Author: Jennifer Morgan

While Earth Day’s founders couldn’t have predicted it, acting on climate change has become the country’s great unfinished business.

This post originally appeared on The Washington Post Planet Panel.

Earth Day’s founders launched the modern environmental movement by harnessing the public’s growing frustration with a polluted country and turning that sentiment into constructive action. The groundswell of public support shown on the first Earth Day translated into public pressure on Congress to act and protect our resources.

Congress responded swiftly. Perhaps most importantly, in 1970, President Nixon proposed and Congress later created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1963, and revised in 1970 to make it more stringent. The Clean Water Act followed shortly after that. Taken together, these developments made the United States cleaner and healthier and ushered in a new level of national awareness of environmental issues.

Forty years later, some of these environmental challenges remain. We also face a new challenge with an enormous scale: climate change. The period from 2000 through 2009 was the warmest decade on record, and we’re already beginning to see some of the effects of this warming.

While climate change will be a challenge to solve, it also presents opportunities for American innovation. With the right policies in place, the United States could lead the world on clean energy. Without new US policies in place, others like Germany and China will continue to lead the clean energy revolution and the risks of climate change will grow to an unacceptable level.

While Earth Day’s founders couldn’t have predicted it then, acting on climate change has become the country’s great unfinished business. Enacting legislation that will spur clean energy innovation and curb global warming pollution would honor the founders’ legacy in 2010. The U.S. House of Representatives got started this summer, and now it is the Senate’s turn.

In the last 40 years, the people calling for environmental reforms have changed. The best policies are those supported by the public and a range of stakeholders. I can’t think of many issues that unite veterans, religious groups, businesses and labor unions, yet climate and energy legislation is one of them.

As we observe Earth Day this week, I hope senators will remember that today, as 40 years ago, people counted on them to make the right choices for America.

---

WRI has many resources on U.S. Climate Legislation, including fact sheets and bill summaries. Learn more about WRI’s work on Federal Climate Policy.

Where things stand after the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, and the key steps to ensure progress in Cancun.

Despite positive momentum in the lead-up to Copenhagen, including greenhouse gas reduction pledges by all major economies, COP-15’s conclusion did not go as most had planned or many had hoped. The outcome has unleashed countless interpretations, opinions, emotions and recommendations. Some see the meeting as a major failure, others as a stepping stone, still others as a moderate success. Three months on, the time is overdue for countries to rise above the “blame game” and take advantage of the momentum created both by the Accord and significant (albeit unfinished) UNFCCC draft decisions of December 2009. The first step for that occurs this week in Bonn, Germany.

The prospects for progress are good. Over 100 UNFCCC parties have either associated themselves with the Accord or submitted pledges to the Secretariat. Countries have also signaled their attachment to the UN process. The imperative for action is greater than ever. Countries must formalize and begin to implement the commitments—both on actions and finance—that emerged out of Copenhagen, and lay the groundwork for a successful UN climate conference in Mexico this December.

Forums, Processes and Texts to Move Climate Talks Forward

It seems most logical and expedient for countries to integrate the Copenhagen Accord into other negotiating texts and processes underway. The Accord and the texts that emerged from the two UNFCCC negotiating tracks (Kyoto Protocol and Long-term Cooperative Action) share enough substance to pave the way to one or more new legally binding instruments. Countries will doubtless continue to disagree over whether the optimal outcome is a new amendment or protocol to the UNFCCC, or a revision of the Kyoto Protocol. But the Accord should provide sufficient political guidance and momentum to push forward its substantive implementation, as well as the conclusion of one or both negotiating tracks over time.

A post-Copenhagen consensus seems to have emerged that—despite the breakdown in process at COP-15—the UNFCCC remains the only legitimate multilateral forum for concluding a global deal. However, it is not the only forum from which conversations, helpful actions, or momentum could originate. Bilateral and plurilateral (involving many but not all UNFCCC parties) discussions can provide useful venues to move issues forward toward an outcome in Cancun. If the Copenhagen meeting and the process leading up to it teach us anything, it is that complex issues such as climate change need as many strategic and focused gatherings as possible, so long as they support a commonly shared outcome.

Moving Toward COP-16 in Cancun

We can’t get hung up on what should or should not have happened in Copenhagen, but we do need to learn from it. Process questions must be sorted out before Cancun, particularly in the next UN negotiating session in April, so that by the June session negotiators are talking substance, not fighting over process.

