World Climate Roundup: Jet Stream's Stall Over Asia Causes Chaos, Heat Builds in the West

The world is experiencing the climate in stark, unforgiving and eye opening ways. The jet stream has locked in place over Asia, producing extreme weather, day after day, while a dome of high pressure over the middle of the U.S. drives temperatures up in the Western hemisphere.

Russia is fighting smog from over 900 forest and peat bog fires that now threaten to go radioactive due to the dust leftover from the Chernobyl disaster. Pakistan is experiencing record flooding along the Indus River that has destroyed a significant number of crops and has left whole populations homeless with many dead. China's floods have presented themselves as massive slides of mud and rock. In Portugal, it's fires again. In Spain, it's jellyfish washing on shore in such massive numbers that over seven hundred beach goers were stung.

Long hot summer of fire and floods fit predictions

Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Pakistan and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It's not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way.

The Economist: A taste of things to come

As torrential storms visit unprecedented flooding on Pakistan, thousands of kilometres to the northwest Russia burns. The two events are linked by a large-scale pattern of atmospheric circulation which is producing a particularly persistent area of high pressure over Russia. They are also linked in both being the sort of events climate scientists predict more of in a warming world.

According to Brian Hoskins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, the wave-generating activity of anticyclones in the Atlantic this year has been particularly well attuned to setting up these sorts of stationary waves, resulting in persistent troughs of low pressure over western and central Europe, a ridge of high pressure over Russia, and lows again to the east. The air itself does not necessarily sit still during all this, but the pressure patterns which dominate the weather persist. The high pressure over Russia is particularly pronounced and persistent, amounting to a block in the circulation of the atmosphere.

Smog Blankets Moscow as ~900 Wildfires Rage in Record Heat (Video)

Russia is experiencing an unprecedented heat wave this summer. This has led to a record outbreak of nearly nine hundred forest and peat bog fires across the country. Moscow is blanketed inside and out in toxic smoke and smog.

Russian fires threaten to stir Chernobyl radiation

MOSCOW – Wildfires threatened to stir radioactive particles left over from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster back into the air over western Russia, and authorities boosted forest patrols to keep the flames from contaminated areas.

Deadly fires rage on in Portugal

Portuguese firefighters are continuing to battle dozens of forest fires that are sweeping through the country and have killed two of their colleagues. 50 fires are burning in central and northern parts of the country, according to the Reuters news agency. The country's civil defence agency says that 1,500 firefighters have been mobilised to tackle the blazes. Around 18,000 hectares (44,500 acres) of forests and bushland are now believed to have been affected. Temperatures in some areas were forecast to reach 40C (104 degrees Fahrenheit).

Pakistan floods cause 'huge losses' to crops (Video)

Pakistan's floods have caused "huge losses" to its crops, the country's food minister has told the BBC. Nazar Muhammad Gondal said significant amounts of the grain, sugarcane and rice harvests had been washed away.

The US, which has already committed $55m to relief efforts, announced it was contributing another $16.2m to the UN refugee agency and the International Red Cross. In a statement this week, the Pakistani Taliban described the floods as God's punishment on the country for accepting secular leaders. They urged Pakistanis to boycott foreign aid.

China flooding expected to worsen with heavy rains

China expects heavy rain in the coming days. China flooding and mudslides have already killed more than 1,000 people, with tens of thousands still at risk. Rescuers in China are bracing for potentially more flooding just 72 hours after the country’s worst mudslide in decades.

Flotilla of Stinging Jellyfish Hit Spanish Beach

A vast flotilla of small, virtually undetectable jellyfish stung hundreds of people along Spanish beaches this week, the kind of swimmer's nightmare that biologists say will be increasingly common because of climate change.

Huge Ice Island - 100 Square Miles - Calves Off Greenland Glacier (Video)

Greenland's ice sheet has calved (broken off) a one-hundred square mile island of ice off its Petermann Glacier, which will contribute to sea level rise. Dr. Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Institute has stated unequivocally that it is due to warming temperatures caused by rising C02 in the atmosphere.

In the U.S., it's heat waves:

Heat Wave Grips U.S. Midwest Through the Weekend

Temperatures in the central U.S. are forecast to climb back to the 100-degree Fahrenheit (37.7 Celsius) mark this week, and in many areas it will feel much hotter than that, according to the National Weather Service.

