Press Release by OPEC

Delegates from the OPEC nations say their high economic dependency on the oil industry will result in a refusal to commit to any agreements on emission reductions if external support is not provided.

The coalition released the following statment:

"Now, at the end of the first negotiating day in Barcelona, OPEC members wish to share their opinion about the discussion through means of this press release. With regard to the proposal drafts that the mitigation working group has elaborated today, OPEC countries oppose any binding agreements on GHG reductions. It is necessary to address the problem of our economic dependency on the oil exports which supply developed countries. Binding agreements force OPEC nations to struggle for survival, making it impossible to agree to such reductions without the willingness of the oil importing countries to offer compensation. Furthermore, the OPEC members will address the common responsibility for the oil consumption among the oil importing countries. The negative effects of the oil industry upon the private markets in the OPEC countries makes it almost impossible to diversify the economy as well as the energy mix without adaptation funding that has been reserved for countries struggling with the impacts of climate change - funding to which we request access."

Contacts: Mai-Li Hammargren, Venezuela and Andreas Laschütza, Saudia Arabia

Russia Wins "Fossil-of-the-Day" Award

We are proud to present the today's winner of the Fossil-of-the-Day Award: RUSSIA.

Congratulations! You did the most to undermine international efforts to solve climate change.

The Fossil-of-the-day Award is given to countries that block progress at the United Nations Climate Change Negotations.

USA and Brazil announce ethanol agreement

The USA, Brazil and the Brazilian ethanol industry, represented by UNICA, announce the finalization of an agreement that will eliminate U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. In return, the Brazilian ethanol industry will become a major partner in the U.S. plans to build and maintain bio-refineries.

These plans were outlined by President Obama during a May 5, 2009 speech and have thus quickly been further developed.

Both Brazilian and U.S. delegates present at the Barcelona Climate Conference have expressed their great satisfaction with the deal. U.S. delegate Christina Papadam: “We are very pleased to make quick progress with our promises to the American people. This deal will not only decrease our dependence on OPEC energy, but will also help in our ongoing efforts to make the U.S.A. a leader and example in the fight against climate change, whilst expanding our own capacity for bio-fuels.”

On the other hand, Brazilian UNICA observer Simon Broekema told the Associated Press both Brazil and UNICA “are very pleased with this win-win situation. The tariffs were an obstacle to both fair competition and a greener U.S.A. and thus had to be removed. In return, we are very happy to help the U.S.A. with our significant expertise in the bio- ethanol area and to be an important partner in America’s battle against climate change. We see this deal as the culmination of the ongoing discussions President da Silva and President Obama had earlier this year and strongly encourage the European Union to follow the U.S.A.’s example”.

More concrete details on the deal were not immediately released.

Adaptation Working Group agreed on a definition of refugees and the process of accepting them

During the second committee session, the Adaptation committee reached the following decisions regarding designing a new post-2012 architecture for managing climate change, which will be presented in the plenary in the afternoon of the same day:

"The Adaptation Working Group has agreed on a definition of refugees and the process of accepting them. Therefore a new 'Refugee Fund' will be established which will be administered by a neutral party.

Paragraph 1
A permanent climate refugee is defined as everybody who has to move for more than one year, caused by scientific proven climate change effects. These climate change effects are exemplified by a list, which is approved by scientists (a neutral committee for this reason will be assigned by the UNFCCC). If the list needs to be extended by new effects, the UNFCCC will have to acknowledge these factors. Non-permanent climate change refugees are these who have to move for less than one year.
Refugees are distinguished between domestic and non-domestic climate change refugees, depending on the area affected by the climate change effect.

Paragraph 2
Domestic relocation should always be the first option, however, if this is not feasible, non-domestic relocation will be pursued. The costs of this movement are paid by a refugee fund. A new neutral committee will define the costs stemming from a catastrophe on a case-to-case basis. Permanent climate change refugees move to the countries most feasible to them. A neutral committee determines feasibility. Financial incentive is created for hosting countries to take these refugees on board. Exemplary List of climate change effects: (agreed by participating countries)
• Natural catastrophes
• Altered rainfall regimes (floods, desertification, droughts)
• Sea-level rises"

"Very satisfied with the good outcome"
Richard Spreng, Chair of the Adaptation Committee, comments on this: „I am very satisfied with the good outcome of a lively discussion on the very important topic of refugees. In my opinion we have reached an extensive definition of how to proceed with refugees which will help to overcome the problems of the future”.

For more information how the plenary decides see http://barcelonaprotocol.blogspot.com

Nuclear can't be the "exit"

Greenpeace and WWF strongly object to the proposal of allowing nuclear energy projects to be accredited under the CDM.

According to Isabelle Ljong (WWF Brazil) and Anders Gammelsaeter (Greenpeace France),the "proposal on including nuclear projects under the CDM is a result of industry lobbying and sign of short-term thinking" and the discussions weren't following the facts, but mirrored the power of the different industrial lobbies.

