As negotiators arrive in Cancun for the next round of global climate talks, speculation once again hovers around China’s positions. China is a tough negotiator, and we can once again see it expressing concern about its core issues, including developed country mitigation commitments, technology transfer and the adequacy of financing. But as we look to negotiating positions, it is also worth stepping back for a minute to reflect on what China is doing domestically and how China’s efforts to promote energy efficiency and low carbon technologies can contribute to the global effort to combat climate change.

China’s commitments for emissions control over the next decade – its 40-45% carbon intensity reduction target by 2020, as well as forestry and renewable energy goals – are not contingent on the international negotiations or on commitments by any other country. China bound its commitment domestically through a State Council decision even before last year’s Copenhagen meeting, and it has said that the 40-45% carbon intensity reduction target will also be incorporated into its 12th Five Year Plan to be adopted by its National People’s Congress in March 2011. The Five Year Plan is the key tool for directing policy at all levels of government.

In the past year China has been moving forward on domestic policy implementation, and key developments include:

So in arriving at Cancun, China would appear to have quite a bit to offer, and yet it often ends up appearing defensive. Part of the reason is illustrated in the discussion posted by the China Dialogue Beijing Office Director Meng Si, November 29 . Meng interviews China’s Climate Minister Xie Zhenhua, who speaks frankly about China’s growing understanding of the importance of transparency, but also about his frustration in getting China’s message out into the press. All sides of the climate debate seem to understand the importance of transparency, and Xie showed interest in using that to help resolve issues surrounding measuring and reporting. One point to keep in mind is that greater transparency is also needed on accounting for developed country emissions reductions and on the financial support to be given to developing countries. My WRI colleagues suggest new approaches to these issues in two new papers here and here.

As Chinese negotiators have become more open with the press, the Chinese press has also become more interested in the climate negotiations. China’s major dailies and television stations now send reporters to the major climate meetings, and a number are now providing continuous web coverage. Interest in the issue is strong in China in part because many see the opportunities from improving efficiency and investing in new technologies, rather than focusing only on the costs. (By Deborah Seligsohn)

Source: ChinaFAQs

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

Protect us from becoming an 'endangered species' say small island states as UN report shows devastation from sea level rise.

Small island states are calling for a ‘climate change insurance fund’ to protect their people from ‘going extinct’ as a new UN report warned sea level rise will make whole nations uninhabitable.

The study of climate change impacts in the Caribbean warned that sea levels could rise by up to 6.5ft (2m) by the end of the 21st Century if global warming continues. There is also an increased risk of hurricanes and storm surges.

According to the Oxford University research this would mean that 260,000 people are displaced from the islands, one million would be at risk of flooding and billions of dollars would be lost every year from the tourism industry alone.

As 194 nations meet in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of UN talks on global warming, small island states are calling for tougher measures to stop climate change.

Antonio Lima, Vice Chairman of the Association of Small Island States (Aosis), said whole nations will be washed away by sea level rise.

He said the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu, most of the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives, that are just a few metres above sea level now, could be lost as a race.

“We are going to be the first human species endangered in the 21st century. We are going to be in danger of going extinct,” he said.

“We do not want to be the forgotten of the 21st century. We do not want to be sacrificed. We want to survive and to survive we need solidarity from those who can do something about the weather.”

As well as cuts in emissions to stop global warming, the small island states are calling for a ‘global insurance fund’ to be set up that would help vulnerable nations cope with the effects of climate change.

Poor nations at risk of sea level rise would pay an annual premium, but a large chunk of the money would come from climate change aid provided by rich nations. Like a normal insurance fund, the money would be invested privately so that there are hundreds of billions of pounds available in the event of a crisis.

The fund would pay out according to damage, as it is impossible to prove weather is directly caused by climate change. However the insurance would only be available to nations that are affected by global warming and do not have the capacity to protect themselves. Also they would have to first take reasonable preventative measures, such as building coastal defences, so that the money is only used for extreme events.

The insurance pay-outs could help whole nations pay for a new ‘homeland’ if sea level rise means it becomes impossible to live on their own island. It could also be used to repair airports, roads and hotels.

