the international climate change regime · 2016-11-14 · the international climate change regime...
TRANSCRIPT
Christophe CASSENCentre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le
Développement (CIRED)cassen@centre‐cired.fr
The international Climate Change RegimeModule changement climatique, semaine Athens
14/11/2016
“historic ” (Washington Post, 12/12/15
the “world’s greatest diplomatic success”(The Guardian, 14/12/15)
a “big, big deal” (NY Times, 16/12/15)
“ Un accord historique ”Le monde 14/12/15
“ Un cap de bonne espérance ”Libération13/12/15
• Put the Paris agreement in perspective – What Breaks? What continuities ?
• Identify « path dependencies » (Pierson, 2000) around key issues
• Analyse the « critical junctures »/turning points and the intensity of the current paradigm shift of negotiations
Objectives
• The early stages of climate science
• Agenda setting of climate change at the international level(1985‐1990)
• Institutionnalization of the climate regime : the Rio Convention‐Framework and the Kyoto Protocol (1992‐2005)
• Negotiations on a Post Kyoto climate regime: toward a paradigm shift (2005‐2015)
International negotiations on climate change: milestones
L’effet de serre
• Joseph Fourier 1822, John Tyndall 1859, SvanteArrhenius 1896, Guy Callendar 1938 Global warming thesis in competition with other
theories on climate (cooling due to aerosols etc.)
• 1957 David Keeling: continuous measurement of CO2 concentration (at the top of Hawaï)
• 70’s and 80’s: analysis of sediment rock and icemajor information of glacial cycles
• The break of 70’s Before the 70’s :
• Research on controling climate (outbreaks of rains, diversion of hurricanes )
After the 70’s:• Research on environmental problems with human
origins• Report Limits to Growth (club of Rome) and
Stockholm conference (UN)
Charles David Keeling (1928‐2005)
The Greenhouse gas effect
• 1945 John von Neumann: meteorology as a first application of “computers” + development of observation altitude
networks and telecommunications tools Meteorological Project 1946, Princeton 1954: weather forecast functioning (on a
limited spatial scale)
• 1955 Norman Philipps (Princeton): Global Circulation Model Reproduce main features of circulation at
the atmospheric and global scales
• 70’s: GCM used to forecast weather John von Neumann in front of Princeton Computer (1952)
Numerical weather forecasts
• 1967 Global Atmospheric Research Program• 1979 : First World Climate Conference (WMO)• 1985 : UNEP/WMO Villach Conference
Dominated by researchers
Agenda setting of climate change and first initiatives du (1985‐1990)
• Treaty on transborders pollutions in Europe (LRTAP, 1979)
• Vienna Convention (1985), Montreal Protocol (1987): preservation of the ozone layer
Optimism in multilateral coordination of environmental problems (1985‐1990)
• Georges Bush sr and Thatcher’s proactive role in Toronto (1988)
• …Perverse effects of the Gulf War
• « American way of life is not negotiable » (G. Bush Sr.)
Beyond environmental concerns, an energy security challenge
« Ce que le peuple américain a retenu de la guerre du Golfe, c’est qu’il est extrêmement plus facile et plus drôle d’aller botter les fesses des gens au Moyen‐Orient que de faire des sacrifices pour limiter la dépendance de l’Amérique vis‐à‐vis du pétrole importé..…Ceux qui me connaissent savent que je n’aurais jamais utilisé une phrase comme celle que je viens d’employer si elle n’était pas utilisée aux niveaux les plus élevés du gouvernement. » (James Schlesinger, 15e Congrès du Conseil Mondial de l’Energie, sept. 1992, Madrid)
• 1988 : G7 conference (Toronto)– Establishment of the IPCC
• 1989: La Hague summit• 1990: Second World Climate Conference
Intergovernmental response (quick!)
