Summary of Poznań Climate Change Conference

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, was held from 1-12 December 2008. The conference involved a series of events, including the fourteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 14) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and fourth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 4).

In support of these two main bodies, four subsidiary bodies convened: the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 4); the resumed sixth session of the Ad HocWorking Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 6); and the twenty-ninth sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 29) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 29).

These events drew over 9250 participants, including almost 4000 government officials, 4500 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, and more than 800 accredited members of the media.

These meetings resulted in the adoption of COP decisions, COP/MOP decisions and a number of conclusions by the subsidiary bodies. These outcomes covered a wide range of topics, including the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol, the 2009 work programmes of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, and outcomes on technology transfer, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), capacity building, national communications, financial and administrative matters, and various methodological issues.

The main focus in Poznań, however, was on long-term cooperation and the post-2012 period, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires. In December 2007, negotiators meeting in Bali had approved the Bali Action Plan and Roadmap setting COP 15 in December 2009 as the deadline for agreeing on a framework for action after 2012. Poznań therefore marked the halfway mark towards the December 2009 deadline. While the Poznań negotiations did result in some progress, there were no significant breakthroughs, and negotiators face a hectic 12 months of talks leading up to the critical deadline of December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

This report summarizes the discussions, decisions and conclusions based on the agendas of the COP, COP/MOP and the subsidiary bodies. It includes sections on the COP and COP/MOP, also covering the reports of the SBI and SBSTA (which contribute to the COP and COP/MOP’s work). It also includes separate sections on the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA, which focused on work under the Bali Roadmap and Action Plan.

The full report is available at:

http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12395e.pdf

Other topics include:

.

Australia, Biodiversity, Business, Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme, China, Climate Change, Coal, Conferences, Earth, Emissions, Green Wash, Health, IPCC, Murray-Darling River, Nanotechnology, Nuclear, Peak Oil, Politics, Poverty, Protests, Psychology, Public Participation, Religion, Science, Social, Sustainability 2.0, Technology, United Kingdom, United Nations and the United States.

Random Man throws shoe at Kevin Rudd over his weak 2020 GHG target

Mr Kevin Rudd received the taste of local resentment as he released Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Canberra (at the Press Club).

.

During the release, the Random Man took off his shoes and threw them at Mr Rudd, one after the other. Throwing a shoe at someone is a grave insult and is meant to show extreme disrespect and contempt -- it means that the 'emissions' target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty.

.

When asked why he threw the shoe, he replied that it was a WEAK TARGET that condemmed the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling River to extinction. He was also unhappy that free permits had been given to the heaviest polluters (e.g. the aluminium industry and the coal industry).

.

"Why don't they listen to the scientists who say we need 25-40% reduction" he screamed as they dragged him away.

.

"Climate change is accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected and extreme urgent action is what is needed" he also said.

.

"Check it all out on Random Man on Planet Earth" he said.

.
Also check out:
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
Nine Meals from Anarchy
.
Polar Bear Begs

Australia just not good enough on Climate Change !!

Here are some more stories on the Australian Governments emission trading scheme and their 'weak' 2020 targets.
.
MPs' offices sandbagged in protests
.
Climate protesters rally at PM's Brisbane office
.
Rudd heckled by protester at emissions trading scheme launch
.
Scientists urge larger emissions cuts
.
Scientists call for stronger emissions targets
.
Australia an 'embarrassment' on climate change
.
Australia makes a stand on climate... sort of
.
Australia’s climate plans aim low
.

WWF says 5-15% pitiful !!

Here is the reaction from WWF on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Australia's carbon emissions target of 5-15% 'pitiful': WWF

15 Dec 2008

WWF said the abject emissions reduction target announced today came as a result of the Australian Government pandering to lazy and short-sighted polluting businesses.

The organisation slammed the target of 5-15 per cent by 2020, saying heavy industry was being let off the hook despite having known for more than a decade they would have to reduce emissions.

"This target is completely unacceptable," said Paul Toni, WWF-Australia Program Leader Sustainable Development.

"Australia's big polluters have forced the Government to sacrifice ordinary Australians' future prosperity for their short term profits today. We are glad to see that Scheme is scheduled to commence in 2010, however, we need a cut of at least 25 per cent to stand any chance of avoiding the catastrophic impacts of climate change."

"The Australian Treasury's economic modelling has shown that cuts of 25 per cent are affordable and achievable if part of an international agreement. This should be the government's aim."

Mr Toni said the pain Australian families were experiencing due to the global financial crisis would only worsen in the future if the Government was not ambitious with its pollution reduction target now.

More Here

EU climate package explained

Here is a story from the BBC about Europe's climate change package.

.

EU climate package explained

.

The original package presented by the European Commission in January 2008 is expected to be watered down to some extent, because the financial crisis has amplified concern about the economic cost of green energy. EU countries are divided over how to share out that burden and limit the economic pain.

.

EU 20-20-20 TARGETS

.
20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
20% increase in use of renewable energy by 2020
20% cut in energy consumption through improved energy efficiency by 2020

.
Source

Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme

.

Kevin Rudd has released Australia's Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme

.

Executive Summary here

.

On the 2020 target:

.

"The Government has decided on a medium-term target range to reduce emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, balancing the need to make a strong contribution to international efforts with ensuring a balanced and measured start to the Scheme."

.

The 2020 target is very disappointing (like getting a Coogee Bay Hotel desert).

.

Shame on Kevin Rudd and shame on Penny Wong for setting such a weak 2020 target!!

.

The European Commission and EU governments decided upon a 2020 target of cutting greenhouse gases by at least 20%, compared with 1990 levels. Their target will rise to 30% if an international agreement is reached committing other developed countries and the more advanced developing nations to comparable emission reductions.

.

EU 20-20-20 TARGETS

20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
20% increase in use of renewable energy by 2020
20% cut in energy consumption through improved energy efficiency by 2020

.

Check out what the Climate Institute has to say on the CRPS:

.
White Paper and 2020 Target Range - The Key Tests

.

A briefing paper that outlines key tests that Monday's White Paper should meet

.
Check out the reactions:
.
Protesters take over Rudd's office to protest emissions targets

.

Kevin Rudd betrayed public on climate change - Greenpeace.

.

You've failed Australia: Brown blasts Rudd over climate

.

Emissions targets a global embarrassment: Greens

.

Protesters heckle Rudd

.

Big emission cuts ruled out

.

Scientists urge larger emissions cuts

Target 25 % reduction (minimum) by 2020

Here are a couple of news items (from the SMH) on the eve of the introduction of Australia's emission trading scheme by Penny Wong. The first is by Bob Brown (Leader of the Australian Greens) and the second is by Kerry-Anne Walsh (Political Correspondent).
.

Lead on environment, PM

.

by Bob Brown (Leader of the Australian Greens)

SMH

.

THE Rudd Government's decision on carbon-emissions targets, due to be released tomorrow, is the most important it has yet had to make - and among the most important it will ever make.

.
This decision will echo through the generations, directly affecting the wellbeing of Australia's grandchildren.

.
Australia's decision on how much, and how quickly, it will reduce pollution of the atmosphere will have a major impact on global negotiations.

.
If Rudd is weak, he will give cover to bigger polluting nations to also fail the world's future.

.

more here

.

.

Rudd put on notice over emissions

.

by Kerry-Anne Walsh

SMH

.

THE Government's emissions trading scheme could be in strife in the Senate if a target cut of less than 15 per cent in greenhouse gases by 2020 is announced tomorrow.

.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is tipped to announce a modest cut of between 5 and 10 per cent in carbon emissions by 2020, in a white paper that has taken a year to craft.

.

More here

President of Bolivia and Climate Change

Here is a letter written by Evo Morales Ayma (President of Bolivia) on climate change.