Excessive-heat warnings have been issued for nine states along the Mississippi River and a heat advisory covers parts of seven more, the weather service said. It’s the latest heat wave of a Northern Hemisphere summer that has shattered records around the world.

Anyone see a pattern?

More to follow.



LABELS: CHINA, CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, GLOBAL WARMING, PAKISTAN, PORTUGAL, RUSSIA,SPAIN, UNITED STATES, WORLD NEWS

Smog Blankets Moscow as ~900 Wildfires Rage in Record Heat (Video)

Russia is experiencing an unprecedented heat wave this summer. This has led to a record outbreak of nearly nine hundred forest and peat bog fires across the country. Moscow is blanketed inside and out in toxic smoke and smog. The forecast is for more record breaking heat to follow.

Russia's worst heatwave in more than a century has seen the mortality rate in Moscow soar by a third in July. There were 14,340 deaths in the capital over the month, 4,824 more than last July, an official has revealed.

Southeastern winds blew smoke from the areas worst affected by peat bog and forest fires. Weather experts said the winds are unlikely to change over the next few days.

The concentration of airborne pollutants such as carbon monoxide has further intensified and is at more than six times normal levels, according to city health officials – the worst seen to date in Moscow. The smog has seeped into buildings and the city's subway system.

This is one story of many during a heat wave that has impacted most of the United States, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, China, North Africa and the European continent, along with Canada, Russia, Indochina, South Korea and Japan from May through August 2010.

As reported in this article, The Planet has a Fever, the last decade has seen the warmest temperatures on record.  Now, we are seeing the fever become fire.  The impact on Moscow is clear in its lack of visibility from one building to the next.  The impact of the obfuscation of the reality of climate change is evident in rising temperatures and the fires that have resulted therein.

Releated articles:

The Planet has a Fever
NOAA: Past Decade the Warmest on Record
Study: Phytoplankton, Plants at the Base of the Food Chain in Decline Due to Warming
LABELS: CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, GLOBAL WARMING, HEAT WAVE, RUSSIA, WORLD NEWS

International Findings from EPA Analysis of the American Power Act

by Jake Schmidt

The Obama Administration has just released the US EPA analysis of the American Power Act and it shows that US action coupled with reasonable actions by other countries will put us on a path to preventing the worst impacts of global warming.  It also shows that a lengthy delay in the deployment of international offsets will have a very minimal impact on the cost of the program.  Both findings address issues that opponents to comprehensive climate and energy legislation use to argue that we shouldn’t take action or that it won’t really be as cheap as everyone says (my colleague summarizes how EPA’s analysis shows the draft bill is affordable, equitable, and effective).

So let’s take each of these points in turn.   

1.  US Action Spurs/Solidifies Action of Other Countries.  One of the chief talking points of opponents of US clean energy and climate legislation is the claim that the US taking action would have little impact on global warming.  Taking US action in isolation, they claim that reducing US emissions won't make much of a dent in world emissions and future temperature increases. 

But those critics miss two important points:

1. Other countries besides the US are taking action and have committed to emissions cuts (as I’ve discussed here); and
2.  US action spurs/solidifies those actions (as I’ve discussed here).

This new EPA analysis shows the impact of these two realities in a tangible way.  EPA analyzed the case where other countries also take aggressive action to address global warming.  They analyzed a scenario where the:

•    US undertakes emissions cuts in line with the climate bills targets;
•    Developed countries emissions take annual emissions cuts until their emissions are 83% below 2005 levels in 2050 (the same emissions path as the US climate bill and their G8 commitments);
•    Developing countries adopt a policy beginning in 2025 that caps emissions at 2015 levels, and linearly reduces emissions to 26% below 2005 levels by 2050; and
•    The combination of U.S., developed, and developing country actions limits emissions in 2050 at 50% below 2005 levels.

These aren't made up scenarios.  The actions that EPA analyzes are in line with the commitments developed countries have made as a part of the Copenhagen Accord and as they made at the most recent meeting of the Group of Eight (as I discussed here andhere).  And they are in line with the actions developing countries have committed to as a part of the Copenhagen Accord and which they are beginning to implement (as I’ve discussed here and as the ClimateWorks Foundation has summarized here).  So EPA isn’t just pulling numbers out of a hat as these are based in facts.

