Refine
Year of Publication
- 2007 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Division
- Präsidialbereich (4) (remove)
The United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi came at the end of a year where public awareness of climate change had reached unprecedented heights. Nonetheless, the conference proceeded with its usual diplomatic ritual, apparently unaffected by time pressure. While it did see some progress on important issues for developing countries such as the Adaptation Fund, the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation to Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), on questions regarding the future of the regime it proved to be at best a confidence-building session that served to hear further views. More serious work on the future of the regime must therefore be expected of the next Conferences of the Parties.
This article by Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott, Rie Watanabe and Bettina Wittneben summarises the results of the conference.
The "South-North Dialogue" Proposal, developed by researchers from developing and industrialised countries, outlined equitable approaches to mitigation. These approaches were based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate, and include deep cuts in industrialised (Annex I) countries and differentiated mitigation commitments for developing countries. This paper quantitatively analyses the implications of the proposal for countries' emissions and costs. The analysis focuses on a "political willingness" scenario and four stabilisation scenarios. The analysis shows that stringent stabilisation targets imply that many developing countries would have to take on quantitative mitigation obligations by 2030, even when the Annex I countries take on ambitious mitigation commitments far beyond the Kyoto obligations. The "political willingness scenario" will probably not suffice to limit a warming of the Earth's atmosphere to below 2 °C.
National welfare is no longer an effective frame of reference for enlightened foreign policy. Policy consideration must encompass the common welfare of a world society. Environmental and resource crises are inextricably tied to security and justice. Sixty years after the founding of the United Nations there should be a new effort to establish a genuinely sustainable global order - a "San Francisco 2.0".
Stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere at levels compatible with sustainable development is the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and an imperative for the global community. This is a daunting task, and its magnitude and costs are debated among scientists as well as policy-makers [Stern, 2006]. While most GHGs in the past have been emitted by developed countries and they are called upon to reduce their emissions and take responsibility for past mistakes, the contribution of developing countries in the future will reach similar magnitudes and is equally threatening for life on this planet. While developing countries have no commitments under the UNFCCC, they can still contribute voluntarily to climate change mitigation. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), as the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and the leading multilateral entity promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy in developing countries and countries in transition, needs to provide significant support to these countries with respect to reaching a path of sustainable energy supply and sustainable economic and social development. Since 1992, the GEF has provided around US$ 2 billion in grants to support projects in the climate change focal area, leveraging over US$ 10 billion in total investments. Most of these funds have been spent on climate change mitigation projects. The GEF's mandate with respect to mitigation is to develop, expand, and transform markets for energy and mobility in developing countries, enabling them to grow toward and efficiently operate on a less carbon-intensive path. In doing so, the GEF applies the incremental cost principle and is restricted in the selection of technologies by a number of factors. Developing markets for sustainable energy technologies and sustainable framework conditions is a long-term effort, and it is hard to understand how effective the GEF is or can be in fulfilling this mission. This paper discusses the magnitude of the challenge, and demonstrates that this challenge is too big for the GEF's limited funds, and provides some suggestions for the GEF's programming for maximizing its impact on global GHG emissions by seeking out the most rewarding opportunities and maximizing replication of successful project examples by effective outreach and knowledge management.