A briefing from the Poznan Clim

Roman Targosz
European Copper Institute
targosz@pcpm.pl

January 14 2009
Today’s schedule

 Is a new Kyoto agreement possible and

when?
 The positions of various countries - is
a fair climate deal possible?
 Is science providing sufficient evidence,
are measures agreeable?
 Technology needs and projections on short
and long term
 CDM and other support mechanisms
 Adaptation
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Background
 Global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased markedly as a result of
human activity since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial levels spanning many
thousandsof years, as determined from ice cores. Current atmospheric carbon
dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) concentrations far exceed those spanning the last
650,000 years.
 The world is already seeing many changes that point towards an increasingly warm
planet. For example, 11 of the last 12 years (1995– 2006) rank among the 12
hottest years since 1850. The warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per
decade) is nearly twice that of the last 100 years and the total temperature increase
from the period 1850– 1899 to the period 2001– 2005 has been 0.76°C.
 Unmitigated climate change will have a significant impact in many areas: the risk of
floods and droughts is projected to increase in many regions – as much as 20 per
cent of the world’s population lives in areas that are likely to be affected by
increased flood hazard by 2080; sea levels are expected to rise between 0.2 m and
0.6 m, or possibly more, by 2100; tropical and extra-tropical cyclones will become
more intense; increased flooding and the degradation of freshwater, fisheries and
other resources could affect hundreds of millions of people; the impact on agriculture
will also be severe; millions of people are likely to face malnutrition; and increases in
infectious disease vectors are also expected.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Attributes of GHG

Source: UNFCCC
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science
 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was established in 1988
by the United nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO). Its
role is to assess a range of information
relevant for the understanding of the risk
of human-induced climate change.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science

Source: Climate
Change 2007 –
Assessment Report,
IPCC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science

Source: Climate Change 2007

– Assessment Report, IPCC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
IPCC 2007 Report

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Science

Source: Climate Change 2007

– Assessment Report, IPCC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Stabilising the climate will ultimately
require large emission cuts

Source: OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 (2008) and

OECD ENV-Linkages model
www.leonardo-
energy.org
IPCC 2007 Report

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Global anthropogenic GHG emissions

Source: CAN International 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Climate change antagonism
 Climate change is caused by fluctuations in solar radiation. Climate has been warming since the ice
ages, but not in a linear fashion. It is cyclical.
 Last tens or hundreds thousand years are reliably traced. There is no evidence that in the era of
dinosaurs the carbon concentrations were below today’s levels
 Climate will always be changing and we have to adapt to it to survive.
 The whole thing is a "hoax", a "politically correct position“.
 Why some regions like Maine still experience the worse winter in history last year, and why Canada
was 'white' edge to edge at the start of winter for the first time in recorded history. ...and those
polar bears really aren't endangered but lurking by the thousands around Hudson's bay town
dumps where they are regarded as pests and tourist attractions.
 The total solar irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978 and it varies on
an 11-year cycle by about 0,07%. So, from solar min to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth's
surface increases at a rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year increase in
greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next five to six years in the advancing phase
of Solar Cycle 24, almost 0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the amount of
transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming alone.
 "Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every
day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24000 times that amount of our
main greenhouse gas - water vapour - into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the
same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows
that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is
dominated by water"

www.leonardo-
energy.org
GHG by population and GDP

Source: CAN International 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
GDP versus stabilisation levels

Notes:
Values given in this table correspond to the full literature across all baselines and mitigation scenarios that provide GDP
numbers.
a) Global GDP based on market exchange rates.
b) The 10th and 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given where applicable. Negative values indicate GDP
gain. The first row (445-535ppm CO2-eq) gives the upper bound estimate of the literature only.
c) The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the average reduction during the assessed
period that would result in the indicated GDP decrease by 2030 and 2050 respectively.
d) The number of studies is relatively small and they generally use low baselines. High emissions baselines generally
lead to higher costs.
e) The values correspond to the highest estimate for GDP reduction shown in column three.

Source: Climate Change 2007

– Assessment Report, IPCC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Economic mitigation potentials

Source: Climate Change 2007

– Assessment Report, IPCC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Mitigation portfolios for achieving
stabilisation of GHG concentrations

Source: Climate Change 2007

– Assessment Report, IPCC
www.leonardo-
energy.org
UNFCCC - Kyoto Protocol
 The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted
by COP-3, in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, after intensive negotiations. Most industrialized
nations and some central European economies in transition (all defined as Annex B countries)
agreed to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6 to 8% below
1990 levels between the years 2008-2012, defined as the first emissions budget period. The United
States would be required to reduce its total emissions an average of 7% below 1990 levels,
however neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration sent the protocol to
Congress for ratification. The Bush administration explicitly rejected the protocol in 2001.