Agenda setting of climate change at the international level(1985‐1990)
• 1967 Global Atmospheric Research Program• 1979 : First World Climate Conference (WMO)• 1985 : UNEP/WMO Villach Conference
Dominated by researchers
1988: historic drough in the US
• Institutionnal arrangements• Emission reduction objectives• Burden sharing• Instruments of coordination• Rules of compliance• Issue linkages
Institutionnalization of the climate regime (1990‐1997)Challenges before Rio
• Influenced by the regime on the preservation of ozone layer (Vienna Convention and Montreal protocol)
• No quantified objectives (Art2)
• Principle of Common but differentiatied responsibilities (Art 3)– Distinction btw Annex 1 (OECD, East‐
European countries and ex‐USSR) and non Annex 1 countries
Rio (1992): Framework‐Convention on climate change (UNFCCC)
Art 2: “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. “
Art 3: “ The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”.
Ratified by 194 countries, entered in force in 1994
A contrasted map of past emissions : 80% vs 20%
The principle of Common but differentiatedresponsibilities
• COP (conferences of the parties) : highest body of the climate negotiations– COP1 (1995): Berlin (once the Convention ratified)– CMP (conferences for the Kyoto Protocol) after 2005
• Dedicated administration – Secretariat to the convention – SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological
Advice): interface btw negotiations and science– SBI (Subsidiary Body for Implementation): supervises the
implementation of the decisions
Organization of the climate negotiations
Umbrella group(USA, Canada,
Australia, Japan,New-Zeland, Russia,Ukrain and Norway)
+JUSCANNZ
AOSISsmall Islands
EC
OPEC South Arabia….
G77+ChinaDeveloping countries
and LDCs CLIMATE
Negotiations
Inside the COPs: Negotiation groups
• Toolbox of climate instruments– Tax, carbon market– Subsidies– Command and control regulation– R&D
From Rio to Kyoto: the debate on instruments
• Failure of carbon tax projects‒Mixed European tax energy/carbon‒Btu tax Clinton: applied to all sectors
• Opposition of lobbies (e.g GCC)• Free window for quotas and carbon markets
From Rio to Kyoto: the debate on instruments
Kyoto Protocol: a top down approach
Flexibility mechanisms:time, space, implementation
of emission trading, JI
Burden sharing of emissions
‐5%/ 1990 btw 2008‐2012
Legally binding emissionreduction commitments for Annex I countries
• EU 15 ‐8%/1990, USA ‐6%, Canada ‐7%, Germany ‐21%, Spain +15% etc…
Flexibility mechanisms of the Protocol
A compromise EU/US !
• Additionnality of flexibilitymechanisms (US vs EU)
• 2000: COP6, a dead end• 2001: US withdrawal from
the Kyoto negotiations• UE takes the leadership,
launches the EUETS• Marrakech (2001, COP7)
– Agreement on the modalities of implementation
• 2005: Kyoto Protocol entersinto force– 50% of parties, 55% of emissions
A complex implementation process of the Kyoto Protocol
“The United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to…at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would‐mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period” (Byrd Hagel resolution, 1997)
• UNFCCC + Kyoto Protocol = pilars of the international climateregime
• The Kyoto protocol : « Good first Step » (Grubb, 2003) or « Flawed Process » (Cooper, 2001)?– A Top Down approach– A burden sharing approach which does not solve the equity issues
(CBDR‐RC, a major claim of Developing countries)– Market coordination instruments
• Negotiations under « ossification » (Depledge, 2006)
A first review
Rio1992
Berlin‐Kyoto1995‐1997
Montreal2005
Top down coordination, Market instrument, burden sharing
La Hague‐Marrakech2000‐2001
Negotiation Paradigm
Pathway taken
Turning point/bifurcation
Deepening of the negotiation paradigm
Equity
Finance
Instruments
Policies and measures
Cap and trade
Annex 1/non Annex 1 CBDR‐RC
FEM, fonds pour l’adaptation…
Kyoto Objectives
NAMAs
Objectives
Berlin Mandate/Cap and Trade/CDM
• 2005: new start of climate negotiations(Montreal, COP11)
• 2 channels– 2nd phase of the Kyoto Protocol (AWG‐KP)– Global agreement within the framework of the UNFCCC (AWG‐
LCA)
Toward a new Climate regime (2005‐2015)
• Mitigation• Adaptation• Financing• Technological transfer
…..it is agreed that an agreement will beconcluded in 2009 at Copenhagen
Bali roadmap: 4 pilars
• Rising media coverage of the climate urgency(Stern report, 4th IPCC report)
New dynamics
IPCC, 2007
A rebalancing in terms of absolute emissions toward developing countries
Change in emissions by type of countries
IPCC, 2014
LMDC
Umbrella group(USA, Canada,Australia, Japan,
New‐Zeland, Russia,Ukrainia and Norway)
+JUSCANNZ
BASICSBrazil, AFS, China, India
AOSISsmall islands
ALBABolivia, Cuba,
Venezuela, Equador….