What you can see in the following figure is that global emissions are significantly reduced through this combination of actions by the US and other countries.  (The line labeled "World Cap-G8 (Scn.2)" is analysis of the actions taken by these countries and the line labeled reference is where they would head without these actions.)*

This scale of action would hold global emissions to a level called for by scientists and world leaders (see here and here) - namely 3.6°F (2°C) above pre-industrial levels (as the EPA analysis shows, see slide 22 and 23). 

2.  A significant delay in the deployment of international offsets will have a minimal impact on the affordability of the program.  Some opponents of climate legislation like to claim that the affordability of the program is very dependent on the number of international offsets that are deployed.  They argue that there is no way that those numbers of international offsets will be available, so the actual costs of the program will be much higher (because you’ll eliminate a source of low cost reductions that EPA analyzes).  If you believe that international offsets will take time to come into the market (there will be a delay), then EPA analysis shows that this will actually have a minimal impact on the cost of the program.

As the EPA analysis states: delaying international offsets by 10 years increases the cost of the program by 1%.  An even longer delay of 20 years increases prices only 3%.  These are pretty minimal cost increases for pretty long delays.**  So if you are skeptical that international offsets will be ready right away then you’ll be glad to know that the cost increase is very small.

**********

Enactment of the American Power Act is affordable, equitable, effective, and will help prevent the worst impacts of global warming.  And this is true even if you think that there will be a delay in the deployment of credible offsets from activities like deforestation reductions in developing countries or tree planting programs.  Even in this unlikely scenario the bill is still affordable. 

Now is the time for the US to make these global scenarios a reality.  It is time for the US to join the other countries taking action and help prevent dangerous global warming.

-------------------

* While EPA did analyze a scenario where developing countries don’t do anything until after 2050, the yellow line labeled “World Cap – Developing Countries After 2050”, this is a pretty extreme scenario.  This scenario is basically saying that developing countries will do nothing between now and 2050.  This would ignore the reality of the actions that they are actually taking today and the commitments that they have made to go further.

** EPA analyzed a scenario at the request of Senator Voinovich where no international offsets were allowed.  But this is an extreme case where instead of a modest delay, you have no international offsets ever.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

—————————–

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog or follow him on twitter). And help track countries actions to reduce their global warming pollution.


LABELS: BRAZIL, CHINA, CLIMATE CHANGE, COPENHAGEN, ENVIRONMENT, EPA, GLOBAL WARMING, JAKE SCHMIDT, NRDC, UNFCCC, WORLD NEWS

Indonesia Takes Concrete Steps to Address Deforestation as a Part of Agreement with Norway

by Jake Schmidt

Indonesia and Norway inked a deal last week to take concrete actions to reduce Indonesia’s deforestation emissions.  Indonesia is the world’s 3rd largest emitter of global warming pollution (when deforestation emissions are included) so this is a very important effort.  The deal between Indonesia and Norway was reached in the lead-in to the Oslo forest conference where over 50 countries agreed to a new Partnership to address deforestation (as I discussed here).  The deal with Indonesia is a critical agreement as it requires action from the Indonesian government and assistance from the Norwegian government to make a serious dent in the loss of Indonesia’s forests. 

In announcing the agreement Indonesian President Yudhoyono stated:

“Indonesia stands by its commitment to reduce our emissions by 26 per cent relative to business as usual levels by 2020. This we will do out of our own funds through a set of measures I will be announcing in the near future.” With the help of international partners, we could reduce our emissions by as much as 41 per cent”

This is a commitment made by Indonesia as a part of the Copenhagen Accord (as we’ve tracked here).  Its efforts to reduce deforestation will be critical to meeting that commitment as deforestation accounts for the majority of Indonesia’s emissions.  So the actions of Indonesia and Norway are an important component of ongoing efforts to implement specific actions to meet the commitments of these countries to reduce global warming pollution.

This agreement couldn’t come soon enough as Indonesia loses an area the size of approximately 12 football fields every day to deforestation.  So what have they agreed to do immediately to stop this trend? 

Details of the package are just emerging, so here are some of the core elements that have emerged to date.  Some of which have been spelled out explicitly in the Letter of Intent (LOI) between Norway and Indonesia and others have been reported in the press by leading Indonesian officials (I’ll note where they are explicitly in the LOI).