The title "Climate Change: Save the Planet from Capitalism" gives some suggestion as to what he thinks the problem is. This is not really a suprise (after all, he is the leader of a political party called the Movement towards Socialism). Anyway, here is what he had to say about Capitalism:


Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under Capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under Capitalism Mother Earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything, can be bought and sold and under capitalism. And even “climate change” itself has become a business.


What do people think??


Comments most welcome !!

Please check out:

The Poznań Communiqué

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

Nine Meals from Anarchy

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

A new report issued today by Ceres analyzes climate change governance practices at 63 of the world's largest retail, pharmaceutical, technology, apparel and other consumer-facing companies.

.

The report finds that select companies in various consumer and technology sectors are responding to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, primarily by setting GHG emissions reduction targets, boosting energy efficiency efforts, expanding renewable energy purchases and integrating climate factors into product design.

.

But the report found that many other companies are still largely ignoring climate change, especially at the board and CEO level. For example, only 11 of the 63 companies have their boards receive climate-specific updates from management, only seven of the CEOs among these firms have taken leadership roles on climate change initiatives and none of the companies have linked C-suite executive compensation directly to climate-related performance.

.

The report concludes that more action is needed to align company strategies with GHG reductions that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

.

In this regard, the report recommends that companies:

.
* elevate climate change as a governance priority for board members and CEOs
* link the company's largest compensation packages – those of the CEO and other senior executives – to GHG reduction targets or other climate performance measures
* set company-wide energy efficiency goals and mandate energy efficiency evaluations for all major capital investments
* boost attention to supply chain management by including supply chain GHG emissions – emissions that result from raw material extraction, production, transport and packaging – in emissions inventories and setting emission standards for suppliers
* set renewable energy purchase targets
* expand programs to educate, empower and reward employees for climate-related initiatives.

.
Report available here

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

The Public Interest Research Centre has published its "Climate Safety" Report which examines recent climate change science. Climate change is "accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected" and the "imperative for extreme urgent action on both a national and global scale is now paramount" says Sir John Houghton in the forward (see below). The summary is easy to read and highlights the trouble we are facing. A rapid change towards a low carbon society is suggested as the answer to this complex global problem.

Forward

"Climate Safety in presenting this examination of recent climate science brings two important messages. The first is that climate change is accelerating more rapidly and dangerously that most of us in the scientific community had expected or that the IPCC in its 2007 Report presented. The second is that, because politial inaction has delayed progress for so long, the imperative for extreme urgent action on both national and global scales is now paramount."

by Sir John Houghton (former Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change and the former Director General of the UK Met Office)

Contents:

Summary

The summary is easy to read and highlights the latest scientific research (shows the trouble we are facing with regards to climate change).

Science

This section looks at the loss of Artic ice, which some scientists predict will be an ice-free Artic summer by 2010-2015 (some 80 years ahead of the prediction made only 1 year ago in the 2007 IPCC Report). It also suggests "contrary to what the media's coverage may suggest, the Artic melt is not simply a matter of displaced polar bears, new shipping routes, or easier access for oil and gas companies" and then goes on to explain the consequences of early Artic sea ice loss.

.

Loss of Arctic ice will cause:

• Increased heat because less heat is reflected dark surfaces such as the sea than from ice, the Earth will be heated more;
• Additional greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere caused by melting permafrost which releases methane (which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide; and
• Additional sea level rise (above IPCC projections).

These are all major problems and highlight the need for "extreme urgent action" by governments at the local, national, regional and global level need to act NOW.

If you are thinking that a bit of permafrost melt can't be too bad, have a look at the following graph (which shows the volume of total carbon content in billion tonnes). Notice the MASSIVE amount of carbon contained in permafrost!!

The other interesting graph contained in the report (shown below) highlights the different model predictions of the IPPC's scientific panel, while the black line is the actual satellite observations (notice how it drops well below ALL of the IPPC's predictions). The dotted red line is the revised projected ice melt (a range from 2010 to 2015 has been suggested by some scientists).