In December, COP-16 must focus on reaching decisions that strengthen the institutional and procedural framework around the pledges that heads of state and government made at and subsequent to Copenhagen. In other words, the Accord should provide the minimum political baseline from which upward progress should be measured. Those that have supported the Accord should not retreat from it; those that remain skeptical should work to strengthen it. Common ground should be found in agreeing to the details that will strengthen the content, as well as the legal and institutional character of countries’ pledges. Doing so will help to build trust between nations that pledges will be honored.

Clearly, it would be optimal to get closure on the legal form of a new global climate agreement in Cancun. However, if that is not possible, countries should agree a set of “activation decisions.” At a minimum, these should ensure that support for developing countries is delivered (whether for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, adaptation or technology transfer), and that systems are finalized for all countries to transparently communicate their actions to counter climate change.

Nailing Down the Details: Key Issues and Priorities for 2010

Finance

The Copenhagen Accord outlined two significant funding commitments from developed countries to the developing world, that together finance adaptation, forest loss prevention (REDD+), technology development and transfer, and more. The first commitment is an upfront “fast start” investment of $30 billion over three years; the other is a long-term commitment of $100 billion per year by 2020.

Priorities in 2010 should include that countries 1) deliver their commitments to the fast start funding, 2) clarify the sources of the $100 billion, and 3) figure out how to distribute funding so that it both helps the most vulnerable countries and catalyzes low-carbon development. There are a number of places where movement will occur this year; the World Bank, and G20 all have climate finance on the agenda. The UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing is also an opportunity for countries to make recommendations on sources of finance.

Movement on finance is the key to making progress on other issues in the negotiations. Ideally, these discussions will lead to the establishment of an enhanced finance mechanism at the UNFCCC meeting in Cancun. How country finance pledges are going to be tracked and accounted for in the UNFCCC system should also be spelled out in this decision. (Click here for more on current pledges, and watch for upcoming WRI publications on this topic.)

Forests

Since COP-15, Norway and France have taken the lead in coordinating interim finance mechanisms for developing countries that are preparing and taking a variety of actions to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and management (REDD+). The Accord commits countries to “the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus,” and negotiators separately reached a workable, first draft on many of the key components of such a mechanism. This urgently needs to be finalized and adopted in Cancun in order to guide the interim finance processes. Other venues may also take action on REDD this year. Watch for whether advancing U.S. climate legislation incorporates REDD, and whether the European Union decides to include REDD in the next phase of its emissions trading scheme.

Adaptation

The question for adaptation is no longer if, but how to support the world’s poorest countries in adapting to a changing climate. This year, the priority should be quickly getting the pledged funds into a functional system. This system should give developing countries the flexibility to develop and implement national adaptation strategies that are both appropriate for their countries and that complement their development. Adaptation negotiators were close to reaching a final decision on these matters and this should be finalized and adopted in Cancun. Coupled with the finance decision, we could see real progress on this issue.

Technology

The Copenhagen Accord establishes a Technology Mechanism for transferring emissions reduction and adaptation technologies to the developing world. Several initiatives inside and outside the UN negotiations can help move this forward. The UN negotiating text, for example, currently includes a climate technology center, supported by regional centers and a climate technology network, which would boost developing country capacity and speed technology transfer.

Several new and existing partnerships—such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, and bilateral MOUs between countries like the United States and China—can catalyze capacity building and technology sharing now. Watch for a Clean Energy Ministerial meeting convened by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in July in Washington, DC, at which the United States could take the lead in moving these efforts forward.

Foundational Elements: Creating a System to Track Progress

The Accord has specific language for both developed and developing countries concerning the measurement, reporting and verification of financial and emissions reduction pledges. Developed countries committed to use a set of “rigorous, robust and transparent” accounting standards for their financial and emission reduction commitments. This commitment should be integrated into the formal negotiations this year to ensure that actions taken by developed countries are comparable and transparent. A decision in Cancun on how countries report their actions and finance will build trust for other issues in the negotiations.

In addition, the Copenhagen Accord provides quite detailed guidance on how developing countries should report on actions using an enhanced version of the UNFCCC national communications, and a process of “international consultations and analysis.” A decision in Cancun, informed by the commitments enshrined in the Copenhagen Accord, should articulate the guidelines and processes that UNFCCC countries will use to report on their respective obligations.

