Search Climate Insights Directory

A global coalition of civil society organizations, including Friends of the Earth International, issued a statement on December 7, 2009, condemning the Danish government's conduct as President of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties. The groups argue that the Danish Prime Minister undermined democratic UN processes by convening exclusive groups of countries and drafting "Copenhagen Accords" before the meeting began, effectively excluding most nations and ignoring the demands of developing countries. The statement asserts that these actions shift the burden of climate change from developed to developing nations and threaten the potential for a fair and effective agreement in Copenhagen.

The document analyzes the COP 15 summit, detailing the emission commitments of major economies like the US, China, and the EU, and evaluating the resulting non-binding agreement. It highlights the establishment of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and the political consensus on a 2°C temperature limit, while criticizing the lack of specific mitigation targets and the opaque negotiation process.

The 2009 Research Highlights from Climate Strategies provides a comprehensive overview of projects addressing the operational challenges of the EU ETS, the feasibility of linking emissions trading schemes, and the design of financial mechanisms for the UNFCCC. It specifically investigates carbon leakage in energy-intensive sectors like cement and steel, the potential for 'Green Investment Schemes' in Central and Eastern Europe, and the implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) in countries including Ghana, South Africa, Brazil, and India. The document also assesses the impact of carbon pricing on the chemical sector and the evolving climate policy landscape in Russia.

The report argues that carbon trading is a fundamentally flawed mechanism that fails to drive real emissions reductions or technological innovation, instead creating risks of financial speculation and locking economies into high-carbon infrastructure. It specifically critiques the use of offsetting as an unjust 'escape hatch' that shifts responsibility from developed to developing nations. The authors advocate for a shift toward direct government interventions, including carbon taxation, strict regulation, and massive public investment in low-carbon infrastructure, while calling for developed countries to provide at least €200 billion per year in new and additional climate finance to the global South.

The document argues that carbon trading is an ineffective and dangerous approach to climate mitigation, failing to drive necessary emissions cuts or technological innovation. It highlights six central problems: inefficiency in driving reductions, failure to stimulate innovation, lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure, reliance on flawed offsetting, the risk of a financial bubble similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, and its use as a smokescreen for the developed world's failure to provide climate finance. The report recommends halting the global expansion of emissions trading and instead deploying direct tools such as carbon taxes, regulation, and public investment. It further calls for developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020 (excluding offsets) and provide at least 200 billion in annual public funds to developing countries by 2012.

In a speech delivered at a conference in Pretoria, Deputy Ambassador Søren Asp Mikkelsen discusses the necessity of a new international climate regime to replace the Kyoto Protocol, emphasizing the need for inclusive emission reductions and financial support for least developed countries. He highlights the 'Danish Wind Case' to demonstrate how legislative changes—such as feed-in tariffs and carbon taxes—can decouple economic growth from energy consumption and create a competitive export industry in renewable technology.

The document examines climate change as a global challenge characterized by scientific uncertainty and long-term impacts. It frames the issue as a 'market failure' resulting from negative externalities, where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are not internalized. The authors discuss the economic costs of mitigation versus inaction, the ethical implications of discount rates and inter-generational equity, and the potential for 'carbon leakage' in international trade. It emphasizes the necessity of combining mitigation and adaptation strategies, the critical role of R&D and technology transfer to developing nations, and the importance of international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the 2009 Copenhagen Summit (CoP 15).

The document analyzes the institutional conflict regarding climate finance management, contrasting the 'Coordination Camp' (preferring existing institutions) with the 'Consolidation Camp' (seeking a new UN-managed entity). It proposes the Extended Reformed Financial Mechanism (RFM+) as a compromise that combines consolidated disbursement to national entities with the retention of specific international funding bodies like the GEF and Adaptation Fund. The author argues that for such a system to succeed, it must address distributive justice and thematic balance through innovative financing instruments to ensure sufficient revenue.

The document examines border carbon adjustments (BCAs) as a tool for OECD countries to protect domestic industries from 'unregulated' foreign competition and prevent carbon leakage. It identifies trade-exposed energy-intensive sectors—such as iron, steel, and chemicals—as the most vulnerable. The analysis highlights significant WTO legal hurdles, including national treatment and most-favoured-nation obligations, and suggests that any legal BCA would likely require a firm-by-firm carbon footprint calculation and prior attempts at multilateral agreement. Administratively, the author notes the difficulty of establishing a common metric to compare diverse climate policies and the risk of 'punishing domestic manufacturers' if only basic raw materials are covered. Geopolitically, the document argues that BCAs may conflict with the UNFCCC principle of 'common but differentiated responsibility' and could provoke 'vitriolic' reactions from developing countries, potentially hindering international climate negotiations.

The opening remarks emphasize the urgent need for African countries to integrate trade considerations into their climate adaptation and economic development strategies. The speaker warns that a failure to reach an agreement at the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference could trigger a wave of climate-related protectionist barriers, undermining the international trade regime during an existing global economic crisis.

