Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
4/24/2015
With the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 21st Conference of the Parties less than eight months away, where a new international climate agreement is hoped to be reached, the world is closely monitoring the progress of the United States in its domestic efforts to combat climate change. The United States, in its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The INDC has come under attack by some Republican members of Congress however, who have threatened to attempt to block the pledge. Developing countries, which have been asked to make contributions of their own in this round of climate negations, are watching closely for any indication that the United States might not be able to deliver on its commitments. “We are encouraged by the fact that the United States can agree to a legally binding international [agreement] through an executive order — that has been done in the past –it could be done,” Pa Ousman Jarju, Gambian Minister of Environment, Climate Change, Water Resources, Parks and Wildlife, said during an event hosted by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) this week.
Jarju went on to say, “Although everything would depend on the outcome of the next general elections, we think if we have an agreement in Paris that is agreeable to the U.S. government, it would stay and depending on the outcome of your elections, we hope that there will be no backsliding from the United States because it has a responsibility as a world leader to join the global efforts to address this issue of climate change.”
EPA Proposed Regulations Key Piece of U.S. Commitment
A key piece to the U.S. INDC is the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, which have become the focus of several legal challenges. The regulations, which would set state-specific carbon emission reduction goals and require the states the develop action plans to meet those goals, are due to be finalized mid-summer. If the proposed regulations were to fail in court or Congressional actions to halt or overturn the rules are successful, the U.S. INDC may fall apart, making these issues of great interest to developing countries looking to the United States for leadership. “We are aware of the dynamics. We are aware of what the conservatives, mostly the Republicans are saying,” Jarju said at the C2ES event.
The most publicized attempt to curtail implementation of the proposed regulations comes from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has reached out to U.S. governors urging them to simply refuse to comply with the regulations. McConnell’s campaign against the proposed regulations isn’t a legitimate threat, however, and shouldn’t cast doubt on the nation’s ability to meet its international commitment, said Joseph Aldy, former Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment during an event hosted by Resources for the Future (RFF), also held this week. “I think talk is cheap and I think the fact that you hear more and more talk is a sign. In fact, the Majority Leader trying to go out to the governors is a sign that he knows he doesn’t have the votes for a Congressional Review Act challenge of the regulation once it goes final and so he’s trying to take it to the states,” Aldy said.
Jarju further criticized U.S. Republican lawmakers for denying the effects of climate change and delaying U.S. action to combat these issues both domestically and abroad. “It’s beyond imagination that the United States of America, particularly people in Congress and some so-called scientists, are denying what is happening in the world,” Jarju said. “It is a duty of the United States as a world leader, a leader that is advocating for democracy, a leader that is advocating for freedom, a leader that is advocating for world peace, to support in solidarity these communities, the most vulnerable people who are being affected by the impacts of climate change.”
Developing Countries Consider Unconditional Commitments
Unlike in the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries are being asked to make contributions in the Paris agreement, which raises several questions about what those commitments will end up looking like. Mexico and Gabon are the only developing nations to submit INDCs as of yet and represent a good indication of the very wide range of development of the group of countries that will be submitting contributions for the first time. “In the old agreement we had countries listed in either annex one or annex two and there was no grey area between those. What we all know [now] is that there’s lots of shades of grey,” Valli Moosa, former Minister of Environment for South Africa, said at the C2ES event. “If you take a country like Lesotho, which is a neighboring country to ours that’s a least-developed country, it’s very different from South Africa, the country I come from, which is a faster developing country. Capabilities of those two countries are completely different. You’re not going to have one set of mitigation and adaptation requirements from those two.”
In what Nigel Purvis, President of Climate Advisers, expects will be a theme among developing countries’ INDCs, Mexico has included in its commitment non-conditional targets, signifying what measures the country could take with no additional support from the developed world. Mexico also, however, included targets it felt it could meet with support. Purvis, speaking at the RFF event, said he expects more developing countries to make such proposals. “There is going to be this sense of an opportunity, that the developing world has made an offer. They, for the first time, have said, ‘Here is a contribution we will make unconditionally,’” Purvis said, “That is major progress. We all need to have a part that we are responsible for delivering on our own. I think the open question for Paris is what does the developed world say in response to this collective offer from the developing world? That I think is unclear.”
India, the world’s third largest emitter of carbon, has also indicated its intention to deliver an unconditional commitment, Purvis said. “They’ve also said, ‘We will come forward with an offer to go well beyond any reasonable sense of what is our fair share.’ That sense of a duel pledge, where one is unconditional and the other is conditioned on real economic incentives from and real partnerships with the developed world, I think is going to be one of the narratives that grows over the next few months that defines the Paris process,” Purvis said.
Will Developed Nations Still Look to Provide Financial Support?
However, negotiations over how much of the global emissions reduction will come from developing countries could get risky if developing countries and developed countries come to Paris with “radically different expectations about the kinds of financial contributions or means of implementation action that developed countries will be taking to help accelerate action in developing nations,” Purvis said. “If developed countries don’t come forward with a robust enough package to assist developing countries, my fear is that those countries, which constitute a majority of countries negotiating this agreement, would feel that there’s not quite enough in the agreement for them to be excited about it.”
Developing countries are indeed going to be looking for financial provisions to be included in the final agreement out of Paris, Jarju said, calling for “an agreement that would ensure that those who have the most capacity and capability would do more, that requires ambition, ambition from all parties, including Gambia.” He added, “This is why we are preparing our INDCs, to demonstrate to the whole world that despite the fact that our contribution to global emissions in 0.005 [percent], we have a moral responsibility, because a ton of carbon in Gambia is the same as a ton of carbon in the United States, so that moral responsibility is there.”
Experts Remain Optimistic that Agreement will be Struck, But 2° Target Will Not be Met
While many questions on the road to Paris remain unanswered, panelists at the RFF event expressed optimism that an agreement will be struck. However, the panelists stressed, it is important to note that the Paris agreement is only a step and will not deliver, in whole, the agreed upon goal to limit global warming. “They will not deliver 2°C,” Aldy said of the national commitments. “I don’t think this is a surprise. I know that there are some stakeholders who have probably already written their talking points saying this is not enough, we need to do more. I think that’s been true of every U.N. negotiation since 1992.”
However, while the Paris COP will not likely find a final solution to dealing with climate change, going into the negotiation, members of the UNFCCC are in a much better position than they were in 2009 heading into the 15th COP in Copenhagen, which failed to produce a binding agreement, according to Aldy. “This time around, we have the world’s two largest economies and two largest emitters announcing their plans 13 months in advance of the negotiations. In 2009, the United States announced its target 13 days before the beginning of the Copenhagen conference. Two days later … China announced their target going into Copenhagen. There’s clearly a big difference in being able to put on the table, well in advance, subjecting it to the scrutiny from both other governments and stakeholders, what these two countries plan to take to the table in Paris,” Aldy said, referencing the November 2014 joint announcement between the United States and China, under which the United States committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and China committed to setting targets to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 and to increase non-fossil fuel energy production to 20 percent of its energy mix by 2030.
Perhaps the greatest question that remains to be answered concerning the agreement to come out of Paris is if it will be legally binding or not. “I have no doubt that the issue of whether the agreement is legally binding or in what ways it’s legally binding will be the very last thing that’s resolved in Paris,” Purivs said. “Why do I say that? Because no one in their right mind would answer that question until they actually see all of the content, so you have to come to legal form last. But I am optimistic that it will be resolved.”