EU28
Rising of developing countries in climate negotiations
GIE Liechtenstein, Mexico, Monaco, South Korea
Switzerland.
OPEP Saoudi Arabia….
G77+ChinaDeveloping countries
andLDCs
ClimateNegeotiations
• Global Agreement – South links it to a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol and North
to the adoption of climate objectives by the South
• Equity– South attached to the Common but differentiated responsibilities
(climate debt of the North)– North questions the distinction Annex 1/ non Annex 1
• Adaptation– A second order issue in the 1990’s – Supported by the least developed countries (LDCs)
• Finance – South calls for transfers from North– North calls for a measuring and reporting system of related
mitigation and adaptation efforts
Main fault lines North/South
Countries of the Umbrella(USA, Canada,
Australia, Japan,New-Zeland, Russia,Ukrain and Norway)
+JUSCANNZ
BASICSBrazil, South Af, China, India
AOSISsmall Islands
ALBABolivia, Cuba,
Venezuela, Equador….
EU28
Increasing role of developing countries in negotiation groups
GIE Liechtenstein, Mexico, Monaco, South Korea,
Switzerland….
OPEC South Arabia….
G77+ChinaDeveloping countries
and LDCs CLIMATE
Negotiations
• Semi‐failure of Copenhagen in 2009: highlights the fault lines btw North and South countries
• The process is saved in Cancun (2010)• The Durban Platform 2011: in view of a global agreement in Paris (2015)
• Warsaw 2013 and Lima 2014: agenda and format of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
• The Paris Agreement: a success of the multilateral process of negotiations
A chaotic process since Bali (2007)
• A predictable scenario– US Limited room for manœuvre: project
Waxman Markley blocked at the Senate– Bad management of the Danish
presidency– « Huit clos » btw governments:
marginalization of EU (divided)/active developing contries +US
• Agreement supported by 28 countries, not ratified by all parties
Copenhagen Conference (COP15,2009): a semi‐failure
• 2°C Objective included in the agreement but not clearcommitments of the parties
• A new vision: « pledge‐and‐control »‒ Voluntary commitment of countries + reporting process (Measuring,
Reporting and Verification)‒ Adequation between the sum of each country commitment and
collective commitments not guaranted
• Financing support towards developing countries‒ ‘fast start’ finance (pre‐2012): 30 billions of $, for adaptation and emission
reduction (included deforestation) + 100 billions of $/yr in 2020
A turning point for the negotiation process
Pledges: mind the targets!
Effort to reach 2°C
• Saved the process and legitimacy to the Copenhagen Accord
• Calls for “a paradigm shift towards building a low‐carbon society that offers substantial opportunities and ensures continued high growth and sustainable development’’ (paragraph 10)
Cancun miracle and « paradigm shift »
• From a “fair burden sharing” to an “equitable access to development” (EASD)
• What consistency btw “ Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action ” (NAMAs) and development objectives (Bali) ‐> INDCs
• To ensure consistency− The Green Climate Fund
• An answer to the tension btw a pure environmental approach/approach more centered on the development isues
Implications of the Cancun « paradigm shift »
•Mitigation: – “Durban Platform”: initiates a negotiation process aimingto the elaboration of a « protocol, or other juridicialinstrument»–2nd phase of commitment of the Kyoto protocol (2013‐2020) : withdrawal of Canada, Japan, Russia, NZ; coversonly 13% of global emissions– Agreement on the rules of REDD (against deforestation)
•Adaptation– Loss and damage compensation Mechanism for the
most vulnerable countries
•Technologies– Adaptation Comity and Mechanism for technologies
relative to climate change.