The document argues that South Africa's international credibility in climate negotiations is undermined by a domestic reliance on fossil fuels and a slow integration of climate considerations into economic policy. Using Robert Putnam's 'two-level game' framework, it highlights the tension between Level I (international negotiations) and Level II (domestic interests), particularly the influence of the coal and oil industries. While South Africa champions developing nations' interests globally, its domestic energy strategy continues to favour coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids technology. The paper suggests that the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region offers untapped renewable energy potential that could help reconcile these competing imperatives.

The paper argues that climate change is a global public bad requiring coordinated public-sector intervention. It posits that 'knowledge communities'—groups of experts who produce and share scientific information—are essential for driving the paradigm shifts and technological adoption needed for mitigation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is highlighted as a primary catalyst for this global learning process. The authors also analyze economic instruments for emission reduction, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), taxes, and standards, while noting the difficulties of international cooperation under frameworks like the Kyoto Protocol.

The report argues that WTO rules provide sufficient flexibility for countries to implement bold climate measures and that the WTO should not be used as an excuse for policy inaction. It analyzes several policy tools, concluding that most are WTO-consistent if designed non-discriminatorily. Specifically, it finds that energy labels and minimum standards are generally permissible under the TBT Agreement and GATT, and that fuel efficiency standards are likely to meet 'necessity' requirements given the urgency of climate change. Border carbon adjustments are viewed as permissible in principle, though they risk contradicting the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' by shifting burdens to developing nations. Green subsidies are also deemed largely compatible, provided they do not mandate the use of domestic products. The authors emphasize that the logic of trade expansion inherent in the WTO is fundamentally at odds with GHG reduction goals, suggesting that 'Kyoto-compliance' should take precedence over 'WTO-compliance'.

The report examines the compatibility of various climate policies—including labelling, fuel efficiency standards, border carbon adjustments, and green subsidies—with WTO law. It concludes that WTO rules do not prevent countries from taking immediate action to combat climate change, provided the measures are properly designed and non-discriminatory. The authors argue against using the WTO as an excuse for policy inaction and suggest that 'Kyoto-compliance' should take priority over 'WTO-compliance' in global governance.

The report identifies a significant gap between current public funding for climate change and the estimated annual needs of developing countries, which range from US$100 billion to US$200 billion for mitigation and tens of billions for adaptation. It details several proposed funding sources, including Mexico's 'green fund', a global carbon levy proposed by Switzerland, and Norway's proposal to auction assigned amount units (AAUs). The document also analyzes the tension between developed and developing nations regarding the governance of these funds, with developing countries favoring a new institutional framework under the UNFCCC to ensure direct access and equity, while developed countries prefer utilizing existing institutions like the World Bank and Global Environment Facility (GEF).

The report details the progress and divergences in UNFCCC negotiations leading up to COP 15. It examines the 'four pillars' of the Bali Action Plan: mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing. While some progress was noted in adaptation, significant divides remain between developed and developing nations regarding emission targets, the role of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the nature of financial commitments. The document highlights the critical role of the United States' domestic legislation and the potential for a U.S.-China accord to influence the final outcome in Copenhagen.

The Climate Strategies Research Prospectus 2009 details a comprehensive program of academic research designed to support government decision-makers. The work is organized into three primary themes: industrialised country commitments and global market mechanisms (including carbon leakage and emissions trading system linkages), global engagement, technology and finance (focusing on the UNFCCC's Reformed Financial Mechanism and technology innovation centres), and industry-specific sectoral approaches (specifically the steel and maritime sectors). The organization operates as a not-for-profit network, convening international experts to provide independent, fact-based assessments for policy formation, with a particular emphasis on the European Union, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region.

The IAI's operational budget for the 2009/2010 fiscal year is proposed at US$ 1,163,117, maintaining a level similar to the previous year. The budget supports the administration of scientific programs such as CRN II and SGP-HD, capacity-building initiatives in the Andes and Chile, and the institute's observer status at the UNFCCC. Key financial adjustments include a reduction in salary supplements for locally contracted staff following negotiations with Brazil and an increase in the Director's Special Fund to US$ 60,000 to support activities in Cuba. The budget is primarily funded by member country contributions, with the United States providing the largest share at US$ 691,000.

The report assesses the potential for linking regional and national emissions trading systems (ETS) to create a broader carbon market. It concludes that while an OECD-wide company-level market by 2015 is highly ambitious, linking serves as a critical bottom-up fallback option to top-down international regimes. The study identifies significant barriers to full bilateral linking, including divergent monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) provisions, differing offset eligibility, and a lack of consensus on carbon price levels. However, it suggests that unilateral links to international offset mechanisms and indirect links via credits are more likely in the short term.

The Bonn climate talks served as the first of six negotiating sessions in 2009 aimed at establishing a post-2012 climate regime. While the meetings produced no tangible results, they narrowed gaps between Parties on mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing. Key tensions persist regarding the scale of emission reductions for developed countries, the role of the United States and China, and the governance of climate finance.