Aosis are calling for the insurance fund to be part of any global deal on climate change.

The group of more than 40 nations argue it would not only protect vulnerable states but motivate them to put in place preventative measures.

Ultimately, they argue, the aid money used to set up the fund and pay the insurance premiums would be far less than paying for the clean up costs if countries are left unprotected.

Already there has been a meeting about how the insurance fund would work at Oxford University earlier this year attended by small island states, academics and representatives from the insurance industry.

UK officials said it was too early to make an insurance fund part of a global agreement on climate change. But they agreed that the UN should order an investigation into the issue so that it can be included in a deal if it is feasible.

Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth’s International Climate Campaigner, said rich countries have a responsibility to protect the poor from the impacts of climate change.

“As they have done the most to cause climate change, rich countries, including the UK, must also provide more money for developing countries to adapt to the impacts – including sea-level rise – which will have a devastating impact on communities worldwide,” he said.

“It might be tempting to focus on the loss of tourist resorts and beaches – but behind that will be an ocean of shattered livelihoods, homes and families.”

‘Modelling the Transformational Impacts and Costs of Sea Level Rise in the Caribbean’ focuses on 15 islands including holiday favourites St Kitts, Antigua, the Bahalmas and Barbados.

Dr Murray Simpson, Senior Research Associate, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, who led the study, said 300 tourist resorts will be devastated.

He said this would not only drive hundreds of thousands of people from their homes but deprive them of their livelihoods.

He said that just a metre is sea level rise will cost at least £188 ($300) billion by 2100 if sea level rises by 6.5ft (2m) with tens of billions spent every year repairing roads, hotels and airports. Even sea level rise of 3ft will cost up to £3 billion per annum by 2050, rising to £8 billion by 2100.

“This highlights the extreme vulnerability of small islands states and the need for urgent action,” he said.

Chris Huhne, Climate Change and Energy Secretary, said a global insurance fund should be carefully studied as a way of providing funds.

“The insurance industry already ‘gets’ climate change. It poses a unique risk to our environment and our economies and most businesses realise that inaction is not an option,” he said.

“During this fortnight of climate negotiations, we aim to make progress across a range of issues to get us closer to a legally binding treaty and ambitious emissions cuts.” (By Louise Gray)

Source: The Telegraph

Converting peatlands for wood-pulp and oil palm plantations generates nearly 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare, making these ostensibly "green" sources of paper, vegetable oil and biofuels important drivers of climate change, reports new research published by scientists at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), found that oil palm plantations established on peat soils generate nearly 60 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare over their 25-year life cycle. Roughly 62 percent of emissions arise from decomposition of peat, while 25 percent are released when the vegetation is burned shortly after clearing. Additional emissions result from use of nitrogen-based fertilizers. With more than 100,000 hectares of peatlands in Southeast Asia—primarily Indonesia—being converted every year for plantations, the research suggests Indonesia could fail to meet emissions targets if it doesn't limit conversion of peatlands.

“There needs to be urgent action to halt the current tremendous rate of destruction of forested peatlands” said Daniel Murdiyarso, the study's lead author, in a statement.

But avoiding conversion of peatlands is easier said than done. Indonesia has ambitious goals for expanding pulp and palm oil production and has already granted extensive concessions on peatlands, which can be highly productive and are generally more readily available than non-peat soils. Buying companies out of existing concessions can be cost-prohibitive: an oil palm plantation can be worth more than $5000 per hectare given current palm oil prices, far in excess of what could be offered under the proposed reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), a carbon emissions mitigation mechanism which could compensate landowners for conserving forests.

Accordingly, the authors—Murdiyarso, Kristell Hergoualc’h and Louis Verchot—argue that any future REDD deal include a "special focus" on peatlands.

“Unless future global climate policies create significant financial incentives to overcome the economic drivers of deforestation, REDD+ will not be able to compete financially,” said Verchot. Including carbon stored in peatlands in a REDD agreement, would make the carbon conservation initiative more competitive financially with plantations.

"It is now the right time to promote the peatlands sector to be included in the new climate regime," the authors write.