•Finance– Financing and procedure of the Green Climate Fund
Durban (COP 17, 2011): set the bases of an agreement in 2015
• Agreement US/China (november 2014)– China: emission peak in 2030
– US: ‐28%/2005 by 2025
• A negotiation draft shorter than at Copenhagen
• Good management of the conference by France
• A climate of trust between North and South– South countries ready to agree on a global agreement
– A learning process (Copenhagen pledges, NAMAs then INDCs(Intended NationalDetermined Contributions)
• A question of word…. Shall or Should ?
COP21: some keys to success
• A global legally binding agreement (North and South countries)
• A long term objective: 2°C and call for 1.5°C (Art 2)‐ Carbon neutrality after 2050
• End (not completly) of the differentiation btw Developed and Developing countries
The Paris Agreement: an historic momentum (COP21)
• Communication by Parties of their NDC (Art 3, 6)‒ Legally binding
• Review stocktake every 5 yrs of commitments (Art 14)• 2018: “First facilitative dialogue”• 2023: Global stocktake (miigation, adaptation, finance)
• No penality system‒ Naming and blaming
Bottom up process + a common framework of transparency and responsibility
Financing: a rise in ambition
• Calls for aligning the financial flows towardsmitigation and adaptation actions (Art 2)
• Developed countries to provide financialresources to developing countries (Art 9)
• Confirms 100$ bn per yr by 2020 (déc, §54) • Floor level after 2020 (déc, §54)• Confirms the role of GCF
• Diverging evaluations on current availablefunds
• Carbon price: only at the natl level (déc, §137)• Recognizes the social, economic and environmental value of mitigation actions la (déc, §108)– A long term to reorient investments ?
• Toward a new market mechanism (Art 6) ?
States are free to adopt instruments to fulfill theirobjectives
• Several elements require clarification :– Notification of NDCSs, new market mechanisms (Art 6), stocktake, financing etc…)
• Gap btw objectives and means (ex. 1.5°C)– 134 INDCs (161 countries): 91% of GHG global emissions– Mitigation and adaptation objectives – Diverse content– Conditional to financial, tech support (developing countries)
« one step on a long road »?...
Source: Climate Action Tracker
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions: a first review
« one step on a long road »?... The regime complexfor climate change
UNFCCC, 2014
UNFCCC: a role to orchestrate the process vs risk of fragmentation?
Which articulation with other fora of negotiations(biodiversity, WTO, SDGs…)?
• Which role for and transnational initiatives? – Ex: African initiative for renewable energy,
International solar Alliance, carbon pricing leadership coalition etc…
– Emergence of « climate clubs » ?• Agenda of solutions
– NAZCA database
« one step on a long road »?... How triggering the action?