Strengthening Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord Emissions Pledges

It is clear that pledges to date are not adequate in light of the scientific estimates of what’s needed to avoid 2 degrees Celsius warming (or the 1.5 degrees Celsius most climate scientists think is more appropriate and is included in the Accord).

WRI analysis shows the highest possible calculation of those developed country targets to be in the range of 12-18% below 1990 levels by 2020 (depending on assumptions regarding the details of the pledges)—far from the level of action needed. It is therefore essential that the science review, which the Accord states must be completed by 2015, be initiated this year. It is also essential that the review includes a clear, agreed-upon procedure for integrating new scientific findings into the UNFCCC process, and assessing emissions reduction efforts in light of the 1.5 degrees C goal.

In addition to avoiding further warming, stronger targets and actions would better position countries in the race for clean energy. In particular, the world’s largest emitters need to step up. Europe should commit to a 30% reduction to ensure that it keeps its frontrunner position in the low carbon economy. Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia should increase their targets, adopt credible and binding domestic laws to meet current pledges, and show a clear pathway to a zero carbon economy by 2050. This would assist in catalyzing further change in emerging economies.

The world is most closely watching the United States, due to its size and share of historical emissions. Adopting comprehensive climate legislation before Cancun would signal serious intent to meet the 17% target to which President Obama committed in Copenhagen, and should be a top agenda item for this Administration and the U.S. Congress. The United States was committed and involved in Copenhagen. It now needs to match pledges, both for emissions reduction and finance, with implementation. Lack of such decisiveness could seriously endanger any progress in Cancun.

The result from Copenhagen is an Accord that looks very different than what has come before.

The Copenhagen meeting broke new ground in a number of rather historic ways. Never before have heads of state from nations in Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America negotiated an agreement, let alone one so complex as this. Although not specifically planned, it became clear when leaders arrived that their negotiators had been unable to outline even the key choices they needed to make, forcing heads to either engage in a much more detailed fashion than expected or accept no outcome. Luckily they decided on the former, wrenching the decision away from a rather dysfunctional global diplomatic establishment which was unable to come to closure on any of the core issues.

The result of this engagement was an agreement that looks very different than what has come before. The world has shifted from a period in which a limited set of countries were taking limited actions without a stated long-term goal under a Protocol which had some good provisions but also a number of flaws, to a period in which almost all nations are committed to actions that are hopefully significant, with an explicit goal, under an Accord which right now leaves many many questions unresolved. This shift, along with the uncertainty of what it really means, has resulted in many governments and observer commentaries about the turn of events towards the end of the meeting. This piece focuses on what was agreed.

Prior to the Copenhagen meeting, WRI published a working paper which outlined three main areas where agreement was needed in order to judge the meeting a success: a solid foundation, the big picture (targets and actions) and support for developing countries.

In assessing the result of the meeting, the Copenhagen Accord (Accord) is a bit of a mixed result, one that is more or less encouraging depending on the expectations going into the meeting.

Reporting and Review

On the positive side, the Accord creates a system whereby every major economy must report and have internationally reviewed its emissions and national plans at least every other year. This new system of “measuring, reporting and verifying” was one of the core wins for the United States, which was operating under strong insistence from the US Senate that such a system be created. Those commitments, either in the form of economy-wide emission reduction targets for industrialized countries or nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries will be written into the Copenhagen Accord, thus internationalizing national policies and measures so that there can be an international review of the implementation and effectiveness of such policies.

Committing to Targets

This “writing in”, “pledging” or “committing” of targets and actions into two appendices (one for developed and one for developing countries) has friends and foes as well. Friends of this concept cite the greater likelihood that such “internationalized” national commitments will be implemented and welcome a new reality check on internationally negotiated commitments. Foes note that there is no “negotiating up” of such national commitments towards a global goal. Targets and actions are no longer negotiated but merely pledged, thus removing one of the main “value adds” of an international agreement, and would be completely dependent on national political circumstances.

The first test of this new approach is whether countries put forward ambitious targets and actions by January 31, 2010 as the Accord requires. Thus, only in February will the international community be able to judge whether countries are taking the Accord seriously and willing to go further than originally planned. This is perhaps mostly a question for Europe and Australia, both of which put forward conditional pledges that were never operationalized in Copenhagen. It would certainly build trust and strengthen the Accord significantly if both were to go up to the top of their ranges (i.e. 30% for Europe and 25% for Australia). Equally if not more important in this field of course is that the United States put in place a binding law to reduce emissions in the first half of 2010.