Indonesia will place a 2 year moratorium on granting new concessions for rainforest and peat forest clearing beginning in 2011 (in the LOI).  Concessions already granted to companies will not be stopped (a point that it seems will be one of the actions stemming from the agreement as I’ll discuss below).  This is an important freeze as it will essentially stop digging the hole by not granting more permits for future deforestation.  It is expected that this moratorium will be enshrined in an Indonesia Presidential decree, which hopefully will send a clear signal that this is real and will encourage cross-ministry coordination (both have been challenging issues in Indonesia in the past).

Norway will commit $1 billion to assist Indonesia in taking specific actions (in the LOI).  The agreement is to be implemented in three phases:

1. “Preparation”.  Beginning immediately the countries agree to specific steps including to:

•   Complete a national forestry strategy;
•   Establish a special agency reporting directly to President to coordinate efforts;
•   Create a funding mechanism to be managed by an internationally reputable financial institution to ensure that money is properly spent, managed, reported, and accounted; and
•   Select a province-wide pilot effort to reduce deforestation (the “province must have large intact tracts of rainforest and face planned deforestation and forest degradation projects of a scale that will have significant impact on national emissions levels if implemented”).

2. “Transformation”.  Starting in January 2011, they will begin the second phase which is to make Indonesia ready for contributions based on verified emissions reductions (the 3rd phase) while also “initiating large scale mitigation action[s]”.  Steps outlined in the agreement include to:

•   Develop a country-wide system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation, including independent international verification.
•   “Indentify, develop and implement appropriate Indonesia-wide policy instruments and enforcement capabilities” including: a 2 year suspension on all new concessions (as reported above), establish a database of degraded lands so that economic activity can be focused on these lands instead of converted peatland or natural forests; and enforcing existing laws against illegal logging and trade in timber.
•   Implement a province-wide pilot program to reduce deforestation emissions to begin in January 2011 and possibly a second to begin in 2012.  

3. “Contributions for Verified Emissions Reductions”.  Funding for the first 2 phases will be made on the basis of performance, but not necessarily on the basis of achieving specific emissions reductions.  So Phase 3, to begin in 2014, will be based upon implementing a national system of “contributions-for-verified emissions reductions”.  The system will be based upon annual contributions to Indonesia for independently verified national emissions reductions below an agreed deforestation “reference level”.

Indonesia will revoke existing forestry licenses held by palm oil and timber firms.  A key Indonesian official announced that as a part of the funding from Norway, the government will spend part of the money to compensate businesses that have existing concessions (as reported by Reuters).  The story reports that Agus Purnomo, head of the secretariat of Indonesia's National Climate Change Council, clarified that:

Compensation to permit holders could include cash, land swaps or other "amicable, workable and realistic solutions"

Permit holders will find out within six months if their concessions will be honoured, he said.  "Some of them don't have a valid permit, they are just making a claim," said Purnomo. "If they don't have a valid permit, we are not going to compensate. If they are getting it through bribery, we are not going to give" compensation.  

**********

This agreement includes three critical elements that are essential to addressing deforestation.  First, it includes clear political will by Indonesia that it wants to take critical steps to address its deforestation emissions (and it aims to establish some lasting institutions and structures to ensure that this will is signaled across all relevant players in the country).  Second, the agreement includes concrete steps that Indonesia will take.  And recent statements from key government officials provide additional signals that they are moving in the right direction.  Lastly, it sets aside dedicated resources from Norway to support Indonesia in implementing specific measures.

President Obama is expected to make a trip to Indonesia later this month, where there are rumors that the US and Indonesia will announce a partnership on deforestation reductions.  We expect that the US adds to and complements the promising signs emerging from the Indonesia and Norwegian agreement.

Hopefully this agreement and the subsequent US one will help set Indonesia on a path to addressing its global warming pollution from deforestation.  We’ll have to await further details and the implementation of specific steps before passing final judgment, but the signs are promising.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

—————————–
Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog or follow him on twitter). And help track countries actions to reduce their global warming pollution.

Now is the Time to Shift World Bank Resources to Clean Energy

by Jake Schmidt

The World Bank has just announced its intent to seek $86 billion for a general capital increase (the GCI) from its donor countries (see World Bank press release).  It is time for the World Bank to become a full part of the solution to global warming, not part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time. The World Bank needs to seize this opportunity to shift its energy investments to clean energy.  The US should only approve a contribution towards the Bank’s general capital increase if it secures a firm commitment to transition to clean energy.