• Pilars and path dependency− UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol − Key principles: ex. CBDR, market mechanisms, 2°C, finance…
• Bali/Copenhagen: a turning point – From a top down to a bottom up approach– Gradual changes btw COP15 and COP21 – A hybrid architecture institutionnalized at Paris
Conclusion: a changing climate regime
• An approach more in line with national priorities of development
• An hybrid framework action (bottom up and top down)
• Adjustment of path dependencies and new pathways‒ Confirms the predominant place of t°C objective‒ CBDR = remains a guide for actions ‒ Carbon markets : from central to secondary
Paris: gives legitimacy to a paradigm shift initiated at Copenhagen/Bali
• « Une fabrique de la lenteur » by the UNFCCC process
• Acceleration of the low carbon transitionat the national level/stranded assets
• Restoring forces (state interests, economiccrisis, adverse geopolitical context)
Toward the end of the« Schisme de réalité » (Aykut et Dahan, 2015)? Contrasted dynamics…
Rio
1992
Berlin‐KyotoCOP1‐31995‐1997
BaliCOP132007
Copenhagen‐CancunCOP15‐162009‐2010
ParisCOP212015
Policies and measures
Cap and trade
DurbanCOP172011
INDC NDC
New market mechanisms
Annex 1/non Annex 1 CBDR‐RC
End of Annex 1/Non Annex 1
2°C
Berlin Mandate/Cap and Trade/CDM
Top down coordination, Market instrument, burden sharing
Hybrid Approach, articulated withnational dvelopment challenges
La HagueMarrakechCOP6‐72001
Green Climate Fund
Negotiation paradigm
MRV
CBDR-Respective Capacities
Key challenges
Turning point/bifurcation
Pathway taken
FEM, fonds pour l’adaptation
Kyoto Objectives
Pledges
NAMAs
Kyoto 2
100 bn$ and >
1.5°C
WarsawCOP192013
Finance
Equity
Objectives
Instruments
Photo : Mairie Paris
5th IPCC report group III: main results
• IPCC is an intergovernmental body which provides scientific and technico‐economic advices to the international community, in particular to the 170 parties of the UNFCCC
• 3 groups (climate science, impact/adaptation, mitigation)
• 1 president, 3 vice presidents • Small secretariat in Geneva
IPCC : co‐production of science and politics
1 summary for policy maker
1 technical summary
16 chapters235 authors900 reviewers
More than 2000 pagesAlmost 10,000 references
More than 38,000 comments
IPCC reports are the product from the world research community
Writing covers 5 years
• 1990: first Assessment Report (AR1)• 1995: second Assessment Report (AR2)• 2000: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)• 2002: AR3• 2005: Special report on Carbon Dioxyde Capture and
Storage• 2007: AR4• 2011: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and
Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN)• 2011: Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters (SREX) • 2013: AR5• 2018: Special Report on the 1.5°C • 202?: AR6
Overview of IPCC reports
AR2 “un faisceau d’éléments suggère qu’il y a une influence perceptible de l’homme sur le climat global”
AR3 “la majeure partiedu réchauffement observé au cours des cinquante dernières années est due aux activités humaines”
AR4 “le réchauffement du système climatique est sans equivoque”
AR5 “plus de la moitié de l’augmentation moyenne observée de la temperature observée d’origine humaine (95 à 100% de proba)”
• An hybrid process: – Statement based on a scientific consensus in line with
defined rules and also reviewed by governments– Not a linear process between science and negotiations
• The ambiguous role of the SPM (summary for policy makers)
• « Climategate »: limits of the process?• IPCC seems to have underestimated the
magnitude of climate change
An hybrid process, at the interface btw science and policy
• 1st and 2nd IPCC report (1990, 1995): key elements of the framing of the climate change issue‒ Distinction mitigation/adaptation‒ Short term and long term action ‒ Sectoral Potentials‒ Emission Scenarios
• 3rd report (2001): SRES scenarios (Special Report on Emission Scenarios, 2000)‒ Definition of four main ‘storylines’ along two axes ‒ For each storyline, weight of each driver of emission evaluated : technical change, globalization,
demography…‒ Reference for the next modeling exercises
• 4th report (2007): frame the assessment on the 2°C objective ‒ Limited window of opportunity to comply with the 2°C target‒ Moderate cost of the 2°C
Interactions science‐decision making in the building of the climate issue: impact of IPCC
Exponential development of scenarios
Guivarch, 2014
Emph
asis
on
sust
aina
bilit
y an
d eq
uityGlobalisation
Regionalisation/fragmentation
Globalised, intensive
‘Market-Forces’
Regional, extensive
‘Mixed green bag’
Globalised, extensive
‘Sustainable development’
Regional, intensive
‘Clash of civilisations’
Source : SRES, H. Kieken
The four worlds of SRES scenarios (IPCC, 2001)
• Models Bottom‐Up or « engineers’ models »
• Top‐Down Models or « economists’ models »
Two families of models
• Pioneers: Koopmans (Cowles Foundation), Dantzig (Stanford), Manne and Nordhaus (IIASA)
• Interactions btw communities– Mathematicians– Economists– Energy experts