"The REDD+ mechanism offers an opportunity not only to manage peatlands more sustainably, but also to settle a number of agendas related to social and legal issues. It is timely to promote the eligibility of reducing GHGs emissions from peatlands in the new climate regime."

D. Murdiyarso1, K. Hergoualc’h, and L. V. Verchot (2010). Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911966107

Copyright mongabay 2010

Source: Mongabay

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it 'privatisation' of natural resources

Some of the world's largest oil, mining, car and gas corporations will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a UN-backed forest protection scheme, according to a new report from the Friends of the Earth International.

The group's new report – launched on the first day of the global climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, where 193 countries hope to thrash out a new agreement – is the first major assessment of the several hundred, large-scale Redd (Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) pilot schemes. It shows that banks, airlines, charitable foundations, carbon traders, conservation groups, gas companies and palm plantation companies have also scrambled into forestry protection.

While forestry is billed as one issue where significant progress could be made at the talks, over the weekend David Cameron, Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, and the government's chief scientists all played down the prospect of a global deal to cut carbon emissions.

"British ministers are going to Mexico this week with an approach that is both realistic and optimistic," the prime minister wrote in the Observer . "Realistic, because we don't expect a global deal to be struck in Cancun, but optimistic too, because we are viewing this as a stepping stone to future agreement."

Huhne, who will attend the second week of the talks, was more blunt: "No one expects a binding deal on climate change in Cancun." But he said deforestation and longer-term climate finance were areas where progress could be made.

The Redd scheme is central to slowing, or halting, deforestation, which causes huge releases of carbon dioxide. But critics say that the scheme amounts to privatisation of natural resources.

FoE's report shows, for example that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm Shell has linked with Russian gas giant Gazprom and the Clinton Foundation to invest in the Rimba Rey project, 100,000ha of peat swamp in Indonesia. The project is expecting to prevent 75m tonnes of carbon being emitted over 30 years, which could earn the three groups $750m at a modest carbon price of $10 a tonne.

It also says that an investment of little more than $10m by the bank Merrill Lynch, the conservation group Flora and Fauna International and an Australian carbon trading company could generate more than $430m, over 30 years, from a project to protect 750,000ha of forest in Aceh province, Indonesia.

The "Redd rush" is limited to voluntary carbon offsets for now but is expected to become a stampede if the 193 countries meeting this week reach an outline forestry protection agreement that would allow governments to offset national emissions against forest conservation. It could result in eventual cash flows of $30bn a year from rich countries – who need to offset emissions – to poor countries, where most of the world's endangered forests are.

But the report's authors say great social risks attached to the schemes must be addressed. "There are significant risks that Redd will lead to the privatisation of the world's forests, transferring them out of the hands of indigenous peoples and local communities and into the hands of bankers and carbon traders," they say.

Many of the world's greatest stretches of forests are the traditional home of indigenous peoples, and millions of others may be dependent on access to forests, say the authors, who urge that ownership of land and carbon rights must be resolved. "Many Redd-related disputes are now unfolding. Respect for indigenous peoples' rights seems to be a missing element," says the report. "A Redd race is under way. Redd is emerging as a mechanism that has the potential to exacerbate inequality, reaping huge rewards for corporate investors whilst bringing considerably fewer benefits or even serious disadvantages to forest dependent communities. It could become a dangerous distraction from the business of implementing real climate change cuts."

One major concern is that the weak legal definitions of "forest" and "degraded land" would let the powerful logging and palm companies carry on business as usual by persuading governments to redefine what constitutes a forests.

Greenpeace claimed last week that Indonesia planned to class large areas of its remaining natural forests as "degraded land" in order to cut them down and receive $1bn of climate aid for replanting them with palm trees and biofuel crops.

However some observers, including Lord Stern, say the Redd schemes offer the best opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They say thatmore technologically sophisticated options, such as carbon capture and storage, could take several years to come into large-scale operation, and they are more expensive.

A spokesperson for Shell said the company could not yet comment on the Friends of the Earth report. (By John Vidal)

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Source: Guardian.co.uk