With the request of a general capital increase from the Bank, individual donor countries will now need to agree to fund this increase and commit to provide specific amounts.  In the case of the U.S., the Treasury Department requests the funding, Congress would then need to authorize and ultimately approve a possible U.S. contribution.  We expect such a request in the coming weeks.   

World Bank is Not Doing Enough to Support Clean Energy Lending.  With over $8.2 billion in energy investments around the world last year the World Bank has a significant influence on developing country energy investments.  In 2009, the World Bank estimates that 40% of its energy sector lending was in “low carbon energy”*—with energy efficiency and renewables** accounting for 21% and 17% respectively .  While the share of “low carbon energy” has increased in the past from only 17% in 2003, fossil fuels are still a large share of the Bank’s energy investments.  The Bank Information Center calculates that from 2007-2009 fossil fuels still made up over 48% of the World Bank’s energy lending, while 35% of their energy loans were for energy efficiency and renewables (excluding large hydro). 

To put this energy investment in context, the total lending for energy efficiency and renewables** in 2009 was $3.1 billion and the recent coal-fired power plant approved by the World Bank for South Africa was $3 billion – so a single fossil project was the size of all of their energy efficiency and renewable investments in 2009.  While the South African’s proposed that they would come back to the Bank for a $1.25 billion loan for emissions reduction actions and they did package $260 million for renewable energy as a part of the Eskom loan, this combined energy efficiency and renewable energy package would amount to 33% of the total energy loan to South Africa – less than the modest 40% share that the Bank has achieved for its entire energy lending of late.       

At the same time, the World Bank is working to position itself as a leader in providing clean sustainable energy to the poor.  As part of their mission to fight poverty they see a strong role for the Bank in helping deliver energy access for the 1.5 billion people that don’t have access to electricity.  Those are worthy objectives that we support.  But achieving this aim doesn’t have to be at the expense of putting those same populations at risk of severe impacts on their development which will come from global warming.

Commitments to Address Global Warming and Phase-Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies Must Shape Decisions on the GCI.  Governments around the world must consider the general capital increase request in light of the Bank’s recent performance in the area of low carbon sustainable energy projects, the commitments made by world leaders to address global warming, and the commitment by the G20 to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies.  In light of the World Bank’s recent foray into lending for a South African coal-fired power plant, the Bank needs to do better on energy sector investments.  A point formally outlined in the US response to this loan. 

Following from the Copenhagen Climate Summit over 120 governments formally associated with the Copenhagen Accord –committing to move to a global low carbon economy – and over 75 countries formally registered specific actions that they would take to reduce emissions.  These same countries are both the donors to and recipients of World Bank funding so this commitment should presumably guide their World Bank strategy. 

And the 20 developed and developing countries that make up the G20 committed at their last Summit to: rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption (as I discussed here).  Continuing to subsidize fossil fuel projects through the World Bank or other multilateral development banks would go against such a commitment.

These are commitments and context which should not be taken lightly or ignored.

The general capital increase should not be approved without clear energy reforms from the Bank.  When the Bank announced its request for the general capital increase it did mention climate change in its areas for strategic focus, but it didn’t address the call to condition capital increases in sustainable energy financing as urged by over 100 environmental, faith, women’s, indigenous and development organizations throughout the world, including the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In a statement these groups called for international financial institutions to stop using public resources to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.  The statement said:

“we call on governments to not support a general capital increase for any part of the World Bank Group unless the Bank Group ends support for all fossil fuel projects (other than assistance with transition such as mine closure) that do not have as their sole purpose energy access for the poor.  Fossil fuel projects that expand energy access for the poor should only be supported after a full examination of all costs--including damages to public health, welfare and the environment--of the project and any new renewable and efficiency alternatives demonstrates that they are the best alternative for delivering energy services to the poor.

Until such policies are approved, countries should direct funds requested by the Bank and other institutions for general capital increases to other financing mechanisms for supporting sustainable development, poverty reduction and clean energy.”

We need clear commitments (in writing and practice) that the World Bank is truly turning to clean energy investments.  Right now the World Bank is developing an energy strategy, which will guide their future energy lending.  Until commitments to truly shift to clean energy are ensured, the US and other donors should withhold commitments to the World Bank’s general capital increase. 

