of Japanese cities combined with the Sato-yama type of rural and Sato-umi type of coastal developments, already widely adopted in Japan, demonstrates that it is possible to cope with population growth within the boundaries of nature’s carrying capacities.
Emil Salim is an economist and a former Indonesian minister of state for population and the environment. This is text from a key-note address delivered in the “JBIC Forum for Asia” in Jakarta, last month.
Forest policy undercuts SBY’s emission pledge
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 01/13/2010 9:19 AM | National
The Forestry Ministry’s plan to allow more mining firms operate in forests could hinder the government’s efforts to meet emission reduction targets, as pledged by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The ministry said it planned to allocate 2.2 million hectares of forests for mining activities between 2010 to 2020.
“The plan to convert 2.2 million hectares of forests for mining could release about 550 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere,” Greenomics Indonesia executive director, Elfian Effendi, said.
“This policy runs counter to President Yudhoyono’s speech [in Copenhagen] on emission reduction targets.”
The government has pledged to cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020 using its own budget of Rp 83 trillion over five years. President Yudhoyono also said the country could reduce emissions by 41 percent if developed nations provided about Rp 168 trillion in financial aid to mitigate climate change in Indonesia.
Given current trends, Indonesia is forecasted to emit 2.95 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2020.
With a reduction of 26 percent as targeted, Indonesia could reduce this figure by 0.7 billion tons, mostly from forests and wetlands.
The country’s carbon emissions come mostly from the change in land use and forestry (accounting for 48 percent of total national emissions), energy (21 percent), peat fires (12 percent), waste (11 percent) and agriculture (5 percent).
The climate change working group chief at the Forestry Ministry, Wandojo Siswanto, said the ministry would tighten permits on the use of forests for mining activities.
“The ministry receives many proposals to convert forests into mining areas, but we need to issue permits selectively and consider the expected emissions,” he said.
He said the ministry would slash about 20 percent of hotspots to minimize forest fires and combat deforestation.
Wandojo said emissions would be cut through means such as combating illegal logging, avoiding deforestation, rehabilitating land and forest watersheds, restoring production forest ecosystems and improving fire management.
Between 2004 and 2009, the ministry allocated 1.2 million hectares of forests for mining activities.
The government has long been under pressure from environmental activists over mining activities in forests that has damaged the environment and kept surrounding villagers in poverty.
Indonesia is home to 120 million hectares of rainforest, making it the third-largest rainforest country after Brazil and the DR Congo.
Deforestation in Indonesia — claimed to be the world’s worst with an area the size of Switzerland lost every year — has already led to the damage of 59 million hectares of the country’s forests.
Stop converting peatlands, govt study recommends
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Mon, 01/18/2010 10:07 AM | National
A study by the government has recommended a moratorium on peatland conversion if the country wants to meet its pledged emission cuts to tackle climate change.
The study commissioned by the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) also proposes a land-swap scheme to relocate existing licenses in the peatlands, but not in other degraded forests.
“Land swaps coupled with a revision of spatial planning to conserve unlicensed peatlands could contribute up to 37 percent in potential emission cuts,” Basah Hernowo, the director of forestry and
water resources conservation at Bappenas, told The Jakarta Post at the weekend.
Indonesia has around 21 million hectares of peatlands, mostly in Sumatra with 7.2 million hectares, Kalimantan with 5.8 million hectare and Papua with 8 million hectares. Most of the peatland in Papua is untouched.
The study predicted that peatlands contributed about 1 billion tons of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year, or half of the country’s total emissions.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, the study predicted emissions from peatlands would contribute 1,387 million tons by 2025.
“The utilization of the peatlands probably contributes less than 1 percent of GDP, yet accounts for
almost 50 percent of emissions,” Basah said.
The second phase of the study to assess economic aspects of peatlands will be conducted this year.
A number of plantations, industrial timber concessions (HTI) and forest concession holders (HPH) run business in the peatlands.
The Agriculture Ministry issued a 2009 decree allowing plantations to convert peatlands with a thickness of less than 3 meters.
Many said the decree was contrary to the ministry’s letters to governors in 2007, asking local administrations to stop the conversion of peatlands into oil palm plantations.
“Enforcing the law on existing forest and the plantation concessions operating in the peatlands could yield about 338 million tons in CO2 reduction, or 24 percent by 2025,” he said.
Basah said the rehabilitation of peatlands and preventing fires could also cut about 430 million tons of CO2 emissions.
Indonesia has pledged to abate the country’s emissions by 26 percent by 2020, of which 14 percent will be cut from forest and peatlands.
The study said that emissions from peatlands were dominated by anthropogenic fire emissions, peat oxidation and the removal of above-ground biomass from deforestation and forest degradation.
“The current emissions from the peatlands come mostly from Sumatra and Kalimantan, whereas Papua has extensive shallow peatlands that have the potential to increase Indonesia’s emissions if they are developed in the future,” he said.
Forest campaigner at Greenpeace Indonesia Yuyun Indradi, said the study should be made as a basis to cut emissions from peatlands.
“The problem is poor law enforcement against those companies that have already converted the peatlands,” he said.
Greenpeace has protested the destruction of peatlands in Riau, including in Semenanjung Kampar, which they say store around 2 gigatons of carbon, with peat layers of more than 15 meters.
The Bappenas study also recommended the need for effective institutions to overcome overlapping mandates on the management of peat and lowland areas in the country.
It also proposed the need to develop peatland carbon policies to attract financial incentives under the current Carbon Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme
Kamis, 15 Oktober 2009
Carbon Copenhagen
Ban Ki-moon: As people, as nations, as a species: we sink or swim together
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urges the world's leaders to seize the opportunities that history is giving them, "so that tomorrows generations can look back and say: Our leaders rose to the challenge. They did what was right."
Rie Jerichow 04/10/2009 16:40
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon set a cautiously optimistic tone when he gave a lecture at the University of Copenhagen Saturday.
He referred to the Climate Change Summit at the United Nations less than two weeks ago, when leaders from all over the world signaled their determination to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective deal at Copenhagen.
"What I sense from the Summit is that finally, we are seeing a thaw in some of the frozen positions that have prevented governments from making progress in the negotiations…. this was a crucial step forward on the road to Copenhagen – and not a moment too soon," Ban Ki-moon said.
The UN Secretary-General listed four benchmarks for a successful climate deal at Copenhagen and beyond:
First, a successful deal must involve all countries. Second, a successful deal must provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable. Third, a deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it, and fourth, a deal must include an equitable global governance structure that addresses the needs of developing countries.
In Bangkok the UN-sponsored climate talks continue. The Secretary-General urged governments to table concrete proposals.
"We are not there yet. There is still a lot of work to be done, and not much time to do it." he said, inciting world leaders to seize the opportunities that history is giving us, "so that tomorrow's generations can look back and say: Our leaders rose to the challenge. They did what was right."
"We share one planet, one small blue speck in space. As people, as nations, as a species: we sink or swim together," Ban Ki-moon concluded.
Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit
In December, delegations from 192 countries will hold two weeks of talks in Copenhagen aimed at establishing a new global treaty on climate change. Here, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black looks at what the talks are about and what they are supposed to achieve.
Why are the Copenhagen talks happening?
The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.
Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.
Two years ago, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.
The Copenhagen talks mark the end of that two-year period.
Governments hope to leave the Danish capital having completed the new deal.
The talks are technically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - often abbreviated to COP15.
Why is climate change happening - and is it the same as global warming?
The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time.
For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.
According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.
The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.
This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface.
Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.
Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.
This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".
Why is a new treaty needed?
The Copenhagen talks sit within the framework of the UNFCCC, established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.
Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard will chair COP15
In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.
But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.
In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.
Governments want a new treaty that is bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement.
In June, the G8 and a number of large developing countries agreed that the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times should be limited to 2C (3.6F).
In principle, they are looking to the Copenhagen treaty to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the world within that limit.
Who is looking for what in the new treaty?
A lot of issues are involved.
Industrialised nations will set targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change.
The key date for these commitments is 2020, although some countries are looking beyond that, to 2050.
Australia, the EU, Japan and New Zealand have already said what they are prepared to do by 2020.
Richer developing countries are also likely to be asked to constrain their emissions.
If they do make any pledges, they are likely to restrain the growth of emissions rather than making actual cuts.
Their commitments are likely to be expressed in terms of a reduction in emissions growth of a certain percentage compared with "business as usual".
In order to help developing countries constrain their greenhouse gas emissions, industrialised nations have agreed in principle to help them in areas such as renewable energy.
Funding clean technologies will be part of any deal
Developing countries are looking for mechanisms that can speed up this technology transfer.
Many countries are thinking about how to prepare for the impacts of climate change - what sorts of adaptation will be necessary.
These include measures such as building sea defences, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties.
Developing countries are looking for substantial and reliable finance to help them adapt. Their argument is that as the industrialised world has caused the problem, it must pay to sort it out.
Measures to protect forests will be a component of the deal.
How much will it cost?
In general, fossil fuels provide us with our cheapest sources of energy.
The main route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to avoid burning fossil fuels; so a successful treaty would almost certainly make energy more expensive.
There are many different analyses of how much it would cost to make this transition quickly enough to avert "dangerous" climate change.
Developing countries are looking for money in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for mitigation.
A number of studies also suggest that a further $100bn per year or thereabouts will be needed to help poorer countries adapt.
By comparison, the amount of overseas aid currently given each year by rich countries is in the region of $100bn.
What are the prospects for a deal?
Four broad outcomes are possible from the Copenhagen summit:
• a comprehensive deal with all loose ends tied up
• a deal agreeing the "big picture", but with lots of details remaining to be thrashed out over the coming months or years
• adjournment of the COP, probably until midway through 2010
• breakdown.
Almost every government attending the talks wants a deal, and they want it soon, in order that all the essential ingredients are agreed by the time the Kyoto Protocol's targets expire in 2012.
But many details remain to be worked out; and as any treaty must be agreed by consensus, there is lots of potential for disagreement, and any single country can derail negotiations.
Would a Copenhagen deal solve climate change?
The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.
In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.
Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.
A strong Copenhagen deal might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not.
This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already.
IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years.
Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialised nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions.
Whatever happens in Copenhagen, further meetings will almost certainly be necessary to finalise the "rules" of any new treaty.
Further ahead, at some point governments will almost certainly begin the process of securing the deal after Copenhagen.
Carbon
+1 1 vote
FACTBOX - How to judge success, failure at UN climate talks
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 13:15 PM 1 comment , 37 views
Categories: Reuters News, Factboxes
Oct 14 (Reuters) - Talks on a new U.N. climate deal are bogged down before a Dec. 7-18 meeting of 190 nations in Copenhagen -- the following lays out how to judge success or failure.
Most clearly, the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat lists four "political essentials" for a successful new pact, with many details to be filled in later:
1) DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
-- "Ambitious emission reduction targets" for rich nations.
Scientists in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2007 that developed nations would have to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avert the worst of climate change. So far, promises average 11 to 15 percent below 1990 levels.
"Pledges for mid-term targets by industrialised countries fall woefully short of the IPCC range," the Secretariat says.
The United States, the number two emitter behind China, may not agree carbon laws by December. That may make it hard for Washington to give a firm pledge at Copenhagen.
2) DEVELOPING NATIONS
-- "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions" by developing nations to slow the rise of their greenhouse gas emissions.
Such actions, slowing the rise of emissions rather than demanding absolute cuts, could be more use of renewable energy such as wind or solar power, more efficient coal-burning power plants or better building insulation to save energy.
3) CASH AND TECHNOLOGY
-- "An essential part of a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen is identifying how to generate new, additional and predictable financial resources and technology", the Secretariat says.
It says cash needed both to curb emissions and help people adapt to changes such as droughts or floods could total up to $250 billion per year in 2020. The Secretariat wants developed nations to come up with at least $10 billion in Copenhagen to kick-start a deal, with details of longer-term funds to aid developing countries worked out later.
4) INSTITUTIONS
-- "An effective institutional framework with governance structures that address the needs of developing countries".
Copenhagen needs to work out the nuts and bolts of how to share out new funds and technologies to developing nations and ensure a transparent system to make their use "measurable, reportable and verifiable". It says that developing countries have to be "equal decision-making partners".
----
OTHER RECENT VIEWS
* Jairam Ramesh, India's minister of state for environment, cautioned on Oct. 10 against "exaggerated expectations" for Copenhagen.
He said talks should be cut to focus on three areas -- finance for adaptation to climate change, a deal to combat deforestation and promote forestation, and technology sharing. Countries might need to come back to Copenhagen after December.
Many experts say governments only made concessions to agree the U.N.'s existing Kyoto Protocol at the last minute in 1997.
* "There is no plan B," Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told climate negotiators in Bangkok on Sept. 28. "If we do not realise plan A, we go straight to plan F, which stands for failure."
---------
DEADLINES?
About 190 nations pledged in Bali in December 2007 to agree a new U.N. deal within two years after scientists said action was urgently needed to avert desertification, flooding, heatwaves and rising sea levels.
The first period of the U.N's Kyoto Protocol, which binds industrialised nations except the United States to cut emissions, runs out at the end of 2012. The idea is that a deal in 2009 gives good time for all parliaments to ratify a deal.
Recession is doing part of the job already -- world carbon dioxide emissions are set to fall 2.6 percent this year because of a fall in industrial activity.
(Editing by Philippa Fletcher) ((alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com; +47 900 87 663; Reuters Messaging: rm://alister.doyle.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE/OUTCOME
Contact author
Carbon
+1 1 vote
ANALYSIS-U.N. climate talks may need extra time in 2010
by Reuters News on 15 October 2009, 14:59 PM 0 comments , 46 views
Categories: Analysis, Reuters News
* Copenhagen climate talks may need "extra time" in 2010
* Lack of U.S. legislation could have knock-on impact
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO, Oct 15 (Reuters) - World climate talks may need extra time next year to agree cuts in greenhouse emissions for 2020 since U.S. laws are unlikely to be in place before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December, experts say.
A deal from the 190-nation Dec. 7-18 talks may focus on finance to help developing nations confront global warming, technology and institutions. But a key goal of fixing country by country targets for the rich to curb emissions by 2020 may slip.
"There may have to be extra time," said Nick Mabey, of the E3G think-tank in London, suggesting April 2010 as a deadline for a deal.
"You can do the details of institutions after that but not the fundamental deal, or it will start looking like Doha," he said, referring to slow-moving trade talks. "You can have extra time only if the crowd is still in the stadium."
A carbon-capping bill before the U.S. Senate is likely to clear some committees, but not the full Senate, this year, experts say. After it clears the Senate, it has to be reconciled with a House bill passed in June before it can be law.
A lack of clear U.S. numbers could have a knock-on effect.
Many other nations are reluctant to step up their ambitions in Copenhagen unless the United States, the biggest emitter behind China and the only developed nation outside the Kyoto Protocol for limiting emissions to 2012, signs up.
"A final agreement doesn't appear in reach for Copenhagen but a solid agreement on the basic framework would be a huge step forward," said Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
AMBITIOUS
He said Copenhagen could still set "ambitious" goals such as a global goal of halving emissions by 2050 and an aggregate 2020 target for developed nations' cuts. But more months of work were likely to be needed to agree national 2020 goals.
Diplomats say there are preparations for extra U.N. climate meetings in 2010 beyond a main meeting in Mexico in December and a mid-year session in Bonn. Those meetings are likely to be needed no matter what the outcome of Copenhagen.
U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing said at U.N. climate talks in Bangkok last week that it would be "extraordinarily difficult" for the United States to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress.
He added: "That doesn't mean that a deal is not possible."
Other nations say Washington has to name numbers.
"We need a number from the United States at the Copenhagen talks. I think that's very important," British Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said. "You can't have success in Copenhagen without the numbers."
"We are not even considering the possibility" that the United States will be unable to set a national target for 2020, European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich said.
"What's important is that one way or the other the U.S. comes to Copenhagen ready to do a deal...whatever the stage or status of climate legislation in the Senate," said James Leape, head of the WWF environmental group.
U.S. numbers could unlock cuts by other developed nations and also encourage developing nations, such as India and China, to reduce the growth of their emissions, he said.
So far, 2020 offers of greenhouse gas cuts from developed nations total between 11 and 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 [ID:nLE186678]
A U.N. climate panel report in 2007 said that cuts would have to total 25-40 percent to avert the worst of climate change such as more wildfires, sandstorms, extinctions, rising ocean levels and more powerful cyclones.
And most offers are conditional on what others do. The European Union, for instance, has said it will cut unilaterally by 20 percent and by 30 if other nations join in. Australia's 2020 offer ranges from 3 to 23 percent from 1990.
A big problem for President Barack Obama is that the administration of President Bill Clinton agreed in Japan in 1997 to cut U.S. greenhouse gases by seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 as part of the Kyoto Protocol.
Clinton never even submitted the deal to a hostile Senate and President George W. Bush formally dropped Kyoto, saying it unfairly omitted goals for poor nations and would hit jobs.
So Obama's administration is extremely wary of promising more than the Senate delivers.