Arguments against nuclear energy
In a press conference, WWF and Greenpeace listed arguments against nuclear power as solution to the climate change problem:

1. "Focussing on nuclear power will block innovation in the power supply sector and thus hinder the development of real renewable energy.
2. When nuclear power plants are constructed it usually takes at least five years, and up to 4 years delays are normal. Besides, budgets are often overrun by up to 300%.
3. Nuclear power is claimed to be renewable by several countries like France and Russia, this is not true at all since the power plants have to be fueled by scarce uranium. If we substituted all fossil fuels for nuclear energy the world would run out of uranium in only four years.
4. For instance, wind power is a far cheaper solution as it generates both more electricity and more jobs.
5. Nuclear energy is still unsafe (the storage question is still not solved) and replacing fossil fuel with nuclear energy would simply replace one fundamental environmental problem with another.
6. It's not such a clean industry: Research carried out for the European Union concluded that when looking at the whole cycle of nuclear generation nuclear power stations would produce around 50% more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power.
7. Renewable energy on the other hand can generate almost six times the current global energy demand with today’s technology.
8. Nuclear power plants can be targets for terrorists and a source for nuclear weapons – this is important to keep in mind if this technology is to be transferred to developing countries. We shouldn't repeat the mistakes that were made in the past."
   

WWF and Greenpeace have a vision for the future which phases out the use of fossil fuel and nuclear in the share of energy use across the globe.

Forestation projects not to be included in the CDM
The CDM seems not to be the answer to all Climate Change problems, though: even the WWF in Brazil doesn't want to include forestation projects in the CDM. The long term effects would just not be measurable in a consistent way. WWF in this case supports the Brazilian government which opts for creating incentives for direct investments in forestation.

Whilst Isabelle Ljong didn't criticise her government, Anders Gammelsauer strongly asked the French delegation not to include nuclear power in the CDM.

oikos media productions®

USA, Germany and UK's response to the nuclear energy issue

After an impulsive discussion during the second meeting of CDM committee, delegates from USA, Germany and United Kingdom voiced their concerns about the recent proposals. They called a press conference to share with media their views on the possible results of the agreements with the certain wordings.

The USA supports the inclusion of nuclear energy in the CDM. However, they admit that 25% is definitely too much. The US-Americans support inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects in the CDM.

The German delegate reminds that they have agreed on the partnership with France to support inclusion of nuclear power. This agreement influences their present position. However, he would like to highlight that 25% is also too much in their opinion. It would cause immediate investments in developing countries affecting their energy sector structure. It would also significantly increase the number of nuclear plants, which is now only a small share. Germany thinks that this will shift away really renewable energies. It also adds that there should be more governmental representaives in CDM group.

Having agreed with the previous statements made by USA and Germany, United Kingdom (Fedor Durnev) reminds that in developing countries with a week infrastructure, an installation of the nuclear projects will create a huge danger to global safety. It will soon cause risks comparable to climate change.

oikos media productions®

External objective benchmark in project evaluation becomes the bone of contention in CDM group

The most controversial subjects in CDM group became the statement about the external objective benchmark in project evaluation. "European Union's representative tries to make already demanding standards even higher", says Sarah Schwepke, the delegate form Uganda. At the moment, only 2% of projects is distributed to Africa. All countries agree that the present distribution ratio is unfair. China, Russia, Brazil and Uganda oppose rising the standards that are now hard to meet by many developing countries. United Kingdom rises its concerns if the quality of the distribution process will be appropriate in the future. So far the consensus cannot be reached.

oikos media productions®

Russia and Saudi Arabia apparently blocking Mitigation efforts

Russia is not taking responsibility for committing seriously to combat climate change. At least, this is reported by the British newspaper "The Sun" who could be part of a session of the mitigation committee at the UNFCCC negotiations in Barcelona.

Whilst other Annex 1 countries would have agreed on a reduction of GHG emmissions by 40% until 2020, Russia wanted to be excluded from this rule. oikos media productions® now got to know through insider information, that because of the massive pressure of the other countries and NGOs, Russia will probably agree to a reduction of GHG by 30% until 2020, but only if other demands are met in the other committees.

We will constantly up-date about the process of the negotiation. The ongoing debates remain extremely hot...

oikos media productions®

Brazil, India and China against creation of new country groups

During the current coalition meetings at the Model UNFCCC in Barcelona, Brazil, India and China have held a spontaneous press conference releasing their first statements:

1. "Brazil, India and China are strongly opposed to the creation of subgroups originating from the original Annex 1 and non-annex 1 structure.
2. It is too soon to determine which differences exist between different developing countries as this decision would imply precise determination of distinctive factors.
3. As a result, we will block any attempt to create such subdivision.
4. At the same time, we believe that the common but differentiated responsibilities implies that our fast growing economies will shoulder a greater part of the burden than other developing countries. This, however, does not require the amendment of the UNFCCC to accommodate new groups."