 Signatories to the UNFCCC are split into three groups:

 Annex I countries (industrialized countries) ;
Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, United States of America
 Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries) ;
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America
 Developing countries ; G77

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Kyoto Protocol

Source: UNFCCC manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Annex A Sources of emissions

Source: UNFCCC manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Annex I assigned units

Source: UNFCCC manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Annex B

Source: UNFCCC manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
The reality gap between what is
needed and what has been achieved
is the percentage point difference in
emissions between the Kyoto target
and actual emissions of Annex I
countries in 2005.
Emissions changes exclude
LULUCF. EIT countries are shaded.
EU countries’ targets are those
agreed under the EU burden
sharing agreement. The figure for
Turkey is from 2004.

Source: CAN International 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Greenhouse gas emissions of Annex I
countries 1990-2005, excluding LULUCF2

Source: CAN International 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Developing countries would account for most of the
projected increase in world greenhouse gas emissions
over the coming decades

Source: OECD Environmental Outlook to

2030 (2008) and OECD ENV-Linkages
model

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Cost-effective mitigation action would imply
only limited costs in the first decades

Source: OECD Environmental

Outlook to 2030 (2008) and
OECD ENV-Linkages model

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Costs of abatement without redistribution

Source: OECD Environmental

Outlook to 2030 (2008) and
OECD ENV-Linkages model

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Who is most hurt by global warming?

Source: Nordhaus and Boyer (2000),

Mendelsohn et al. (2000) and IPCC (1995).
www.leonardo-
energy.org
Bali Road Map
 The main negotiations are complicated because in Bali, countries agreed to
two distinct negotiating streams. One set of talks is focused on the Kyoto
Protocol, which has been ratified by most countries, and is concerned with
a new commitment period after the present one expires in 2012. But
because several key countries, including the US, never joined the Kyoto
Protocol, countries agreed to discuss an alternative possible arrangement
that could go into effect in 2013. The US has engaged in those
negotiations.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
GHG equity instruments
 An emission cap and permit trading system is a quantity
instrument because it fixes the overall emission level (quantity)
and allows the price to vary.
 In contrast, an emission tax is a price instrument because it fixes
the price while the emission level is allowed to vary according to
economic activity.
 A third option, known as a safety valve, is a hybrid of the price
and quantity instruments. The system is essentially an emission
cap and tradeable permit system but the maximum (or minimum)
permit price is capped. Emitters have the choice of either
obtaining permits in the marketplace or purchasing them from the
government at a specified trigger price (which could be adjusted
over time).

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Effort sharing
 Equitable effort sharing is one of the main principles of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Article 3.1 of the Convention
states that the parties to the Convention should protect the climate system
“on basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities”.
 However, the question of what is actually equitable is ambiguous.
Numerous equity definitions have been proposed, and below is a partial list
assembled from (Ringius et al. 1998) and (Aldy et al. 2003):
− Egalitarian equity – equal emissions per capita
− Sovereign equity (or Proportional equity) – equal reductions from, e.g.,
2000
− Horizontal equity – equal net change in welfare, e.g. in GDP
− Vertical equity (or Comparable effort) – equal net cost, e.g., relative to
GDP
− Equal responsibility – effort based on historical emissions.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Uncertainty

Emission estimates for different countries

[Mt CO2-eq, logarithmic scale]
based on UN-FCCC (X-axis) or
IEA/EDGAR (Y-axis) statistics

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Effort sharing

Assessing the effort sharing for greenhouse gas

emission reductions in ambitious global climate
scenarios

Tommi Ekholm, Sampo Soimakallio & Sanna Syri

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Niklas Höhne & Sara Moltmann
Ecofys GmbH
www.leonardo-
energy.org
COP 14 in Poznań - highlights
 Delegations from 190 nations came to Poznan to meet in the half way to Copenhagen COP
15 in December 2009. The date of the new Treaty setting international GHG commitments
after Kyoto 2012 targets was agreed one year ago on COP13 in Bali.
 It was not a conference of grand agreements or breakthroughs, but rather, it was a
conference of rather technical discussions and decisions that will underpin the stiff year of
negotiations that is forecasted for 2009.
 The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reminded us that the purpose of the meeting was
not to come to final decisions, “but rather to agree to a work plan for the intense
negotiations ahead in 2009. Parties had taken an important step forward.” Yvo de Boer
described Poznan a kind of “blue-collar” conference, "It’s a conference to get our job done,
it's not a conference of spectacular or breakthroughs."

