CLIMATE CHANGE AND PARLIAMENTARIANS


CLIMATE CHANGE AND PARLIAMENTARIANS


Robert Ondhowe has worked with the United Nations, beginning with the Climate Change Secretariat in 1996. He specializes in climate change concerns, primarily law and policy as relates to various mitigation options such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, patents and climate related technologies. A Kenyan national, and currently with the UN Environment Programme, he spent much of the year preceding the Paris Agreement working with governments to build capacity for climate change negotiators.


COP21 Paris ended with the sight of world leaders applauding the conclusion of a long and protracted negotiation process which was beamed live to televisions in almost every country in the world on the evening of 13 December 2015. Reactions to the content of the Paris Agreement have been varied, with many experts decrying the absence of specific targets in respect to emission reductions, as well as of financial commitments to support developing countries and those most in need.


The argument can be made though that the intention of the Paris Agreement was to harness and focus political will towards a common solution to the challenge of climate change. This reflects lessons learned over the preceding decades, starting from the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol through to the debacle of Copenhagen. In large part, Kyoto floundered due to the insistence of the then largest emitter, the United States, on the inclusion of large emitters from the developing countries. Copenhagen attempted to deal with the challenge of getting consensus between 195 countries by limiting key negotiations to a few ‘important’ countries, and presenting the rest with a ready made agreement.


34 | The Parliamentarian | 2016: Issue One


The road to COP21 Paris took especial care to ensure a ‘legally binding treaty applicable to all Parties’, and that an agreement was arrived at in an all inclusive manner. This of necessity leads to what is commonly referred to as lowest common denominator in terms of level of ambition, or effectiveness of outcomes, but perhaps that is to miss the point on the primary ‘political’ objective of the Paris Agreement. Most major summits of this kind conclude with the political component, after the technical aspects have been agreed upon. COP21 Paris began with the Leaders Summit where Heads of State and Government from 150 countries made impassioned pleas for action, before negotiations proper began. The Paris Agreement is pivotal for creating a platform for global co-operation on climate. It provides a road map from where we are to where we want to go to. All parties have a legal obligation to report on efforts undertaken to mitigate and adapt, and, importantly, to progressively scale up on those commitments. These include on issues such as finance, technology transfer and transparency of actions. It is important to bear in mind that even countries opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and other international initiatives on


climate change were forging ahead with climate related policies on the domestic front. The United States, for example has what is arguably the most robust carbon trading scheme globally. The renewable energy sector has been growing at a phenomenal rate. The Paris Agreement can only add impetus to these efforts. The absence of specific reduction targets has been repeated as a shortcoming of the Paris Agreement. This ignores the lessons learned from Kyoto, and also fails to take into account the option of flexible and market mechanisms in reducing emissions. The contribution of market based mechanisms to the reduction targets is significant, and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows for Cooperative Mechanisms to meet their self-determined commitments. However, it is vague on how this is to be done, but again, lessons have been learned from Kyoto. From Kyoto, the international community went to Marrakesh (via Buenos Aires) and concluded the Marrakesh Accords. These provided the following; • Operational rules for international emissions trading among parties to the Protocol and for the CDM and joint implementation;


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92