The proposed U.S. Senate bill offers emissions cuts by 2020 of 20 percent below 2005 levels. That works out at 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- by coincidence the cut Clinton thought the U.S. could achieve under Kyoto.
((With extra reporting by David Fogarty in Singapore, Gerard Wynn in London))
((For a TAKE A LOOK about the Road to Copenhagen, click on [ID:nLL660624]. For an overview of climate change stories, click [nCLIMATE]))
-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/ (Editing by Ralph Boulton) ((alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com; +47 900 87 663; Reuters Messaging: rm://alister.doyle.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE/CUTS
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urges the world's leaders to seize the opportunities that history is giving them, "so that tomorrows generations can look back and say: Our leaders rose to the challenge. They did what was right."
Rie Jerichow 04/10/2009 16:40
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon set a cautiously optimistic tone when he gave a lecture at the University of Copenhagen Saturday.
He referred to the Climate Change Summit at the United Nations less than two weeks ago, when leaders from all over the world signaled their determination to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective deal at Copenhagen.
"What I sense from the Summit is that finally, we are seeing a thaw in some of the frozen positions that have prevented governments from making progress in the negotiations…. this was a crucial step forward on the road to Copenhagen – and not a moment too soon," Ban Ki-moon said.
The UN Secretary-General listed four benchmarks for a successful climate deal at Copenhagen and beyond:
First, a successful deal must involve all countries. Second, a successful deal must provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable. Third, a deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it, and fourth, a deal must include an equitable global governance structure that addresses the needs of developing countries.
In Bangkok the UN-sponsored climate talks continue. The Secretary-General urged governments to table concrete proposals.
"We are not there yet. There is still a lot of work to be done, and not much time to do it." he said, inciting world leaders to seize the opportunities that history is giving us, "so that tomorrow's generations can look back and say: Our leaders rose to the challenge. They did what was right."
"We share one planet, one small blue speck in space. As people, as nations, as a species: we sink or swim together," Ban Ki-moon concluded.
Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit
In December, delegations from 192 countries will hold two weeks of talks in Copenhagen aimed at establishing a new global treaty on climate change. Here, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black looks at what the talks are about and what they are supposed to achieve.
Why are the Copenhagen talks happening?
The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.
Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.
Two years ago, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.
The Copenhagen talks mark the end of that two-year period.
Governments hope to leave the Danish capital having completed the new deal.
The talks are technically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - often abbreviated to COP15.
Why is climate change happening - and is it the same as global warming?
The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time.
For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.
According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.
The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.
This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface.
Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.
Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.
This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".
Why is a new treaty needed?
The Copenhagen talks sit within the framework of the UNFCCC, established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.
Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard will chair COP15
In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.
But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.
In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.
Governments want a new treaty that is bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement.
In June, the G8 and a number of large developing countries agreed that the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times should be limited to 2C (3.6F).
In principle, they are looking to the Copenhagen treaty to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the world within that limit.
Who is looking for what in the new treaty?
A lot of issues are involved.
Industrialised nations will set targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change.
The key date for these commitments is 2020, although some countries are looking beyond that, to 2050.
Australia, the EU, Japan and New Zealand have already said what they are prepared to do by 2020.
Richer developing countries are also likely to be asked to constrain their emissions.
If they do make any pledges, they are likely to restrain the growth of emissions rather than making actual cuts.
Their commitments are likely to be expressed in terms of a reduction in emissions growth of a certain percentage compared with "business as usual".
In order to help developing countries constrain their greenhouse gas emissions, industrialised nations have agreed in principle to help them in areas such as renewable energy.
Funding clean technologies will be part of any deal
Developing countries are looking for mechanisms that can speed up this technology transfer.
Many countries are thinking about how to prepare for the impacts of climate change - what sorts of adaptation will be necessary.
These include measures such as building sea defences, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties.
Developing countries are looking for substantial and reliable finance to help them adapt. Their argument is that as the industrialised world has caused the problem, it must pay to sort it out.
Measures to protect forests will be a component of the deal.
How much will it cost?
In general, fossil fuels provide us with our cheapest sources of energy.
The main route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to avoid burning fossil fuels; so a successful treaty would almost certainly make energy more expensive.
There are many different analyses of how much it would cost to make this transition quickly enough to avert "dangerous" climate change.
Developing countries are looking for money in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for mitigation.
A number of studies also suggest that a further $100bn per year or thereabouts will be needed to help poorer countries adapt.
By comparison, the amount of overseas aid currently given each year by rich countries is in the region of $100bn.
What are the prospects for a deal?
Four broad outcomes are possible from the Copenhagen summit:
• a comprehensive deal with all loose ends tied up
• a deal agreeing the "big picture", but with lots of details remaining to be thrashed out over the coming months or years
• adjournment of the COP, probably until midway through 2010
• breakdown.
Almost every government attending the talks wants a deal, and they want it soon, in order that all the essential ingredients are agreed by the time the Kyoto Protocol's targets expire in 2012.
But many details remain to be worked out; and as any treaty must be agreed by consensus, there is lots of potential for disagreement, and any single country can derail negotiations.
Would a Copenhagen deal solve climate change?
The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.
In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.
Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.
A strong Copenhagen deal might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not.
This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already.
IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years.
Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialised nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions.
Whatever happens in Copenhagen, further meetings will almost certainly be necessary to finalise the "rules" of any new treaty.
Further ahead, at some point governments will almost certainly begin the process of securing the deal after Copenhagen.
Carbon
+1 1 vote
FACTBOX - How to judge success, failure at UN climate talks
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 13:15 PM 1 comment , 37 views
Categories: Reuters News, Factboxes
Oct 14 (Reuters) - Talks on a new U.N. climate deal are bogged down before a Dec. 7-18 meeting of 190 nations in Copenhagen -- the following lays out how to judge success or failure.