www.leonardo-
energy.org
COP 14 in Poznań - highlights
 What happens now is that the wheels are in motion toward Copenhagen. The
countries agreed that a negotiating text must be on the table by the June
negotiating session that will take place in Bonn, a necessary step.
 Developing countries expressed frustration throughout the two week Conference that
discussions were veering away from some basic principles, including equity and the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that provides that all countries
should act in a manner commensurate with their circumstances and resources. Small
Island countries reminded all delegations that they stood to suffer the most from
climate change, namely from the inundation of their countries.
 Progress was made on a number of issues that includes making the Adaptation Fund
operational. In addition to the funding that the Fund will receive through a levy on
Clean Development Mechanism transactions, Sweden offered $500 million to the
fund over the next three years.
 Agreements were also reached on technology transfer, on financing and on
improving the operations of the Adaptation Fund. One area of major disappointment
for developing countries was the failure to reach agreement on a system to share
proceeds from emissions trading systems for adaptation purposes.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Al Gore on COP 14

 Humanity has arrived at a moment of faithful decision.

 Science is clear, but a sharp contrast between two rates of change exists: first, related to the rate
of climate change, and, second, related to the rate of action on climate change.
 The level of pessimism at the Poznań negotiations, especially with regard to: the global recession;
the drop in oil and coal prices; the absence of a feeling of urgency; the gap between rich and poor
not being closed with sufficient speed to build the necessary unity; and the powerful resistance of
business lobbies.
 the causes for hope and optimism are greater than the causes for doubt and discouragement, such
as: efforts in China related to unprecedented levels of tree planting and a green economic stimulus
package; efforts in Brazil related to halting deforestation; and technological advances. He noted
progressive actions in the US, including California’s mandatory emissions reductions, cities
embracing the Kyoto Protocol principles, and the cancellation of proposed coalfired power plants.
 Gore stressed the need to link poverty reduction with emissions reductions, and called for adequate
funding for adaptation.
 the challenge inherent in reaching a target of 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, but argued that the
target would need to be toughened to 350 ppm in order to avoid dangerous levels of climate
change.
 In conclusion, Gore voiced his confidence in reaching an agreement in Copenhagen in December
2009, and said that “not only can it be done, it must be done.” He stated that reaching agreement
was not a political issue, but rather a moral and spiritual one, and said the climate crisis offered a
generational mission and moral purpose. He called on Heads of State to meet several times before
the Copenhagen negotiations, and concluded by passing along a message from the people of the
US: “Yes we can.”