It concludes that "the observed impacts of climate change have raced ahead of the predictions of the IPCC's 2007 Report, even in the short amount of time since it was published".

Targets

This section examines the difficulties of predicting a certain temperature rise from a particular reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is because "any analysis that connects CO2 emissions to temerature increase must address a complex causal chain in which the key elements, while now well understood qualitatively, are subject to substantial quantitative uncertainty" (Paul Baer, EcoEquity).

Solutions

This is a great read as it contains lots of information on renewable energy, low carbon transport options, better agricultural methods, energy efficient buildings, saving global sinks (e.g. forests) and other ways to quickly become a low carbon society.

Action

This section sums up and highlights the need for "extreme urgent action" because science is telling us that climate change is "accelerating more rapidly and dangerously than expected".

.

This is obviously very worrying, however they do suggest that "the prospects for ambitious action in the UK are more promising than they have been at any point in time".

.

I would suggest that this is also true in Australia and I hope Penny Wong is thinking along these lines. Although, early suggestion of a weak 2020 target are not sounding promising.

.

Anyway, this report is well worth a read !!!

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

.

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

.

Polar Bear Begs

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

Here are some links (see below) to interesting articles on the problem of international burden sharing from Policy Quarterly including one from Ross Garnaut (of Garnaut Report fame).

.

Here is the editor (Jonathon Boston) of Policy Quarterly explaining the articles from the current issue where he provides "a brief account of the central problem that the contributors all seek to address".

.

"Negotiations are currently underway to secure a new international agreement on climate change to take effect when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012. Undoubtedly, the biggest stumbling block for any new multilateral agreement is the sharp disagreement over how to share the costs of mitigation and adaptation. The difficulties are multiple, complex and overlapping.

First, policy measures to reduce emissions will almost certainly impose short-term economic costs on those nations taking them, but the benefits that accrue will be enjoyed by all countries regardless of their contribution. There is thus an incentive for each country to minimize its cost-bearing obligations while relying on others to do more.

Second, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), negotiated in 1992, embraces the principle that countries should contribute to the challenges posed by climate change ‘in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’. But the precise meaning of this principle is unclear. Indeed, many different (and competing) principles of justice can be advanced to inform the issue of how responsibilities should be fairly differentiated. And this means that what constitutes a fair or just sharing of the burden (or ‘effort’) of mitigating and/or adapting to climate change will depend on which of the suggested principles is embraced and how they are weighted. Unfortunately, therefore, all burden sharing formulas are open to the accusation that they are unfair in some important respect.

Third, under the UNFCCC, countries are divided into two main categories – Annex 1 (i.e. industrialized countries) and non-Annex 1 (i.e. developing countries). Annex 1 countries, understandably, are expected to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in recent years, the emissions of some large emerging economies, like China and India, have grown rapidly. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that if substantial temperature increases are to be avoided later this century and beyond, global emissions will need to be cut by at least 50% by 2050 (i.e. compared with levels in 1990). This will require massive reductions by most Annex 1 countries (e.g. 80% or more), but also significant cuts by some developing countries.

.

Unsurprisingly, few countries are yet willing to face this prospect.

Fourth, aside from principles of justice, there are various other considerations which impinge on the question of how the burdens of mitigation and adaptation should be shared. These include the availability of technologies to reduce particular types of emissions, the rate of population growth, the imperative of poverty eradication, and the limited capacity of many developing countries at present to quantify their emissions in a reliable and verifiable manner. Again, any conclusions about burden sharing will depend on which of these considerations is taken into account and what weighting they are given.

.

Fifth, and related to this, there is a natural incentive for each of the key participants (and groups of participants with common interests) to emphasize those principles and considerations that minimize their expected contribution to the global mitigation effort. Many countries are also likely to claim that they face unique, or at least special, circumstances which make it particularly costly or inappropriate for them to take strenuous action to curb their emissions. And while it might be preferable for matters of principle to prevail over narrow conceptions of national self-interest, considerations of realpolitik cannot be eliminated from the equation – as highlighted by the outcome of the negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol, and the effort-sharing arrangements agreed to within the European Union in recent years. Inevitably, all this will complicate efforts to reach an international consensus.