• Key forum of expertise:– AIE, IIASA, EMF (Energy Modeling Forum), IAMC…
Emergence of a community of modelers
• In turn, negotiations influence research agenda : flexibility of commitments, 2°C, Copenhagen pledges…
• But: Undefined Interfaces, own dynamics of negotiations, media coverage of other reports than IPCC (McKinsey, Stern)
Interactions science‐decision making in the building of the climate issue: impact of IPCC
Increase emissions made essentially of CO2 emited by the combustion of fossil fuel energies and industrial process
GHG emissions continued to rise
Breakdown of CO2 emissions by decade according to 4 factors : population, GDP per head, GDP energy intensity and carbon intensity of GDP (Source: IPCC,AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
Energy efficiency has limited the rise of emissions linked to GDP growthand population
Breakdown of CO2 emissions by decade according to 4 factors : population, GDP per head, GDP energy intensity and carbon intensity of GDP (Source: IPCC,AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
But the historical trend of decarbonization of energy has been reversed since 2001
Global emission trajectory from 2000 to 2100 (GtCO2eq/an) in RCP scenarios (Source: IPCC, AR5, SPM, WG1, 2013)
40 à 70% of reduction
Significant mitigation efforts are necessary
Land use Electricity Transport Residential Industry Non CO2
Emissions dire
ctes (G
tCO2eq/an
Baseline Scenario
Source: Skea, 2014 and IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Deep changes in the economy are required
Land use Electricity Transport Residential Industry Non CO2
Dire
ct emission
s (GtCO2eq/yr
Scenario 2°C (450ppm with CCS)
(decarbonizedby 2050)
Source: Skea based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014(not yet decarbonizedby 2050, inertias)
Deep changes in the economy are required
(Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014)
Major technical and institutional changes + a strong penetration of low carbon or zero carbon emissions (Biomass + CCS)
71
Deployment of low carbon technologies
Transport Residential Industry
Final ene
rgy de
mand compared to th
e
baseline (%
°)
Source: Skea, 2014 and IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Reducing energy demand is key
Impact of different levels of GHG emissions in 2030 on low carbon energy needs for GHG concentration trajectories 430‐530 ppm CO2eq by 2100 (Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM,2014)
Before 2030Emission trajectory (GtCO2/yr
After 2030 Variation of émissions (%/yr)
Share of low carbon energies (%/yr)
Delaying mitigation until 2030 increases the difficulty andnarrows the options for limiting warming to 2°C
Source: Skea based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Cost are however limited : ‐ Average annual reduction of
consumption growth of 0,06 % by 2100Estimates exclude:‐ Impacts of climate change;‐ Co‐benefits of mitigation policies (par
ex, better local air quality )Estimates arelimited to understand : ‐ Cost by sectors and on households‐ Estimates depend largely on the availability of low carbon technologies
Global costs rise with the ambition of the mitigation goal
Annual investments variations in mitigation scenarios (2010‐2029) for concentrations between 430 et 530ppm CO2eq by 2100 compared to respective reference trajectories (Source: author based on IPCC, AR5, WG3, SPM, 2014 )
Significant needs of investissement
• Since the 4th IPCC report, the litterature has made progres in analyzing multi‐objective policies which have substantial cobenefits and reduce potential adverse effets of climatepolicies. – jobs, energy security, health
• Climate policies are no longer isolated fromother development issues
• But assessment methodologies not stabilized
Climate policies can produce important co‐benefits
• Cities represent more than half of primary energyconsumption and related CO2 emissions
• Majority of infrastructures and cities in the world has to be built– Most opportunities probably in developing countries – In developed countries, focus on refurbishing of buildings
• Urban integrated policies required linking: density, land use mix, accessibility, connectivity, green areas manegement etc…
• Impacts of climate plans on GHG reductions are not clear
One example: cities, infrastructures an urban planning
Potential co‐benefits (green arrows) and adverse effects (orange arrows) of main mitigation measures at the urban level (Source: IPCC, AR5, TS, WG3, 2014 )
Co‐benefits of climate policies at the urban level
Source: IPCC, AR5, WG3, 2014
Climate policies have been growing since 2007…
• Policies mainly sectoral• Reglementary and informational policies prevail• Since 2007, dissemination of carbon markets in manycountries and regions
• In some countries, fiscal policies aimed specifically to reduce carbon emissions, combined with technologicalpolicies and other policies– have contributed to weaken the link btw GDP and GHG
• Reducing subsidies to carbon intensive activities in many sectors can reduce emissions, in function of the economic and social context.