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
G77 and China
 calls to mind Bali decision to enhance and enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of
the Convention through long term cooperative action in order to reach an agreed outcome and
adopt a decision at COP15 in Copenhagen:
 Undoubting Fourth IPCC Report and its conclusion on serious, perhaps beyond reversal, climate
change with the role of human beings accelerating this change
 GHG emissions of Annex I Parties continued to increase after 2000, when under Convention they
should have peaked and begin to fall
 Annex I Parties have not delivered on their commitment to enhance the transfer of technologies
and increase financing to developing countries to meet the full cost of adapting to the adverse
impacts of climate change and facilitate their mitigation actions
 The Group has submitted concrete and detailed proposal on financial and technology mechanisms
 Requests from Annex I Parties how they intend to begin to reduce emissions now, how they intend
to commit for 2012 to 2020 and beyond
China
 Outlines past efforts
 Chinese Government issued National Climate Change Program in 2007. Energy per GDP has
dropped in one year 2007 by 3,66%. In 2006 and 2007 China avoided 355 mln tons CO2 emissions
by introduction of energy efficiency improvements .
 In 2008 hydropower in China has installed capacity of 164 GW, 10 GW of wind power and 120 MW
of PV. In 2007 China phased out 84 mln tons of backward steel making and iron smelting and 52
mln tons of cement production capacity. Finally 2322 small coal mines have been closed down . All
in all it avoided emissions of 500 milion tons in 2007 alone.
 Developed countries should... limit emissions between 25% and 40% at least, in mid term, support
“South “with financial resources, build capacity and transfer technologies.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
USA
 Barack Obama’s victory in the US Presidential elections was a reason for optimism in Poznań and is
expected to dramatically change the dynamics of negotiations. Obama has promised to make
climate change a high priority and highlighted a green energy economy as a remedy for the
ongoing economic crisis. In Poznań, the US was still represented by the Bush administration and
remained relatively subdued during the official negotiations. Some felt that uncertainty about the
US position in 2009 caused other countries to refrain from making significant political advances in
Poznań, and few expect developing countries to make significant moves before developed countries
have clarified their positions on emission reductions and financing.
 „Looking forward to the meetings ahead that can lead to a ambitious and practical outcome in
Copenhagen. Post-2012 agreement must reflect global changes since the 1990s.”
Australia
 60% long term.
 Australia leads Global Initiative on CCS by incorporating an Institute that will drive and disseminate
CCS technology and know how around the world. This is practical example of technology transfer in
action.
Brazil
 stands on extending the CDM eligibility criteria for afforestation/ reforestation project activities
Saudi Arabia
 stands on the inclusion of CCS under the CDM.
Canada
 stated the objective of meeting 90% of electricity needs from non-emitting sources by 2020.
New Zealand
 proposed focusing first on the rules governing commitments before focusing on the
commitments themselves, and urged further consideration of land management and forestry.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
Japan
 G8 leaders during Hokkaido Toyako Summit shared a long term target of GHG reduction by at least
half in 2050. Japan has the long term goal of reduction of current emissions by 60-80% in 2050.
Now Japan is working on setting a quantified mid term target and will announce it at an appropriate
time in 2009.
 Japan primarily stands on adoption of at least 50% GHG reduction by 2050 under UNFCCC.
Secondly each developed country should set its quantified limit while developing countries should
be classified in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Switzerland
 Will follow the aims of EU and proposes to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020 and 30% if other
countries pledge to do the same. All countries should adopt binding commitments. For example,
emissions in specific sectors. We must invest in technologies and infrastructure as well as in
improving energy efficiency.
 Switzerland renews proposal for a CO2 levy in line with the “polluter pays” principle in order
to repair some of the damage caused by climate change and prevent further damage.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Countries – High level closing speaches
EU (by Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for Environment)
 „First and foremost, the developed countries should, as a group, reduce their emissions by 30% by
2020”
Sweden
 The developed countries must take the lead and make major emission reductions, as well as assist
developing countries to adapt. The midterm target to reduce emissions by 25-40% is needed. That
should be accompanied by a long term target to reduce emissions by 80-95% until 2050.
 Need for pricing mechanisms. So let’s put price on CO2 globally
 2 Celsius as overall reference objective
 At least 50% long term target
Germany
 Negotiations have by far not progressed fast enough. No progress was made on critical issues
 There are attempts to exploit the current financial crisis as an excuse for moving away from
committed climate protection
 What has been learnt from the financial crisis is that trading in bad loans leads to loss of trillion
euros or dollars and the worst loan we are trading in globally is the climate loan.
 Germany has already achieved Kyoto target in 2008 and will exceed it in 2010. Germany has set
itself the target of 40% GHG reduction in 2020 compared to 1990. If these targets are
implemented effectively, the country will save 17 billion euro on energy imports in 2020.At the
same time it will generate demand in employment intensive domestic sectors, thus creating 500000
new jobs by 2020.
 The central obstacle on the Road to Copenhagen is the question of financing. Current funds from
CDM projects are not sufficient for the Adaptation Fund and additional money from carbon market
for adaptation is required

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Germany position evolution
 EU leaders contentiously disagree on how to structure their own region-
wide goal of reducing carbon emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by
2020.
 German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the head of a country that has long
been considered a leader in climate and renewable energy policies, is
causing a stir by announcing that Germany is pulling back from earlier
commitments to the structure of a carbon cap and trade program. In order
to protect Germay's large industrial base from higher carbon prices, Merkel
is urging the EU to give away more allowances than originally proposed.
 Without additional protections, argues Merkel, steel manufacturers,
chemical producers and shipping companies could lose their competitive
edge, thus shedding jobs. Angela Merkel said that jobs come first and then
climate. Her position has steadily shifted over the last year as the EU
works out the details of its carbon reduction plan.
 Both climate protection advocates and detractors have criticized the
German government for its inconsistent message to the international
community.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Powerlessness
 The irony of the climate crisis is that those most affected, have not
only contributed the least to the problem, but have the least
capacity to cope with, or solve it. …
 Time is not on our side. The science indicates that a narrow
window of opportunities exist for action to prevent an
unprecedented climate catastrophe. We must act boldly and we
must act together. We can only share a vision for the future, if we
have a future

