Section D:
Mitigation.
Having established in
Sections A and C that ambitious cuts to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are
required to stop global temperatures exceeding a 2C increase parties have
decided to use this section to explain why they couldn't possibly be expected
to make those cuts. The result of everybody piling in their own specific opt
outs is utter carnage.
The first 18
paragraphs are just about readable although they need extensive re-writing
before any of the options can be included in the agreement itself. However the text
then leaps into what I can only assume is Option (4) of paragraph 21. It then
continues with the start of paragraph 21 for a bit before crossing into
paragraph 26 before reverting back to paragraph 21. It sticks with paragraph 21
for about a page before leaping on to paragraph 32 before moving on to
paragraph 27 and so on.
I spent a good five
hours on Friday (3/7/15) reading and re-reading this section but still could
not make any sense of it.Not only does it fail to function as the basis for a
durable international agreement it doesn't even work as a negotiating document
giving a coherent indication of parties differing positions. I still think the specific author should be commended for a sterling effort under the circumstances though.
The only good thing I
can say about this section is that it really serves to highlight my point of
just how unproductive certain parties obsession with the negotiating text at
the expense of all else truly is. I'm thinking specifically of Uganda's bizarre
one man protest at the end of COP20 when they wouldn't let anyone discuss any
other issue - even whether there would be a COP21 - until certain phrases had
been voted into the negotiating text.
The problem is that
certain parties - particularly the less capable/developed ones - think that we
are preparing an agreement similar to the Kyoto Protocol that will last for 10
years before being replaced a new agreement. As such they think that every
specific concern they have about their individual circumstances need to be
included in the text.
However what we're actually trying to do is create an
agreement that will last for at least the next 80-100 years. Within that
agreement there will be multiple commitment periods of either 5 or 10 years.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss nations changes in circumstance
and specific concerns at each one of those commitment periods. The discussions
could even last for a full ten years if the agreement opts for a 10 year
commitment period.
Therefore rather then
trying to regulate for every individual nations circumstances over the next
century this section should be about establishing a standard format for nations
to submit their individual plans to mitigate the causes of climate change over
the commitment period. It is much easier to achieve this by discussing the benefits and problems presented by individual case studies then by arguing over complex
phrases in little brackets.
Fortunately around the time of COP20 someone circulated a template for the format of these submissions. Since then 17 nations including the 28 member European Union (EU) have submitted examples of what these submissions should look like in practice with some following the suggested template and others opting not to. Mexico's contribution is certainly worth a read.
What I will be doing now is carefully reading through those submissions looking commonalities that can be used to establish clauses in the agreement. For example if it's agreed that the same format can be used for both AERT's and DEMA's and that they have to include both a baseline year and a business as usual (BAU) baseline then most of the current text can be replaced with a simple list of criteria
Obviously this is going to be quite a long task so unfortunately I can't make any promises about when it will be completed.
15:50 on 6/7/15 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment