Takeaways from the current draft
1. CSE rates the draft as regressive as far as equity provisions are concerned. The current draft has removed all references to carbon budget – in the decision and in the agreement. This is unacceptable as this now paves the way for the burden of transition to be shifted completely by the developed to developing world. The current draft is based on US position of selfdifferentiation, which is disastrous for the world to combat climate change and for climate justice.
2. We know that aggregate of all INDC do not add up to keeping the world below 2 degree C rise. In fact, it is close to 3 degree or more. Given this, the question is how will the world become more ‘ambitious’ in cutting emissions? Who will cut emissions? How much and on what basis?
3. This draft removes all differentiation in mitigation actions between countries. All countries are required to take actions and all are required to review these actions and ratchet up based on science. Nowhere does the draft say that this ratcheting up will be done based on equity and fair share of the carbon space.
4. We want the world to stay below 1.5 degree C rise. Let us be clear that the politics of 1.5 OC is to delay this demand, till there is no space left in the carbon budget – or in other words, the budget has been appropriated andconsumed.
5. This, when it is clear that it is difficult to vacate space; easier to ask countries (if poor) not to occupy space. This is the politics.
6. Lets get some numbers:
As per the Fifth Assessment report of IPCC (AR5), for a 50% probability of limiting temperature increase to 1.5OC, the total carbon dioxide emissions allowed from 2011 till 2100 amount to 550 giga-tonnes (Gt) of CO2. For a 33% probability of keeping temperature increase below 1.5OC, the corresponding figure for cumulative emissions is 850 Gt CO2. But if the world wants to raise the certainty of meeting this temperature goal to 66%, then the budget shrinks to a mere 400 Gt CO2. 400-550 giga-tonnes between 2011-2100
7. How will future budget be allocated?
Table: CO2 emissions corresponding to 1.5 deg C (Giga tonnes of CO2)
|Consumption till 2025||542||542||542|
|Consumption till 2030||748||748||748|
|Balance (Budget – 2030 consumption)||(-) 348||(-) 198||102|
8. INDC is about appropriating carbon budget; in current draft there is a threestep approach:
a. Review of science in 2018 to see how the world can stay below 1.5
b. Review of collective efforts of countries in 2019 in relation to long term goal
c. Parties to update by 2020 their INDC up to 2030 (this will be ratcheting up mechanism.
9. What will happen by then?
US has used up 21% + 8-10% between now and 2030. By 2020 based on today’s emissions developed countries would have consumed the bulk of the budget.
10. We need a clear and specific reference that this ratcheting up will be based on a fair share of the carbon budget.
11. Lack of ambition of the high ambition group needs to be raised. Our report, Capitan America reviews US actions on climate change. The report finds that their plan is nothing more than business as usual. Worse, all possible gains of increased efficiency in vehicles or energy use in buildings will be negated because of increased and growing consumption. This needs to be discussed because their lack of ambition means appropriation of the limited carbon budget.
12. On finance; the issue of differentiation remains as it does say that the floor of US$100 billion will be provided by developed but it is weak as it talks only about mobilizing funds and about shared efforts in public funds.
13. Finally, on loss and damage it is shocking to see how there is a mention of excluding compensation and liability. This should not be acceptable.
In our view, Paris must operationalize equity and ambition must be based on fair share of the carbon budget. Without this, it is clear that this deal will not only further climate change intolerance but also climate change apartheid.