Most clearly, the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat lists four "political essentials" for a successful new pact, with many details to be filled in later:
1) DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
-- "Ambitious emission reduction targets" for rich nations.
Scientists in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2007 that developed nations would have to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avert the worst of climate change. So far, promises average 11 to 15 percent below 1990 levels.
"Pledges for mid-term targets by industrialised countries fall woefully short of the IPCC range," the Secretariat says.
The United States, the number two emitter behind China, may not agree carbon laws by December. That may make it hard for Washington to give a firm pledge at Copenhagen.
2) DEVELOPING NATIONS
-- "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions" by developing nations to slow the rise of their greenhouse gas emissions.
Such actions, slowing the rise of emissions rather than demanding absolute cuts, could be more use of renewable energy such as wind or solar power, more efficient coal-burning power plants or better building insulation to save energy.
3) CASH AND TECHNOLOGY
-- "An essential part of a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen is identifying how to generate new, additional and predictable financial resources and technology", the Secretariat says.
It says cash needed both to curb emissions and help people adapt to changes such as droughts or floods could total up to $250 billion per year in 2020. The Secretariat wants developed nations to come up with at least $10 billion in Copenhagen to kick-start a deal, with details of longer-term funds to aid developing countries worked out later.
4) INSTITUTIONS
-- "An effective institutional framework with governance structures that address the needs of developing countries".
Copenhagen needs to work out the nuts and bolts of how to share out new funds and technologies to developing nations and ensure a transparent system to make their use "measurable, reportable and verifiable". It says that developing countries have to be "equal decision-making partners".
----
OTHER RECENT VIEWS
* Jairam Ramesh, India's minister of state for environment, cautioned on Oct. 10 against "exaggerated expectations" for Copenhagen.
He said talks should be cut to focus on three areas -- finance for adaptation to climate change, a deal to combat deforestation and promote forestation, and technology sharing. Countries might need to come back to Copenhagen after December.
Many experts say governments only made concessions to agree the U.N.'s existing Kyoto Protocol at the last minute in 1997.
* "There is no plan B," Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told climate negotiators in Bangkok on Sept. 28. "If we do not realise plan A, we go straight to plan F, which stands for failure."
---------
DEADLINES?
About 190 nations pledged in Bali in December 2007 to agree a new U.N. deal within two years after scientists said action was urgently needed to avert desertification, flooding, heatwaves and rising sea levels.
The first period of the U.N's Kyoto Protocol, which binds industrialised nations except the United States to cut emissions, runs out at the end of 2012. The idea is that a deal in 2009 gives good time for all parliaments to ratify a deal.
Recession is doing part of the job already -- world carbon dioxide emissions are set to fall 2.6 percent this year because of a fall in industrial activity.
(Editing by Philippa Fletcher) ((alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com; +47 900 87 663; Reuters Messaging: rm://alister.doyle.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE/OUTCOME
Contact author
Carbon
+1 1 vote
ANALYSIS-U.N. climate talks may need extra time in 2010
by Reuters News on 15 October 2009, 14:59 PM 0 comments , 46 views
Categories: Analysis, Reuters News
* Copenhagen climate talks may need "extra time" in 2010
* Lack of U.S. legislation could have knock-on impact
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO, Oct 15 (Reuters) - World climate talks may need extra time next year to agree cuts in greenhouse emissions for 2020 since U.S. laws are unlikely to be in place before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December, experts say.
A deal from the 190-nation Dec. 7-18 talks may focus on finance to help developing nations confront global warming, technology and institutions. But a key goal of fixing country by country targets for the rich to curb emissions by 2020 may slip.
"There may have to be extra time," said Nick Mabey, of the E3G think-tank in London, suggesting April 2010 as a deadline for a deal.
"You can do the details of institutions after that but not the fundamental deal, or it will start looking like Doha," he said, referring to slow-moving trade talks. "You can have extra time only if the crowd is still in the stadium."
A carbon-capping bill before the U.S. Senate is likely to clear some committees, but not the full Senate, this year, experts say. After it clears the Senate, it has to be reconciled with a House bill passed in June before it can be law.
A lack of clear U.S. numbers could have a knock-on effect.
Many other nations are reluctant to step up their ambitions in Copenhagen unless the United States, the biggest emitter behind China and the only developed nation outside the Kyoto Protocol for limiting emissions to 2012, signs up.
"A final agreement doesn't appear in reach for Copenhagen but a solid agreement on the basic framework would be a huge step forward," said Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
AMBITIOUS
He said Copenhagen could still set "ambitious" goals such as a global goal of halving emissions by 2050 and an aggregate 2020 target for developed nations' cuts. But more months of work were likely to be needed to agree national 2020 goals.
Diplomats say there are preparations for extra U.N. climate meetings in 2010 beyond a main meeting in Mexico in December and a mid-year session in Bonn. Those meetings are likely to be needed no matter what the outcome of Copenhagen.
U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing said at U.N. climate talks in Bangkok last week that it would be "extraordinarily difficult" for the United States to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress.
He added: "That doesn't mean that a deal is not possible."
Other nations say Washington has to name numbers.
"We need a number from the United States at the Copenhagen talks. I think that's very important," British Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said. "You can't have success in Copenhagen without the numbers."
"We are not even considering the possibility" that the United States will be unable to set a national target for 2020, European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich said.
"What's important is that one way or the other the U.S. comes to Copenhagen ready to do a deal...whatever the stage or status of climate legislation in the Senate," said James Leape, head of the WWF environmental group.
U.S. numbers could unlock cuts by other developed nations and also encourage developing nations, such as India and China, to reduce the growth of their emissions, he said.