With this message, Brazil, India and China show that they will not committ legally to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Sudan boycotts the negotiations in Adaptation committee

“I want to show our complaint to the absence of developed countries and I will now leave the room to show it to the world,” the representative said. Othmar Schwarz, the government delegate from Sudan, strongly protested against the passive attitude of developed countries. He expressed his disagreement with the current situation and with the “overwhelming ignorance” of the present leaders.

No European Union country except for Poland joined the Adaptation committee. The delegate from Poland, Nathalie Zagoda, represented not only Polish but also European attitudes. “The most surprising is the decision of the United Kingdom not to send a delegate. This is a key country in the adaptation process. It is a pity because they have also a great influence on their former colonies and dependant countries,” said Mrs Zagoda.

Struggling on definition of a climate refugee, countries sadly stated that the developed world does not truly care about this issue. Europe and the USA are the preferred destinations for climate refugees, yet are not represented in refugee discussions. China emphasized the severe climate changes that occur worldwide. Due to this fact, people affected by mentioned changes should be also considered as potentially prone to become climate refugees.

Some countries from AOSIS have been concerned about the recent rumours. There was a leakage that the governmental representative from United Kingdom at first was asked to the Adaptation committee. Shortly after publishing the list of countries in the committees, United Kingdom informed the President of UNFCCC, Melissa Paschall, in a diplomatic note that it would like to move to the Mitigation Committee. It proposed to send its NGO, Oxfam, delegate to be represented during talks. Germany refused a proposal to join the adaptation process as well. Is the discrimination circle now closed after the coalition round?

Yours, oikos media productions®

Results after the first committee session: Consensus that CDM shall be coninued

Stephanie Pratsch (South Africa), Chair of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Comittee exclusively reports to oikos media productions® about the outcomes of the first Committee session


During the first committee session on Thursday morning, the CDM committee reached the following decisions which they will present to the plenary in the afternoon:

• The CDM should be continued after 2012, but must be further developed (vote by consensus)
  
• Nuclear Power should be included in the CDM, but may not exceed a quota of 25% of all CDM credits given (vote with 3/4 majority)
  
• The technology of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) should be included in the CDM, but may not exceed a quota of 15% of all CDM credits given until 2040 (vote with 3/4 majority)

Stephanie Pratsch about the CCS decision: "We need to be open to the new technologies for achieving our goal of a safer planet." In the discussion about nuclear power apparently two views predominated, Germany as the strongest opponent to nuclear power and France leading the coalition against nuclear power.

"But the most important decision for us in the Algiers coalition is that the CDM will be continued - so long as the plenary accepts our proposals." South Africa partners with Uganda and Sudan during the negotiations in Barcelona, and together the coalition speaks for all of Africa. "Only 2% of the CDM projects are realised in Africa so far," said Pratsch, criticising the complicated and bureaucratic application process that hinders most Least Developed Countries in their attempts to apply for CDM projects. The administrative process of the CDM should be changed, according to Pratsch's view.

What about the coalition's opinion towards the involovement of emerging countries like China and India? "It is important that the emerging countries also reduce their CO2 emmissions significantly. We should increase the overall scope of the CDM - both in terms of the project types and overall volume, so we can realise CDM projects both in developing and in emerging countries."

How the plenary decides, what the other committees discussed - read it here at http://barcelonaprotocol.blogspot.com/.

Your oikos media productions® team

"In this group we will really come to new solutions."

Rafael Sarda, mayor of Barcelona, Hokkaido Fukuyama, past President (of the Kyoto negotiations), and Melissa Paschall, President of the negotiations, now opened the 2 days negotiations for coming to a new international agreement in the UNFCCC.

"We are back on track after a long way of struggling", resumed Hokkaido Fukuyama who in 1997 was right next to Kofi Annan while signing the then decided Kyoto Protocol. Referring to the reduced number of delegates - in Poznan 2008 a nearly unmanageble number of 10.000 people had gathered while now the group is limited to 32 delegates - he pictured: "In this group we will really come to new solutions."

A battle cry by advocates for strong action against climate change may see some hope in the "Yes, we can" by the US delegate Marius Peter Styczen who in his opening statement showed commitment to working together internationally and no longer isolating itself from international agreements in this area.

If one can judge by the opening statements of the different countries present, the following conflict lines will probably dominate the discussions:
While the AOSIS and African countries need a rigorous reduction in CO2 emissions in order to survive (95% by 2050, with 1990 as a baseline), the oil producing countries such as Saudia Arabia and Russia do not show commitment to contribute to moving away from fossil-fuel based energy. They opt for new technologies rather than a change in energy consumption patterns. Whilst nobody was negating the need for the reduction of CO2 emissions, differences could be heard about the speed of reduction and also the path to go there.

Will developing countries also seriously commit to reducing CO2? Perhaps. China for example offered to stabilize its current emissions, though without legally committing to this goal. At the moment, the delegates are in committee discussions on Adaptation, Mitigation and Clean Development Mechanism - negotiating joint solutions for combatting climate change.

We will be posting as the situation evolves...