Main characteristics
• 2020 package energy climate and Roadmap 2050– EUETS (2005): first carbon market in the world– 3*20 (2008): ‐20% of GHG emissions in 2020, +20% of energy efficiency, ‐
20% of carbon intensity– ‐40% of GHG emissions in 2030 (2014) /4 of GHG emissions in 2050 (2011)
• France– Factor 4 (2005) and « Grenelle de l’environnement » (2008, 2009)
• ‐20% of GHG emissions in 2020/1990, 23% of REN in final energy consumption by 2020
• Project of carbon tax (2009): failure…– Energy transition Act (2015)
• Share of REN up to 23% of final energy consumption• Significant increase of energy efficiency efforts
• Policies dependent on national contexts– French nuclear /German Energiwiende /Polish « green » coal– A complex coordination at the European scale
What about Europe?
• Links: – UNFCCC: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/– IISD: http://www.iisd.ca/enbvol/enb‐background.htm– IDDRI: http://www.iddri.org/; http://www.blog‐iddri.org/– I4CE: www.i4ce.org/fr/– WRI: http://www.wri.org/
– Climate Action Tracker: http://climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html– http://www.universcience.tv/categorie‐le‐dereglement‐climatique‐vu‐par‐
901.html– Sylvestre Huet ‘s blog http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/terre/
Some references
• Aykut, S., Dahan, A., 2015. Gouverner le Climat ? Vingt ans de négociations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
• Cassen, C., 2016. Le régime climatique de Rio à Paris : entre dépendances au sentier et nouveau paradigme de négociation, WP CIRED, prochaineme
• Maljean Dubois, S., Wermaere, M., 2015. La diplomatie climatiqueLes enjeux d’un régime international du climat, Perone
• Hourcade, J‐C., 2000. « le climat au risque de la négociation internationale », le Débat, n°113,136‐141
• Natures Sciences et Sociétés, 2015 numéro spécial, les enjeux de la COP21• Deprez, A, Spencer, T., 2016. Judging the Paris Agreement: A comparison with
IDDRI’s 10 criteria for success, IDDRI, Issue Briefs N°03/2016. Iddri, 2016. 4 p.• Godard, O., 2016. Quel bilan pour la COP21?, les cahiers français, n°92• Godard, O., 2016. Une dette climatique ? Le Débat, (189), mars‐avril 2016, pp. 23‐
38.• IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., Pichs‐Madruga, R. Sokona, Y. Farahani, E.Kadner, S. Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds)], Cambridge (UK) and New York, Cambridge University Press.
Some references
Source: CDC Climat 2012
Implementation of CDM: « usine à gaz »?
• Implementationof CDM
‒ Rules, modalities‒ A complex system
• Implementation of a compliance system‒ Control Comity‒ Applicability of sanctions limited
Source: UNEP-Risoe 2012
CDM benefit mostly to Emerging countries