So far, 2020 offers of greenhouse gas cuts from developed nations total between 11 and 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 [ID:nLE186678]
A U.N. climate panel report in 2007 said that cuts would have to total 25-40 percent to avert the worst of climate change such as more wildfires, sandstorms, extinctions, rising ocean levels and more powerful cyclones.
And most offers are conditional on what others do. The European Union, for instance, has said it will cut unilaterally by 20 percent and by 30 if other nations join in. Australia's 2020 offer ranges from 3 to 23 percent from 1990.
A big problem for President Barack Obama is that the administration of President Bill Clinton agreed in Japan in 1997 to cut U.S. greenhouse gases by seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 as part of the Kyoto Protocol.
Clinton never even submitted the deal to a hostile Senate and President George W. Bush formally dropped Kyoto, saying it unfairly omitted goals for poor nations and would hit jobs.
So Obama's administration is extremely wary of promising more than the Senate delivers.
The proposed U.S. Senate bill offers emissions cuts by 2020 of 20 percent below 2005 levels. That works out at 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- by coincidence the cut Clinton thought the U.S. could achieve under Kyoto.
((With extra reporting by David Fogarty in Singapore, Gerard Wynn in London))
((For a TAKE A LOOK about the Road to Copenhagen, click on [ID:nLL660624]. For an overview of climate change stories, click [nCLIMATE]))
-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/ (Editing by Ralph Boulton) ((alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com; +47 900 87 663; Reuters Messaging: rm://alister.doyle.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE/CUTS
Carbon News Clipping
NEWS
Paradise lost?
Most people know the Maldives as a tropical paradise for holiday makers. But behind the white beaches and glittering waves is a poor population which has lived in close symbiosis with the sea for hundreds of years - but now has to look elsewhere for a place to live, as the ocean is steadily eating away at their islands.
Michael von Bülow 20/03/2009 12:40
When the tsunami hit the archipelago of the Maldives in 2004, it was more in the way of a flooding than a regular tidal wave due to the sharp profile of the atolls. Only 87 people perished, but the damages were catastrophic for the tiny island state.
Two thirds of the country disappeared momentarily into the Indian Ocean, and when the sea withdrew, it took 62 percent of the country’s GNP with it. Electricity, communications and freshwater supplies on many islands were destroyed by the saltwater, and not until two years later was the country brought back on foot with the aid of the UN and international aid organisations.
Perhaps it was only a taste of what the 300,000 citizens of the Maldives can expect if and when global warming kicks in and makes the world’s seas rise by as much as one meter within the next century, like the latest scientific studies forecast.
80 percent of the island state’s only 235 km2 are less than one meter above sea level, so disaster is looming. Erosion is constantly eating away at the vulnerable atolls, and climate change is already palpable in the shape of more rain and more disease-carrying mosquitoes.
To most foreigners the Maldives are just a paradise for holiday makers. White beaches as if taken straight from a postcard and a temperature that due to cooling breezes from the sea never becomes unbearably high, making the country a rare pearl made for sailing, surfing, diving or just lazing on the beach. Under the sea, hobby divers encounter a world of adventures with corals and a thousand different tropical fish species.
Almost 700.000 tourists from mainly Europe, Japan, China and Australia visit the Maldives each year. Upon landing in one of the two international airports, one immediately notices the proximity of the sea. It feels literally like landing on the water because the islands are so tiny – a jogger can easily cover the perimeter of the main island Male’ in less than half an hour. The runways are regularly wet with splashes of sea water, in spite of the fact that the airport island Hulhumale has been raised artificially to the breath-taking elevation of two meters above sea level.
With a share of 35-40 percent of the GNP, tourism is a vital source of income for the Maldives. The second largest source of income is tuna fishing, which is done with hook and line in the traditional, environmentally friendly way, but which is declining rapidly due to dwindling fish stock. Apart from that, there is some farming, consisting mostly of coconuts and papaya.
Historically, the Maldives have for hundreds of years been a crossroads for different trade routes, and this is reflected in the population which ethnically and culturally is a unique amalgamation of Indians, Africans and Arabs. In addition to that, the island state has its own written language.
But the citizens in the 100 percent Muslim country are poor, and with a national economy the size of a small European city the Maldives are totally dependant upon foreign aid and loans if the tropical paradise is to be saved from slipping away into the expansive ocean.
Who will provide the necessary hundreds of millions of dollars, and is it worth the trouble in the first place? Couldn’t the tourists just go somewhere else for their holidays and the Maldivian population move some place where the risk of getting their feet wet is less imminent?
“It is a tiny nation, and by then (2100, ed. note) the population will perhaps be half a million people who could theoretically be displaced. But can we accept the disappearance of a country and an absolutely unique culture? That is the question we need to ask ourselves,” says Jonas Kjær.
Following the tsunami, from spring 2005 till late 2007 the Dane was stationed in the Maldives by the UNDP as aid coordination advisor, aiding the Maldivian government with the economic rehabilitation. There is no doubt in his mind as to the answer.
“No, we can not accept that a country just disappears,” he says.
According to Jonas Kjær, the recipe for saving the Maldives is “population and development consolidation”. The first step would be to gather the population of the Maldives, which at the moment is scattered over 200 islands, on just 10 to 15 islands. This would at the same time make an additional number of islands available to tourists, thereby making them co-finance the relocation and rehabilitation of the local population.
The next step would be to elevate the islands artificially by two to three meters, and to build solid walls along the coast safeguarding the islands against the tide and storms.
“Of course, there are some social, cultural and historical considerations to be made. You don’t just move a population that has inhabited the islands for maybe 2,000 years. That takes political guts,” says Jonas Kjær.
In fact, population and development consolidation, nicknamed “pop concert”, has been sitting in a drawer with the previous government for at least 10 years. Due to political reluctance and fear of the population’s reaction the programme hasn’t been initiated. There seems, however, to be a growing understanding amongst the population for a need to do something – an understanding that has been augmented substantially by the impact of the tsunami.
The younger and more informed citizens have especially acknowledged the need to move, and some are already on their way. More and more young Maldivians go to Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Singapore, the US or the UK to study, and after finishing their studies some of them decide to stay in their new country, adding to the brain drain of their native country.
This leaves a Maldivian population, which after 30 years of semi-dictatorial rule has embarked on a positive democratic development, to hope that paradise has not already been lost.
| Read more |
Carbon
0 0 votes
Senators say U.S. climate bill making progress
by Reuters News on 13 October 2009, 23:56 PM 0 comments , 11 views
Categories: Reuters News
* Senator Boxer says bill likely to advance in November
* Senator Kerry sees "breakthrough" with Graham support
* Many doubt law will emerge before Copenhagen summit
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. senators pushing legislation on global warming said on Tuesday they were making progress in winning support for the controversial measure, which is expected to begin moving through a key Senate committee sometime in November.
"We will make our best effort and we will advance this ball and Copenhagen will know we're not fooling around," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry told Reuters in an interview.
In early December, an international meeting convenes in Copenhagen to try to reach an agreement on the next steps for reducing greenhouse gas pollution that is blamed for global climate change.
As the leading carbon dioxide polluter in the developed world, the United States is seen as key to the success of the Copenhagen meeting, where developing countries will want to see that Washington is making progress toward controlling dangerous emissions.
On Sunday, The New York Times published a column by Kerry, a Democrat, and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican. The senators vowed to band together to work toward passage of a comprehensive climate change and energy bill.
"I think it's a breakthrough," Kerry told Reuters, referring to Graham's cooperation in the drive to gain enough votes for Senate passage.
Nevertheless, many are skeptical the Senate can pass legislation this year in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced her panel will kick off three days of hearings on Oct. 27 on the climate change bill that she and Kerry proposed.
That measure calls for cutting carbon emissions 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels, a slightly more aggressive goal than a bill passed by the House of Representatives but far less ambitious than European countries have set forth.
TIMELINE
Boxer said she hoped, in the weeks following the hearings, her committee will finish work on changes to the bill and will vote to approve it. But several other committees also must sign off on the bill.
The California Democrat said "great progress" had been made in refining the legislation, which is now being analyzed by the Environmental Protection Agency. But she stopped short of predicting passage by the full Senate this year.
"We look forward to a strong, clean energy jobs bill (being sent) to the full Senate as soon as possible," Boxer told a news conference.
As she has repeated numerous times in recent months, Boxer said refinements to the bill -- such as how many free pollution permits U.S. industries would get -- would follow the outline of the House-passed bill, with some "tweaks."
But she refused to provide details on how these "allocations" have been worked out in her bill.
Boxer said intensive discussions have been held with the Senate's coal-state interests, who have a lot at stake in legislation that aims to wean the United States off polluting fossil fuels used at many utility plants.
Kerry's discussions with Graham and other senators have focused on encouraging growth in the U.S. nuclear power industry. He said the Obama administration is "open" to such moves in a climate bill.
They also are discussing more U.S. offshore oil and gas drilling.
Liberal Democrats in Congress likely will balk at using government aid to encourage building more nuclear power plants, as well as expanding offshore oil drilling. But those might be necessary ingredients to lure some Republicans, who now largely oppose climate-change legislation. (Editing by John O'Callaghan) ((richard.cowan@thomsonreuters.com; +1 202-898-8391; Reuters Messaging; richard.cowan.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: CLIMATE USA/CONGRESS
Carbon
0 0 votes
Q+A: Why should we care about a new climate agreement?
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 04:07 AM 0 comments , 1 views
Categories: Reuters News
For Reuters global climate change coverage [ID:nCLIMATE]
Oct 14 - The global economy is still is bad shape, people are worried about their jobs and just paying the bills is a major challenge, hardly the right environment to get people focusing on climate change.
With so much to worry about, it can be hard to understand all the fuss about reaching a tougher U.N. climate deal in December in the Danish capital Copenhagen.
Following are some questions and answers on the importance of crafting a new agreement from 2013.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ME?
A new deal will change the way energy is used, priced and created. In short, it will change the global economy.
Scientists say rich nations must find ways to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power stations and steel mills to refineries and transport to prevent dangerous climate change.
For you and me, this will most likely mean higher fuel and electricity bills, while catching a plane will also become more expensive, as will buying imported food and drink. Insurance premiums covering storm damage or other natural disasters are also likely to rise.
In short, we'll be forced to make tougher lifestyle choices.
The flip side is that governments will help make renewable energy and greener transport more attractive, allowing people to make the switch to cleaner alternatives. Wind farms, solar, plus geothermal, wave and tidal power along with hybrid and fuel cell cars should become more commonplace as costs come down.
Financing from rich nations could also drive a green revolution in developing countries, boosting investment, creating jobs and cutting emissions.
HOW WILL THIS WORK?
It all hinges on putting a price on every tonne of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, produced by industry, transport or through deforestation, or saved from being emitted, such as building wind farms or saving tropical forests that soak up CO2.
Emissions trading through cap-and-trade schemes that give industries incentives to clean up will also be essential. Europe already has such a scheme, while Australia and the United States are working on their own versions.
Key to these schemes are tougher 2020 emissions reduction targets under a new climate treaty. The tougher the targets, the greater the financial incentive for industries to act.
WHAT'S THE URGENCY? CAN'T WE WAIT?
The world has already warmed on average 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century through the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and gas. Prior to the latest financial crisis, emissions growth was increasing annually at a rate beyond past projections, driven largely by soaring coal and oil consumption in big developing nations, such as China and India.
Scientists say that the world is on course to pump enough carbon dioxide into the air to raise global temperatures by at least 2 deg C in the next few decades, a level they say will lead to more chaotic weather, rising seas, melting glaciers, water shortages and falling crop yields.