Given these various disagreements and constraints, will it be possible to cut a post-2012 deal?

.

Maybe. But informed observers doubt that a fully-fledged agreement will be negotiated by the end of 2009 – the current target date set by the UN. That said, many are hopeful that a workable deal will be struck during 2010.

In all likelihood, much will depend on the negotiating position adopted by the US, and this in turn will be influenced by the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections in November.

The current global financial crisis may also play a role – but probably not a helpful one.

Yet for the sake of future generations of humanity and our planet’s many and varied species, every effort must be made to find a satisfactory way forward – one that is environmentally effective, economically efficient and acceptably fair."

Jonathan Boston

.

Links:

.

Framing a Post-2012 Climate Change Agreement: The Quest for ‘Comparability of Efforts’ - by Jonathan Boston

.

A Chinese Perspective on Post-2012 Burden sharing

.

A Framework for a Post-2012 Global Climate Agreement - by Ross Garnaut, Frank Jotzo and Stephen Howes

.

An EU perspective on International Burden Sharing Post-2012 - by Bruno Julien

.

If you enjoyed this post, please also check out:

.

Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

.

India - climate change

.

E3G report launch: Innovation and Technology Transfer: Framework for a Global Climate Deal

Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

Politicians are fond of framing the environmental debate as a choice between ‘jobs’ and ‘the environment' (or 'the economy' versus 'the environment') and claiming that ‘the environment will cost jobs’. Climate change provides many examples of this, as John Howard, George Bush and many others have demonstrated. They reduce this complex social issue into a simple dualistic frame. This is misleading and needs to stop.

.

The debate in terms of ‘jobs’ that are obviously very close to people’s hearts (especially in these difficult economic times) versus ‘the environment’ (which is a term that is often psychologically remote for many urban city dwellers) forces people to choose between something that is perceived as close and valuable to them against something that is often perceived as distant/remote from their lives and therefore of low value (even though they are a part of the Earth’s ecosystem and we all need food, air and water to survive). Given this narrow choice, many people might only think of themselves, but we are all in this together and a more community based global solution is required. Rather than either/or type thinking we need a more holistic approach (i.e. sustainable development).

.
Let me explain why I believe it is childish (or even insane) to frame climate change as a simply choice between jobs and the environment.

.
Psychology tells us that there are two groups that use ‘splitting’:

.
The first group is very young children: ‘splitting’ is seen during an early developmental stage, it is the overly-simplistic thinking where people (or things) are seen as either all ‘good’ or all ‘bad’.
.

The second, splitting is used as a defence mechanism by those with borderline personality disorder (who are unable to integrate the good and bad images of both self and others) or those with narcissistic personality disorder (who also use splitting as a central defense mechanism in order to preserve their self-esteem).

.
Splitting seems to be present in thinking that jobs are ‘good’ and worth protecting and therefore protecting the environment must be ‘bad’ because it will cost jobs. So that leaves us with the ugly choice that certain politicians are ‘splitting’ because they can only see the issue in overly-simplistic terms (like a baby does) or that they have borderline/narcissistic personality disorder or another option is that they could be manipulating the public to protect business-as-usual interests. Hmmm, not a great selection to choose from!
.

I think most people are capable of thinking in much more complex ways than simply either/or type framings on climate change. If people must reduce climate change into simplistic dualistic terms (and I don’t think this is wise), then it would be preferable to think in terms of ‘green jobs’ versus ‘dirty’ jobs (or even ‘green infrastructure’ versus ‘dirty’ infrastructure). Still, the coal industry probably wouldn’t be happy with that framing.