It is time for the World Bank to truly become a part of the solution to address global warming.

--------------------

This post was written with my colleague, Heather Allen.

* Defined as new renewable energy, energy efficiency, and hydropower.

**Excluding hydro larger than 10MW.

-----------------------------

Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).

Brazil, South Africa, India and China Want Legally Binding Outcome in 2011 at the Latest

by Jake Schmidt

Ministers from four of the major emerging economies – Brazil, South Africa, India, and China (the “BASIC” group) – met over the weekend and through Monday to discuss the next steps in international efforts to address global warming.  These four countries played a critical role in Copenhagen and collectively account for around 30% of the world’s global warming pollution* so they are critical players in addressing this challenge.  And each of them have made commitments as a part of the Copenhagen Accord to reduce their emissions and are implementing policies to achieve those goals (as I discussed here).

So when these four countries meet, we pay very close intention to both the spirit and words of their joint statements.  And their statement from this weekend provides us with some insights on where they think things should head internationally (full text available here).  Here are some insights that I drew that were new (or at least reaffirmed more firmly by putting pen to paper on that issue).

They want an internationally legally binding agreement (and one that applies to them as well).  Coming out of Copenhagen, there was some uncertainty in the minds of some commentators and countries regarding whether the major emerging economies really wanted an international legally binding agreement.  Some perceived that these countries only want a legally binding agreement if it applies to the developed countries (and not to developing countries).  While they didn’t completely clarify what they mean by “legally binding” (a critical point) these countries did confirm that they do indeed want a “legally binding agreement”.  As they said:

“Developing countries strongly support international legally binding agreements, as the lack of such agreements hurts developing countries more than developed countries…Ministers agreed that…such agreements must follow two tracks and include an agreement on quantified emission reduction targets under a second commitment period for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as a legally binding agreement on long-term cooperative action under the Convention” [emphasis added].

So that was a mouthful, but essentially the part saying we want a “legally binding agreement on long-term cooperative action under the Convention” would apply to developing countries as this is the track of the negotiations where developing country commitments would be covered.

They want such an international legally binding agreement no later than 2011.  As for the timing of such an agreement, the BASIC countries stated:

“Ministers felt that a legally binding outcome should be concluded at Cancun, Mexico in 2010, or at the latest in South Africa by 2011.”

As I’ve mentioned here, I think that it is critical that the upcoming climate meeting in Mexico this December focus on achieving progress on actions, rather than “binding” or “treaty” so I would think that we are more likely to agree on such a framework in 2011.  With world leaders coming to the Rio +20 meeting in Brazil later in 2012, countries should be prepared to not only confirm their international commitment but also the actions that they are taking to make that agreement in 2011 have life (it will need deeds and not just words).

Make progress before this December on some key foundations of the international effort.  These countries reaffirmed that they wanted to see progress in the lead-in to Cancun on:

• the early flow of fast start finance – the “approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012” agreed in the Copenhagen Accord;
• implementation of the mechanism to address deforestation and forest degradation;
• architecture of technology development and transfer;
• an adaptation framework that includes implementation of measures (not just reports or plans)
• monitoring, reporting, and verification of developed country commitments on finance to support developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of global warming.

One piece that they left off and that I think is critical for getting agreement on these foundational elements in Cancun is to agree on the guidelines for the “transparency” pieces in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here).  These provisions around more frequent reporting of developing country emissions and progress towards their commitments are an important linchpin for the developed countries (such as the US and more frequently stressed by the Europeans).  So we must make progress on these pieces if we are to also make progress on some of the other foundations of an international agreement on global warming.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us, but these key countries still appear committed to getting an international agreement.  Ministers from around the world will be meeting again on May 2-4 in the “Petersberg Climate Dialogue” – co-hosted by Germany and Mexico – so we’ll see what signals emerge when a broader group of countries plan out the path from Copenhagen through Cancun.  I for one hope that the world takes some tangible steps this year to rebuild trust and lay the foundation for an international agreement because we don’t have time to squabble as every year of delay makes it much, much more challenging to address global warming.

----------------

* Data from the World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicator Tool based upon 2005 data.

-----------------------------


Jake Schmidt is the International Climate Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council where he helps to develop the post-2012 international response to climate change (for more information see his blog).