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Main barriers to Climate Agreement
 Still some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and
developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed
countries need to reduce their emissions.
 Some countries claim that their costs of following the Convention requirements will
stress their economy.
 COP 14 pronouncedly showed differences between extreme climate change positions
of North and South, Developed and Developing, Rich and Poor
 Uncertainty about the US position in 2009 caused other countries to refrain from
making significant political advances in Poznań, and few expect developing countries
to make significant moves before developed countries have clarified their positions
on emission reductions and financing.
 Parties now, are by far better prepared to defend their own benefits and preferences
in climate deal
 The current financial crisis is a serious obstacle for moving away from climate
agreement
 As long as we have no clear position toward the mechanisms of emissions trading,
it's very difficult to establish something meaningful
 In case of no success in Copenhagen , the Treaty with all last commas and every last
rule, whatever, is expected between 2010 and 2015 with 2020 targets postponed
until 2030 or 2050, fairly agreed and monitored.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Carbon Market
 In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the
carbon market was 11 billion USD in 2005, 30 billion USD in 2006[40],
and 64 billion in 2007[42].
 Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems
overall, as groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest
bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient and
challenging reduction of allowances available in the system.
 Regulatory agencies run the risk of issuing too many emission credits,
diluting the effectiveness of regulation, and practically removing the cap.
In this case, instead of any net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions,
beneficiaries of emissions trading simply do more of the polluting activity.
The National Allocation Plans by member governments of the European
Union Emission Trading Scheme were criticised for this when it became
apparent that actual emissions would be less than the government-issued
carbon allowances at the end of Phase I of the scheme.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Carbon trading

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CER/ERU demand from around the world

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CER / ERU supply and demand

www.leonardo-
energy.org
EUA prices

www.leonardo-
energy.org
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM
 The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 of the Protocol,
allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment
under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction
project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission
reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted
towards meeting Kyoto targets.
 The mechanism is seen by many as a trailblazer. It is the first global, environmental
investment and credit scheme of its kind, providing a standardized emissions offset
instrument, CERs.
 A CDM project activity might involve, for example, a rural electrification project
using solar panels or the installation of more energy-efficient boilers.
 The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while
giving industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission
reduction or limitation targets.
 A CDM project must provide emission reductions that are additional to what would
otherwise have occurred. The projects must qualify through a rigorous and public
registration and issuance process. Approval is given by the Designated National
Authorities. Public funding for CDM project activities must not result in the diversion
of official development assistance.
 The mechanism is overseen by the CDM Executive Board, answerable ultimately to
the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

The clean development mechanism allows emission-reduction projects
in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits,
each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. CERs can be traded and sold, and
used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their targets under the
Protocol.
The CDM assists countries in achieving sustainable development and
emission reductions, while giving industrialized countries some flexibility
in how they meet their emission targets.

all figures as at 24 November 2008

Source: UNFCCC CDM manual
www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM

Source: UNFCCC CDM manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM

Source: UNFCCC CDM manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM

Source: UNFCCC CDM manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM

Source: UNFCCC CDM manual

www.leonardo-
energy.org
New approaches to CDM:
Programmatic CDM (PoA)
 UNFCC established special working group for energy efficiency under Meth Panel and
the same for PoA – Programmatic CDM Approach which was established 3 years ago
in Montreal. Programmatic Approach is about converting policy into projects. This
approach is to help many dispersed projects with different sizes and delivery
periods. and will do it.
 Two basic approaches are used benchmarking (generic) and deemed savings.
 CDM has promised to develop all guidelines and procedures in February 2009.
 The implementation of CDM activities under a programme of activities (PoA) may
reduce some barriers to energy efficiency but not all.
 The restriction to one technology in PoA is perceived as a barrier.
 Policies as a PoA. Policy, itself cannot demonstrate additionality required by CDM but
policy implementation can
 Labelling under the CDM