.
I feel we must move away from this ‘splitting’ on environmental issues and instead need to look at things in a more adult way! This is where the idea of sustainable development comes in - it allows economic development as long as it is within the limits of the environment. If our economic progress is unsustainable then the environment will pay but progress that is sustainable is what is needed (e.g. more renewable energy). The keeping of voters (who must be at least 18 years of age) in a child-like state of thinking on climate change is ridiculous and must be designed to stop people thinking outside traditional ideas. Even the Yin/Yang teaches us that there is some white within the black and vice versa (it would pay politicians and often the media to remember this). We must think in much more holistic (multidisciplinary) terms if we are to negotiate this major social problem.

.

So next time someone says "it will cost jobs" - just ask yourself "are they in an early developmental stage (e.g. wearing nappies) or are they using it as a defence mechanism to protect their ideas???

.

Random Man (2008).

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .
.
Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’
.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies
.
Nine Meals from Anarchy
.
Polar Bear Begs

.

Comments most welcome !!!

Pic from Poznań (climate change conference in Poland)

.

Here is a great pic from Poznań !!

.

I hope you like it too.

.

For more on the climate change conference in Poznań check out:

.

Climate Change Conference Opens in Poznań

.

The Poznań Communiqué

.

Polar Bear Begs

.

Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies:

Survey of Professionals in 115 Countries Buries Myth that Cutting Carbon Will Kill Economies, but Price of Carbon Must Rise.

Download detailed survey results, including methodological details, in PowerPoint format.

Here is an interesting new survey (that has been released today at the climate change conference in Poznan) that found that climate decision makers (in the private, public and civil society sectors) believe that combating climate change and boosting economic growth are natural allies rather than enemies of each other. Anyway, here is the press release below (I have bolded the good bits):

Accelerated action on energy savings and the scrapping of fossil fuel subsidies are the two top actions needed to combat climate change and spur economic recovery.

The findings of this survey of climate decision makers in the private, public and civil society sectors underline their overwhelming view that combating climate change is a pro-growth, pro-economic recovery policy.

Three-quarters (73%) of the 1,000 experts surveyed agree that “equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time.” Only 11 percent disagree.

The overall findings from professionals across 115 countries who make or influence climate decisions will be presented today in Poznan, Poland at the UN Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1)

The survey found that decision makers believe that the price of carbon must nearly triple to over $50 per tonne on average before their organizations will consistently implement climate-friendly decisions over more cost effective, but carbon-intensive options. (2)

(1) Media briefing with comments from IUCN, UNEP and the World Bank in the main press room at the International Fair at 11:30 local time.

(2) The current price of carbon on the European Climate Exchange is 15 Euros or US$19 per tonne.

The survey was conducted during the past four weeks by researchers at GlobeScan with the support of the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), along with other contributing organizations.

GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments: “The fact that these decision makers across the world don’t see any inherent conflict between the economy and climate action certainly challenges the governments meeting in Poznan to move forward in spite of the current economic crisis. And they’re saying the price of carbon needs to be increased in order to stimulate action on the ground.”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said,: ”Combating climate change is the stimulus package needed to power the planet out of its current malaise and set the stage for a 21st century Green Economy—one that prizes resource efficiency, innovation and decent employment in developed and developing societies alike”.

The survey additionally asked hands-on decisions makers to rate 17 specific approaches to addressing climate change.

Increasing energy conservation and efficiency (77%) rates as having the greatest potential impact on GHG emissions in the short term (rated “major” by 77 percent).

Ranked second is the removal of subsidies for carbon-intensive activities (76%) –– a clear signal to policy makers needing to free up budgets to fund fiscal stimulus measures.

When asked to evaluate the potential of different technologies to lower atmospheric carbon concentrations in the longer term (25 years), efficiency and conservation (88%) remain the most attractive among decision makers, well above nuclear energy (only 29% rate current nuclear technology highly), carbon capture and storage (29% on retrofits) and biofuels from food crops (only 12%). Clearly, these decision makers see energy efficiency as the “low-hanging fruit”.

“The development challenge is to accelerate or maintain robust economic growth in poorer countries while also dealing with the impacts of climate change,” says Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development.

