Copenhagen: What have Developed Countries put on the table so far?

December 15, 2009

Breakfast (and climate change megabucks) with George Soros

December 15, 2009

What's on the Copenhagen table part 2: developing countries

December 15, 2009
empty image
empty image

As ministers and heads of state start to fly in, and Copenhagen (hopefully) gets serious,  here’s the companion to my previous post, summarizing key developing country positions in the negotiations. Let me know if there are any mistakes/additions and I’ll pass them on. [sorry for two blogs in one day, but this week is a bit special, and I promise to stop over Christmas….]

China

Curbing Emissions Growth
China announced in November that it would voluntarily cut emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45% by 2020 compared with levels in 2005 – this is equivalent to up to a 12.5% deviation from business as usual emissions.

Note: China is one of the crucial countries to a deal on emission reduction. The potential is there for more ambition from China (and all other developing countries) if rich countries put significant finance and technology transfer on the table.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
China as part of the G77+China bloc, has asked for 0.5 to 1% of rich country GDP in long-term financing. [note from me: The BBC was reporting today that ‘A senior Chinese source told BBC News that China will not accept a single dollar’ of this money in order to avoid alienating the US Congress]

India

Curbing Emissions Growth
Shortly before Copenhagen, India committed to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 20-25% on 2005 levels by 2020. India has indicated it is prepared to ″do more″ if Copenhagen produces a satisfactory deal.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
India as part of the G77+China bloc, has asked for 0.5 to 1% of rich country GDP in long-term financing.

South Africa

Curbing Emissions Growth
In the first week of Copenhagen, South Africa pledged a 34% emissions reduction below business as usual by 2020 and 42% by 2025. This commitment is conditional on a “fair, ambitious, and effective” global deal, including under the Kyoto Protocol, and importantly on international finance, technology, and capacity-building support from rich countries.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
Last week, president Jacob Zuma said that $100bn per year is needed for low carbon development and a further $100bn per year for adaptation.

Brazil

Curbing Emissions Growth
Brazil has voluntarily pledged to curb emissions by close to 40% below business as usual by 2020 –including an 80% reduction of deforestation. The pledge is included in a bill that has been passed by the House and Senate. Brazil is prepared to measure, report and verify these reductions.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
Brazil as part of the G77+China bloc, has asked for 0.5 to 1% of rich country GDP in long-term financing.

Africa Group

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
In a draft text from last week at Copenhagen, the group demands rich countries allocate the following percentage of GDP to support developing countries:
– Short-term: between 0.5 and 1% – worth over $400bn a year.
– Long-term: 5%.

Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

Financial Demands On Rich Countries: The group wants rich countries to provide 1.5% of their GDP for long-term finance for developing nations.

Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)

Financial Demands On Rich Countries: The group wants rich countries to provide between 0.5 and 2% of their GDP as long-term finance for developing nations.

Indonesia

Curbing Emissions Growth
In September, Indonesia made official a 26% reduction in emissions compared with business as usual in 2020. With international support, Indonesia is confident it could cut emissions by as much as 41% below business as usual.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
Indonesia as part of the G77+China bloc has asked for 0.5 to 1% of rich country GDP in long-term financing.

South Korea

Curbing Emissions Growth
In November, South Korea voluntarily committed to 30 percent reduction by 2020 from its forecast under a “business as usual” scenario. This is equivalent to a 4% reduction on 1990 levels.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
South Korea is a member of the OECD, but paradoxically is not an annex 1 country under the Kyoto Protocol. It therefore does not have binding emissions reductions and could receive financial support in order to undertake emissions reductions. Not vocal on finance.

Mexico

Curbing Emissions Growth
Mexico proposed to curb emissions by 50% by 2050 (30% by 2020) below business as usual. The target is framed as “aspirational” and contingent on a multilateral regime that deploys significant financial and technological resources.

Financial Demands On Rich Countries
Architect of the ‘Green Fund Proposal’ – a fund into which all countries would make contributions based on their emissions and wealth. Mexico has proposed that this could raise $10bn a year. In fact, much more is required. Mexico and Norway have presented today (15 December) a joint document combining key elements of the Mexican and Norwegian proposals.

3 comments

  1. Thanks for blogging and for keeping us up to date. For someone very interested in the negotiations but very busy with other committments, it’s not very easy to find information like this collected in one source. I really appreciate it.

  2. Yvo De Boer and the leaders of Copenhagen Climate Change Conference are engaged in “the good fight” at the last, best opportunity for human civilization to save the planet for the children and coming generation as a fit place for human habitation. Years ago I was told that my generation had a duty to leave the world a better place than what is was when it was given to us by our forefathers and foremothers. It goes without saying that my not-so-great generation of greed-mongering elders will fall woefully short of discharging its responsibilities. Come what may for the children. Too many arrogant and selfish leaders in a single generation have recklessly chosen to fight wrongful wars for wrongheaded reasons, at a cost of blood and treasure that is as astounding in its stupidity as it is incalculable to measure.

Leave a comment