Deforestation Deal, Copenhagen’s Supposed Savior, Hits New Low as Targets Dropped

Leaders Bemoan Summit's Overall Lack of Ambition

Reporting from Copenhagen

UN climate talks on ending deforestation hit a new low on Saturday after a leaked document revealed that immediate targets to halt forest loss had been cut out of a draft agreement.

Poorer forested countries had been willing to accept deforestation targets, but only with financial assistance. They wanted rich countries to commit to providing billions of dollars for the effort before they agreed to bind themselves to any goals.

Currently, there are no dollar commitments on the table. According to UN estimates, $22.4 billion to $37.3 billion between 2010-2015 would be needed in immediate funding.

"It's hardly surprising that developing countries won't commit to global targets for deforestation when rich countries haven't yet provided the necessary financing for REDD or global targets for deep reductions of industrial emissions," said Nathaniel Dyer of Rainforest Foundation UK.

A program for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) would, ideally, reward developing countries with multi-billion dollar payouts in exchange for forest preservation.

Hard targets are seen as necessary to ensure the scheme delivers more than hot air.

"Without targets, REDD becomes toothless," said Peg Putt of the Wilderness Society.

Earlier versions of the text would have required nations to halve deforestation by 2020 and end it entirely by 2030. As of late Saturday, that quantifiable mid-term target had been abandoned. The long-term goal was placed between brackets.

The first paragraph of the leaked text now reads:

"... all Parties should collectively aim to reduce emissions by halting and reversing forest cover loss in developing countries [by 2030] compared to current levels."

In UN speak, brackets are an ominous sign. They mean the language is still up for debate and could be whacked from the document at any time.

Advocates further expressed frustration over newly diluted safeguards. For example, a sentence that helps to guard natural forests from being razed for palm oil plantations was cut from the main text and pasted into the preamble. The problem with preambular language is that it's "aspirational" rather than directive, Bill Barclay of Rainforest Action Network told SolveClimate.

That means the safeguard would lack legal force.

"Limiting safeguards to the preamble weakens the agreement and deprives it of any assurance of compliance," said Rosalind Reeve of Global Witness.

Deforestation generates some 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. An agreement to protect the world's forests was expected to be an easy win in Copenhagen.

Observers say success now hinges on meetings next week between high-level ministers and heads of state.

"Ministers must act to strengthen the REDD text next week if we have any hope of a REDD that will be effective in protecting tropical forests," Barclay said.


Overall Ambition Lacking

With week one of negotiations under their belt, key leaders in Copenhagen expressed dissatisfaction on Saturday with the sluggish pace of the climate talks overall.

Connie Hedegaard, the president of the UN climate conference, said:

"On the core discussions in negotiations, we still need more on finance, we still need more on commitments. There are still many unresolved issues."

Emissions-reduction targets of 11 to 18 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 are on the table now, at a time when the science is urging a minimum cut of between 25 and 40 percent.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said it will be up to the almost 110 heads of state arriving in Copenhagen next week to raise this lagging level of ambition.

These leaders are needed to get "stronger commitments from industrialized countries; to see significant engagement from developing nations; and to [secure] finance that will make developing country engagement possible," he said.

Sweden's environment minister, Anders Carlgren, speaking for the European Union, told reporters, "We haven’t achieved enough."

"If we were to continue at this pace, we wouldn't manage what it is to be achieved next week," he warned.

Anticipation mounted this week that the EU would unilaterally commit to upping its emissions-reduction target from the current 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 to 30 percent. That didn't happen.

"We want to go to 30 percent reduction," said Carlgren, but not without more ambitious targets from the U.S. and China.

"We can't sell out our 30 percent target as a cheap offer," he said. "We have to make sure that we use that lever to put sufficient pressure on other parties to deliver what is needed to reach the 2 degrees target."

The decision could be made "literally in the last hours" of Copenhagen, Carlgren said.

When asked what specifically it would take for the EU to agree to the 10 percent leap, he suggested a commitment from the U.S. on long-term financing. Carlgren also said that Beijing would need to boost its national carbon intensity target of 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and then enshrine it as an international commitment, although he did not give specific figures.

De Boer said that "all" countries will need to do more.