“The new global survey supports the view that developing countries will need support in terms of finance, as well as technology in the fight against climate change,” she said. “The financial situation is no justification for postponing action on climate change. Climate change is not waiting, so we cannot wait either.”

In spite of their strong opinion that economic development and climate action are synergistic, a plurality (44%) expect that the current economic crisis will nonetheless hinder progress toward an effective international climate agreement.

The survey results provide guidance for negotiators in Poznan. A solid majority (66%) of those surveyed endorse the G8+5 GLOBE legislator’s 2008 Tokyo Framework for International Cooperation beyond 2012 as a model for negotiators at Poznan and Copenhagen. Support is strong for an inclusive, multifaceted, long-term yet flexible global agreement that acknowledges the value of ecosystem services.

A key finding of last year’s Climate Decision Makers Survey (conducted before the COP 13 Bali conference) revealed just how important decision makers view the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. This year’s updated poll reaffirms it. Majorities (64%) of decision makers say that investing in biodiversity protection and creating new financial mechanisms (59%) as an incentive should be short-term climate priorities.

“This survey echoes the message we heard at IUCN’s World Conservation Congress in Barcelona,” says Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General. “We had 8,000 participants from 180 countries and the message they brought was clear; biodiversity underpins the well-being of human societies and their economies. We now have an understanding of the clear link between conservation and climate and that healthy ecosystems are the best defense against climate change.”

Unlike public opinion polls, this survey focuses on the views of professionals in position to make or influence large decisions in government, the private sector and civil society. This focus, together with the survey’s large global sample and good balance of respondents across geographies and sectors, makes this survey unique.

Download detailed survey results, including methodological details, in PowerPoint format.

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

.

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

.

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

.

Polar Bear Begs
.
Comments most welcome !!!

The Poznań Communiqué

The Poznań Communiqué was developed by The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change at the University of Cambridge.

.

Here is a summary of the Poznań Communiqué (from the website http://www.poznancommunique.com/) that calls for "decisive action" on climate change from 140 global companies.

.

140 global business leaders unite behind the key elements of an international deal on climate change.

.
"Decisive action will stimulate economic activity"

.
On Monday 8th December 2008, the business leaders of over 140 global companies published The Poznań Communiqué on Climate Change.

.
In this document, the business leaders set out what they believe should be the key elements of an international deal on climate change.

.
The initiative represents an impressive coming together of the international business community and includes some of the biggest companies and brands from around the world, including Australia, China, Europe, Japan, the Middle East, South America, the United States and Canada.

.
Key messages of the The Poznań Communiqué:

.

• Climate change poses global social, environmental and economic risks and demands a transformational change in how we manage our global economy
  
• We must deliver deep and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Decisive action will stimulate global economic activity
  
• Delaying action will increase the costs of stabilizing the climate
  
• A sufficiently ambitious, international, comprehensive and legally binding United Nations agreement will provide business with the certainty and frameworks it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies
  
• The overall targets for emission reduction must be guided by science
  
• Even an immediate peaking in global emissions would require a subsequent reduction of 50-85% by 2050, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  
• Any credible comprehensive agreement must include mechanisms to reduce tropical deforestation as the continuing destruction of these ecosystems accounts for up to a fifth of annual greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Developed countries need to take on immediate and deep economy-wide emission reduction commitments
  
• Rapidly emerging economies should be looking to adopt commitments by 2020
  

.

The Poznań Communiqué also presents some ideas on the key supporting elements of an international agreement, including:
.

• Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market
  
• A revised Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM)
  
• Non-price interventions
  
• A framework for developing countries
  
• An adaptation strategy
  
• A mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing
• Countries (REDD)
  

.

Click here for the full text of The Poznań Communiqué

.

If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

.

Climate Safety: In case of emergency . . .

.

Policy Quarterly: the problem of international ‘burden sharing’

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Nine Meals from Anarchy

.

Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism

.
Comments most welcome !!!