Such disruption poses major security threats because the world's population is expected to keep rising. Pollution and health problems are also growing risks.
Even if you don't believe in climate change, the world has only about 41 years of oil left based on proven reserves and 2008 consumption levels of nearly 31 billion barrels a year. As reserves fall and oil becomes harder to extract, prices of crude will continue to rise, making greener energy more attractive.
WHAT CAN JUST ONE PERSON DO?
A lot. Switch to compact fluorescent lighting in the home and office, use public transport, buy locally produced food and recycle your rubbish. Take re-usesable bags when shopping and switch off unused appliances at home.
Every little bit helps because it entrenches behaviour and gets people talking.
(Writing by David Fogarty; Editing by Nick Macfie)
((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com)) Keywords: CLIMATE PACT/MEANING
Carbon
0 0 votes
FACTBOX-Cracking the Copenhagen climate code
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 04:22 AM 0 comments , 1 views
Categories: Reuters News
For Reuters global climate change coverage click [ID:nCLIMATE] and for a Q+A on the impact of a proposed pact click [ID:nSP328700]
Oct 14 - The text of an emerging new U.N. climate agreement is filled with words and phrases in brackets, obscure references to other U.N. climate treaties and mind-boggling acronyms that look like a secret code.
Except that you won't find AOSIS in a desert, MRV isn't something you can drive, minding your NAMAs has nothing to do with being polite and you can't have a BAP for breakfast.
Following are some of the acronyms in the negotiating text that cover key areas or groups that will be central to major U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
AOSIS - Alliance of Small Island States. Groups 42 members and observers from wealthy nations such as Singapore to poorer island nations vulnerable to rising seas, changing rainfall patterns and more intense storms. Has been very active in pushing for funding to help adapt to climate change impacts.
BAP -- Bali Action Plan. Nations agreed at U.N. climate talks in Bali at the end of 2007 to launch two years of negotiations to try to reach a broader climate deal that commits all nations, particularly the United States and big developing countries, to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
COP - Conference of the parties. The supreme body of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol comes under the convention. A MOP is a meeting of the parties.
LULUCF - Land use, land use change and forestry. Covers ways to offset or soak up carbon emissions through planting forests, stopping forests from being chopped down, to changes in agricultural practices that promote carbon being locked away in the soil. Controversial because it can sometimes be hard to calculate how much carbon is locked away or the emissions produced from such activities. Emissions might also be accidentally released if the "carbon sink" catches fire or is destroyed by disease.
MRV -- Measureable, reportable and verifiable. Negotiators are trying to agree on ways every nation's emissions reduction steps can be regularly reported to the U.N. and independently checked to see if these steps really do cut emissions. Controversial because developing nations fear their efforts will be treated the same way as rich countries', even though wealthy nations are supposed to recognise they have a historical responsibility to commit to binding and deep cuts. Poorer nations also don't want to be held internationally accountable for voluntary cuts.
NAMAs - Nationally appropriate mitigation actions: Steps by developing countries to curb the growth of their emissions. These are not linked to binding emissions targets but can be programmes such as promoting greater use of solar or wind power, replanting and conserving forests or greater energy efficiency across industrial sectors.
QELROs - Quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives. Binding economy-wide steps by rich nations to cut emissions.
REDD - Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation. A U.N.-backed scheme that looks to reward developing nations for preserving and protecting forests via the use of an expanded carbon market. Efforts to conserve and improve forest stocks might also be included.
(Writing by David Fogarty and Alister Doyle; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
Keywords: CLIMATE LANGUAGE
JPMorgan to buy EcoSecurities for $204 million (14 Sept 2009)
LONDON (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co agreed to buy carbon offset aggregator EcoSecurities for 122.9 million pounds ($204 million) on Monday, trumping a bid from the firm's co-founder, to boost its carbon-credit trading business.
J.P.Morgan Ventures Energy Corp., a subsidiary of the bank, said its 100 pence-a-share bid, made through Carbon Acquisition Company, had the backing of shareholders representing 19.9 percent of the company.
It said EcoSecurities had successfully realized value from sourcing, developing and trading emission reductions, and it noted the firm had recorded its first period of profitability in the first half.
The offer represents a 120 percent premium to the group's share price before the start of the offer period on June 4.
"It looks like JPMorgan is backing the current management to take the business private," said Ken Rumph, an equity analyst at Nomura Code.
Ireland-based EcoSecurities Group Plc develops clean energy projects under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, which allows companies to export cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to emerging countries like China and India, where such reductions are cheaper to make.
EcoSecurities shares were up 11.5 percent at 101.5 pence by 1411 GMT (10:11 a.m. EDT).
Carbon Acquisition Company said the acceptances included 13.6 million shares held by current and former directors and 9.9 million shares owned by Credit Suisse.
In the offer statement, Carbon Acquisition said the acceptances would remain binding in the event of a competing offer being made.
"It's a scorched earth, blocking tactic (and) it's a problem for Guanabara if these blocking minority figures are holding out," Rumph added.
EcoSecurities rebuffed on September 1 a revised 90 pence-a-share offer from Guanabara Holdings, set up by EcoSecurities co-founder and former president Pedro Moura Costa.
The board of Guanabara said Monday afternoon it noted Carbon Acquisition's offer and will make a further announcement following a review of its own position.
"It remains to be seen if Guanabara will improve its offer and bid something closer to our 'bare-bones' valuation of 114 pence per share," said Mirabaud's Agustin Hochschild.
In July, Guanabara reached a deal with then rival bidder EDF Trading, a unit of French utility EDF, offering it the option to purchase a portion of EcoSecurities' pre-2012 offset portfolio if Guanabara's bid was successful.
($1=.6027 Pound)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