www.leonardo-
energy.org
CDM methodology issues related to energy
efficiency projects
 It was noted that energy efficiency methodologies suffer the highest rate of rejection
by the EB.
 The participants called for more top-down guidance from the EB and Meth Panel on
methodologies for energy efficiency project activities. Some common reasons for the
rejection of energy efficiency methodologies were highlighted:
− Failure to provide method/procedure for selecting the baseline scenario;
− Lack of clear definition of project boundary;
− Lack of justification for the appropriateness of benchmark period
− Failure to consider variables that would affect future emissions (i.e. autonomous
energy efficiency improvements);
− Inadequate monitoring and verification plans;
− Deficiencies in accounting for leakage;
− Lack of distinction between discretionary retrofit, planned replacement and new
equipment projects;
− Lack of methodological specificity to allow DOE to verify reductions.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
The current forecasts for increased output
from wind energy and GHG saving potential

www.leonardo- Source: GWEC

energy.org
PV potential in Europe

Source: JRC - EC

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study

Source: IEA - ETP 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study

Source: IEA - ETP 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Technology - IEA study

Source: IEA - ETP 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Cross-country comparison of carbon
abatement costs by technology

Source: OECD (2004)

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation
 Adapting to climate change is a major issue in the climate change talks,
particularly for people in the world’s poorest countries. Most of these
countries account for only a miniscule contribution to the greenhouse gas
emissions that are accelerating the rate of climate change, yet they stand
to suffer the most from climate change.
 100 developing countries, with a a population of one billion people,
account for only three percent of all emissions. For many participant here
in Poznan, the evidence that climate change is already taking a toll on
developing countries is abundantly clear--they are facing periods of longer
droughts, and rainfall, when it occurs, is more intense and more damaging
to crops.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation

Map courtesy of UNOCHA, CARE International and Maplecroft, from

Humanitarian Implications of Climate Change, 2008

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation Fund
 The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in
developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is to be financed with a share
of proceeds from clean development mechanism (CDM) project activities and receive funds from
other sources. (The share of proceeds amounts to 2% of certified emission reductions (CERs)
issued for a CDM project activity.)
 The CMP 3 decided that the operating entity of the Adaptation Fund shall be the Adaptation Fund
Board and invited the GEF to provide secretariat services and the World Bank to serve as the
trustee of the Adaptation Fund on an interim basis. These interim institutional arrangements will be
reviewed after 3 years. The Adaptation Fund Board is composed of 16 members and 16 alternates
and its meeting will take place at least twice a year in the country hosting the UNFCCC secretariat.
 Main Functions:
− Opertaional principles and criteria
− Decide about projects, including allocation of funds
− Monitor and review implementation
− Establish working bodies, secure expert advice
− Approve draft legal and administrative arrangements
− Responsibility over monetization of CERs

www.leonardo-
energy.org
Adaptation Fund
 The success on the Adaptation Fund was tempered by the inability to secure
additional resources for the Fund due to lack of agreement on extending the share of
proceeds (or “adaptation
 levy”) to Joint Implementation and emissions trading under the second review of the
Protocol under Article 9.
 As many had predicted, these consultations were difficult and were unable to
produce an agreement, leading COP/MOP 4 to conclude the second review of the
Protocol without any substantive outcome.
 Most developing countries expressed deep disappointment at the failure to increase
adaptation funding.
 While many parties and private sector representatives had also hoped for
improvements to the CDM under the Article 9 review, the lack of outcome on the
review meant that the improvements negotiated in Poznań were not adopted. The
AWG-KP, however, agreed to further consider issues related to the mechanisms in
the post-2012 period in its March/April session.

www.leonardo-
energy.org
References
General
 Climate Change 2007 – Assessment Report, IPCC;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
 Assessing the effort sharing for greenhouse gas emission reductions in ambitious global climate
scenarios; VTT Research Notes 2453; http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2008/T2453.pdf
 Climate Action Series Published by Sustainable Development International in partnership with the
United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/books/2008/
 energy [r]evolution, A Sustainable Global Energy Outlook, EREC , Greenpeace;
http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution2009.pdf
 Realizing the Potential of Energy Efficiency - Targets, Policies, and Measures for G8 Countries, UNF
Expert Report;
http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/unf_website/PDF/realizing_potential_energy_efficiency

UNFCC
 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/items/2625.php
 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf
COP 14 Reports
 http://www.twnside.org.sg/
 UNFCC Side Events
 http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop14/enbots/
 Poznan at UNFCCC
 http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_14/items/4481.php

www.leonardo-
energy.org