my understanding - the big picture

I'm still sick. I'm not going to the delegation brief every morning, and I'm not aware of what is really going on at the conference. Anyway, Malmo outside is white and it looks like nothing is really going to happen anyway. The following is what it looked like few days ago.

- AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) wants a new commitment period for the countries that were had to reduce their emissions according to the Kyoto Protocol (basically the developed countries - Annex-1 countries), with new and more incisive commitments (40% less than 1990 emission levels by 2020). AOSIS is also pushing for the definition of a "Copenhagen Agreement" which would define significant and quantifiable mitigation actions for all the other countries. LDCs (Least Developed Countries), and many developing countries are supporting this proposal. 11 "climate-vulnerable" countries have even committed to pursue carbon neutrality.

- The G77 and China (which include most of the developing countries plus, well, China) want to keep the Kyoto Protocol, with a new commitment period for Annex-1 countries, with ambitious targets, without adding a second agreement to set commitments for developing ones. This position is now only fully supported by the BASIC group (Brazil, India, China, South Africa), by most of the OPEC countries, and by those G77 countries who haven't come closer to AOSIS' position.

- USA, Canada and Australia (part of the Umbrella Group - which also includes Norway, Japan, Russia) basically want to kill the Kyoto Protocol and set up a totally new regime based on mitigation actions by all countries (developed and developing), without global predefined targets, but with a strong MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) system to ensure that countries actually respect what they have committed to.

- The EU is quite in an ambiguous situation. They didn't seem enthusiastic about the Umbrella Group's proposal but would be ready to support it out of pragmatism, to try to reach an agreement whatsoever. Still, they seem to want to keep the Kyoto Protocol alive, but are also requiring emission reduction measures by major emitters among developing countries.

The global emission reduction targets usually considered are derived by the last IPCC report, where it is stated that by 450 ppm of CO2-equivalent, there is 50% possibility of containing global warming below 2°C above pre-industrial levels (which is meant to be a "safety" threshold). New science has pointed out both that 450 ppm could lead to an increase higher than 2°C, and that 2°C warming could already have catastrophic consequences (for example, sea level would rise by up to 1,5 m, due to thermal expansion only, and coral reefs would completely lose their biodiversity). Despite the new findings, all proposed texts, with the exception of AOSIS' one, are pushing for the 450 ppm and 2°C limits. AOSIS wants 350 ppm and 1,5°C. Evo Morales has apparently called for a 1°C limit.

Today we already are at 385 ppm and 1°C above pre-industrial levels. Global average temperature is increasing by 0,2°C per decade.

- From a "legal" perspective, the G77 and China are right. At the 2007 conference in Bali, the participating nations adopted the Bali Road Map, to set up a process to reach a binding agreement here at COP15, with a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, the definition of long term goals and of some decisions on finance, technology, forests. No mention of legally binding emission reduction targets for non-Annex-1 countries, but no doubt about Kyoto's survival. These countries are ready to commit to mitigation actions, but are not willing to have them monitored by the international community. They either rely heavily on their industrial sector for their development (BASIC) or are completely dependent on the use of fossil fuels (OPEC) - some Arab States have gone so far as to deny climate change, also taking advantage of the East Anglia affaire. By protecting Kyoto and Bali they want the developed countries to take their responsibility, while having the freedom for some more years to grow without constraints.

- AOSIS and LDCs are trying to introduce something completely new. Their proposal is justified by the fact that scientists now doubt that the previously accepted limits are adequate to avoid catastrophic consequences, and that they will pay the highest price of climate change. Some of them could disappear completely, all will have to face enormous risks. They don't have enough resources to cope with the impacts, therefore want all nations to take a share of the responsibilities in keeping climate as stable as possible. And they are willing to proceed. Carbon neutrality is certainly easier to achieve for relatively small, mostly tourism-based economies, still it is an extremely significant target.

- EU and Japan are among the most virtuous developed countries. As a target for 2020, Japan has committed to reducing its emissions by 25% on 1990 levels, EU by 20%, promising to go for a 30% reduction, should an agreement be reached which includes the other developed countries and the big developing economies. Otherwise, they'll stick with what they have already committed to. They fear to lose competitivity on the international market. IPCC scenarios suggest that developed countries should cut emissions by 40% above 1990 levels before 2020, to ensure that CO2 stays below 450 ppm, which means that their targets are still too low to be really effective. Moreover, the EU will only comply with Kyoto because it has been enlarged to include less industrialized countries which have allowed for a reduction of its average emissions.

- The Umbrella Group is probably the "guiltiest". Canada and Australia, who both have ratified Kyoto, are a good 20% above their 2012 targets. The US haven't even ratified it, and are not willing to commit to anything more than 3% (below 1990 levels) by 2020. Their Kyoto target was 7% by 2012. Obama can't do much because the US Senate is still discussing the crucial Clean Energy and Security Act (even if he has showed a few times that he would be ready to pursue emission reductions through the action of administrative authorities - such as the Environmental Protection Agency). The system they are now proposing, while pragmatic, doesn't guarantee that the identified critical threshold are not going to be trespassed, and, according to the developing countries, contradicts the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", because it requires all the countries to be part of the same emission reduction scheme.

Such was the situation by the end of the first week of COP15, after that the negotiations have basically seen no evolution at all. Even the presence of more ministers hasn't really made a difference. Tomorrow is the last day, all Heads of State have arrived, but it really looks like no agreement will be reached. There could be some decision on other issues. The latest news is a proposal by developed countries to raise US$100b annually by 2020 to finance mitigation (and adaptation) in developing countries, if the latter agree to be monitored by an external and transparent authority. But it really looks like more time will be needed to reach an agreement on the targets, on the principles, and on the form of the new post-Kyoto regime. And it's a shame, because it has already started to be too late.