"Many of the countries that are here to address climate change are operating in exposed international markets," he said. "That means, the more they raise collective ambition," the fewer "competitive distortions."

 

See also:

Poor Nations to Drop Deforestation Targets if No Funding from Rich

Despite the Hype, Forestry Scheme in Copenhagen Still Seriously Flawed

Putting a Value on Preserving Forests, Not Clearing Them

Adapting and Mitigating Climate Change: A Deeply Nuanced Approach

Poor Nations Issue 'Save Kyoto Protocol' Plea in Lead-Up to Copenhagen

Not Waiting for Copenhagen: Sub-National Leaders Forge Ahead with Climate Action

(Photo: Rodrigo Baleia/Greenpeace)


Countries like Indonesia

Countries like Indonesia mock the concept by offering concessions for forest carbon projects for 30 years with no certainty that they will be renewed. This is coincidentally the same amount of time that is needed for Indonesia's already exploited forests to recover before the next cutting cycle. Why would any knowledgeable buyer buy carbon from these projects - especially the later vintages of a 30 year project?

Northern forests under threat too....We need SEEBif and not REDD

Re the above.

The content of this article I feel needs revising. The terrestrial forests of the tropical realms contain a greater quantity of carbon in their structures and more if you consider that in their soils, than the 210% of that of the atmosphere.

Please refer to my SEEBif Initiative paper I presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the Green Economic Institute, on 1st August 2009, which details with corroborative references the facts of the matter. If you would like a copy of this Initiative I will gladly send you one. Just email me your request.

It is important that to debate policy you need clear and inmitigated facts based on science. My data presented is cross referenced and will support the arguments you are addressing both clearly, logically, and compassionately.

As your commentator described in this article, my Initiative mirror images his words, but with both science, economics and compassion. If you wish to futher your arguments you may wish to take me up on my offer as the 194 convenors of the side event activities which are being presented at COP 15 from 7th -18th inst.

Take care and carry on with the good work, but please use science to fully support your policy arguements. Facts which are not correct will make the arguments by the sceptics more convincing when even their own arguments are spurious.

Best wishes,
Yours,
Nigel Miles

Global Warming IS Human / Industrial Waste

Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Waste!
The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreatPacificGarbagePatch
That is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence.
No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department?
Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so.
We can do nothing until we have a DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)

REDD - off the tracks

REDD is a fundamentally flawed concept unless the world demand for forest products is addressed. We have not resolved the problems associated with leakage and permanence. Not only can leakage occur as activity shifting to other regions or forest nations, it can also occur by substitution of other products to replace wood products - perhaps resulting in even greater carbon emissions. The debate has been overtaken by those whose goal is protecting forests for biodiversity, those who want to use it as a platform to advocate the rights of indigenous peoples, and those who hope to make a lot of money - all irrespective of whether or not it results in lowered carbon emissions for the world.

Countries like Indonesia mock the concept by offering concessions for forest carbon projects for 30 years with no certainty that they will be renewed. This is coincidentally the same amount of time that is needed for Indonesia's already exploited forests to recover before the next cutting cycle. Why would any knowledgeable buyer buy carbon from these projects - especially the later vintages of a 30 year project?

What is required is a global carbon accounting system for forests to ensure that real net benefits accrue and a commitment to protect forests included in carbon projects for a minimum of 50 years - for each vintage. These are difficult prerequisites to achieve and are not currently on the table. Without them, the goal of reducing carbon emissions (remember that is the objective) cannot be realized and quantified.

The world is smelling rat

The real reason for Copenhagen heading towards a complete and utter failure is that nobody, even the most religious believers in AGW, truly believe that AGW is indeed a scientific fact.

The lasting effect of climategate is that nobody believes anything climatologists tell us. Their data and models are now being demanded made public, so truly real scientists (read non-climatologists) can re-review all the information.

What is most surprising to me is that not only is AGW on thin ice (how incredibly arrogant to claim that models that do not fit existing reality, and cannot predict the weather 2 days from now, can somehow predict anything 50-100 years out in the future!), but that GW data is problematic too:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-a...

I have no idea where this leads us, but when even the temperature data may have been manipulated by crooked climatologists, we absolutely must halt any CO2 reduction agreements till real scientists have re-analyzed all the published literature.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options