Creating Standards

In addition, there is a provision in the Accord to create rigorous, robust and transparent accounting standards for industrialized country targets. This is a hook to create a consistent set of international standards and norms by which countries set and measure their targets. If put in place it would move the system up from a mere “pledge and review” system to one in which apples can be compared with apples and oranges with oranges. The world will be able to compare country efforts and make judgments of implementation and build a global carbon market. This is therefore a high priority for rulemaking in 2010.

Looking at the Trade-offs

While it clearly is a solid step to get such a system in place, the price was extremely high. In the end there seems to have been a trade-off between creating such a system and agreeing on a set of ambitious emissions reduction targets. Rather than agreeing on a set of aggregate targets for global, industrialized and developing countries to reach in 2020 and 2050, as had long been suggested in the text and supported by many countries, the Accord merely (notes) the long-term goal of keeping global average temperature below 2 degrees C and suggests a full review of the Accord by 2015, keeping the 1.5 degrees C long-term goal in mind.

Gone are the benchmarks against which to measure whether national targets and actions are strong enough to make a difference in avoiding catastrophic climate change. In addition, such “commitments” are not being placed in a Protocol or other legally binding instrument, but rather in a non-binding Accord. Opinions and analysis vary on how important being internationally binding is for implementation of international commitments. It is clear, however, that when given a choice, legally binding is preferable. However it was not possible yet in Copenhagen. Perhaps if the United States can pass a nationally binding law, developing counties will feel more comfortable signing up to a binding international agreement, perhaps even with some aggregate long-term targets. The level of bindingness on the side of commitments from the United States and the major emerging economies will likely be fundamental in determining whether the Kyoto Protocol moves forward in the post-2012 time period.

Support for Developing Countries

The Accord does include a series of actions to support developing countries. Again, the credibility of the Accord rests on whether these items are quickly operationalized and whether the pledged funds are indeed new and additional or merely recycled support from prior times. One must hope that the $30 billion of quick start funding ramping up to the $100 billion of long-term financing is real and will start flowing quite quickly. Indeed, the new multi-lateral funding that is supposed to flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and the High Level Panel created to study the contribution of potential sources of revenue are steps in the right direction. They must, however, be the first in a series of steps to deliver quick start and long-term financing. This will certainly be a central ingredient for many developing countries to decide whether to sign up to the new Accord and judge whether Copenhagen made any changes in their worlds or not.

The Accord includes a line that notes “the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.” It also creates a “Technology cooperation mechanism” and actions new funding for Adaptation. All of these are generally welcome developments, but clarity is needed on how to turn these short sentences of the Accord into operating mechanisms. The decisions that were being negotiated in contact groups were quite far along and should serve as a basis for quick operationalization of these elements of the Accord.

The Future of the UNFCCC

Likely the most important open question is where this new Accord is housed and how it functions. Having been “taken note of” by the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it does have some rightful place under the UNFCCC. However, not all Parties are likely to sign such an Accord. While all but a handful of countries signaled support early on the final morning of Copenhagen, it is still unclear how many will sign up.

The Accord could provide a new forum that represents not just the largest and wealthiest as the G20 and Major Economies Forum (MEF) do. Seeing that most small island developing states (SIDs), Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and African countries indicated support, the Accord could form a new North-South basis for climate cooperation, freed from the blocking tactics of some oil producing nations and single issue countries. If the requirement of consensus voting for every decision means that it remains impossible to get rules of procedure adopted in the UNFCCC, (an item raised by Papua New Guinea the first day of Copenhagen and blocked by Saudi Arabia and others) a new way of working will be necessary.

Indeed if Copenhagen is to be judged in the future as any type of success or step forward, the Accord must become the driving force for ambitious actions and support, a place where the major economies, led by the industrialized countries, demonstrate their seriousness with deep targets and actions while at the same time providing the support needed desperately by the most vulnerable.

Let us hope that the Copenhagen Accord is the basis for such an ambitious coalition, with Step One being strong targets committed by January 31st 2010, Step Two being the passage of a strong climate bill in the United States Senate in the first half of 2010, and the final important Step Three being new and additional quick start and long-term finance. With that basis countries should then be prepared to go the extra step soon – agreeing to a legally binding instrument with strong aggregate targets and timetables. The stakes are too high to stay in the blame game. It is now time to act.