Marrakech

Another COP has come and gone and Trump* is threatening Paris from NYC and the world keeps beating heat records and the deniers deny and the scientist warn and the politicians politicise and it all continues as it always has. Until it does no more. That's the threat of climate change: that it all continues until the window for action if passed and things really change. For the worse. We've been warned. Some suggest Paris was the big change: certainly Kyoto wasn't. There are signs of change, even that action is "irreversible" (we were told this word is now included in official documentation), but the big issue is just how quickly that change happens and whether it's quick enough. There was elation after Paris but some wariness amongst presenters at "A postcard from Marrakech: Implementing the Paris Climate Agreement". This event was a report on COP22, convened, or at least hosted, by the EU Delegation to Australia and the ANU Climate Change Institute. It was a sister event to one after Paris COP21 (also reported by CJ) and I guess we can expect another after next year's COP chaired by PNG and held in Bonn. We were told this COP the "new normal for COPs", more on development rather than decisions, working on the "Rule Book" (no doubt essential but not exciting). The Trump election happened during the sessions and the world changed, but the process is "irreversible", even if the US only comes to it pushed and shoved; also during the sessions, the Paris Treaty was ratified (very positively in 1 year; Kyoto took 7 years); also International Civil aviation made decisions on carbon offsets and the Montreal Protocol agreed to reduce HFC (greenhouse gases but outside Paris); but also a new Potsdam Institute report of climate sensitivities suggested we are tracking higher than previously thought, on track for 4-7degC (!). At least with the "new normal" we are "over the worst of the politics". Other observations: business and non-staters are now central to action; technology is changing unexpectedly rapidly (with implications not least for coal); equity remains an issue (the industrialised countries created the bulk of the problem) but the Adaption Fund and developing country actions are looking better (India and China are sounding good on climate change - immensely better than coal-munching Australia); developing countries need to adapt more than mitigate and South-South networks are developing to support adaption; thermal coal is looking on a steep decline, although metallurgical coal remains an issue; military carbon is exempted from reporting, but interestingly the US Military is progressing very well; business adaption is "quite astonishing" given new tech and awareness that action is now for real; "blue carbon" is carbon in the sea, and it's important and now being considered. Nice to hear our Australian delegation described as "responsive, pragmatic, helpful". I don't find it hard to conceive of our bureaucrats as that, or even our political reps (Julie Bishop and Josh Frydenberg) who are probably at the forefront of a disappointing government. Politics is more difficult than we outsiders allow for: I just hope there's a secret plan to restore sense to this issue in Australia (perhaps that's the Climate Review 2017?). The central theme remained, reasserted several times during the night: there's "no argument change is needed, but how quickly action will happen", or we've "got to go much faster in all directions". But there was one moment of excitement when the Canadian Ambassador outlined actions under Trudeau: introduction of carbon pricing; invitations to scientists to educate Premiers and public; increased transfers to poorer nations; commitment to eliminate coal by 2030; but the biggest, Trudeau's leadership in promoting climate change as the "greatest challenge and greatest opportunity". A breath of fresh air for tired Australian ears. We spoke to the Ambassador after and this doesn't happen overnight, but there's obvious leadership (happily informed by evidence, strange that...). We also spoke to our Australian rep at the event, Jo Evans of Climate Change and Renewable Innovations. She invited our submissions to the review in 2017 and listened to my despair. That couldn't have been easy so thanks to Jo.

A postcard from Marrakech : Implementing the Paris Climate Agreement was hosted by the EU Delegation to Australia and the ANU Climate Change Institute at the ANU. Speakers included academics Howard Bamsey, Luke Kemp, Hannah Barrowman and Richard Baker, diplomats Paul Maddison, Sem Fabrizi, Karim Medrek and Charles Lepam, local bureaucrat Jo Evans and journalist Angela McDonald (presented with an award at the event).

*As I write this, I read one of his functionaries is saying Trump will strip funding from NASA's Earth Science division in favour of solar system exploration. Flying blind. God help us. [ Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on "politicised science" / Oliver Milman. In The Guardian Australia, online, viewed 23 Nov 2016. ]

To fret or to despair

With all the despair around the US Election, here was one session I couldn't miss: a seminar at ANU on US Climate policy after Obama, ie, after the upcoming election. These are serious sessions and well worth the visits. This was convened by the ANU Climate Change Institute and introduced by its Director, Mark Howden, with key guest was Elliot Diringer or the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, with a past in the (Bill) Clinton White House. This was not a party-political presentation (although some despair or disdain is inevitable when considering some future options).

Elliot Diringer spoke first. Firstly on the foundations for the present, how there was emerging climate bipartisanship but how it failed especially in the context of the Tea Part and conservative backlash. Then about Obama carrying out limited actions under Presidential Executive Powers, made possible as the Supreme Court included greenhouse gases under this act. Thus, standards were introduced for vehicles and power emissions were limited by plan for implementation by the States. The death of Justice Scalia brought Congress to deny a replacement, presumably hoping for a Republican win. Then Obama and international powers used for the Paris agreement and for lead-up announcements with China (oh, how that discomforted our own anti-Climate-action warriors, not least Abbott). But the agreement had to be implementable without Congressional agreement, so it is fragile. The current status is US emissions (thanks also to natural gas and new tech) is reduced 10% and a landmark climate agreement (Paris) is in place but the Clean Power Plan is in legal limbo through State actions and the outcome depends on a new Supreme Court Justice which awaits a new president in 5 months. And this election is "unusually, unpredictable ... humbling for political pundits" and will lead to the "solidification or unravelling of [established] climate change actions" given the "stark difference" between Hillary (Clinton) and Trump. Hillary has engaged with negotiation, launched coalitions, outlined comprehensive plans for a "clean energy superpower". Trumpet has no record in public office, has rhetorically called climate change a "hoax" (memories of Abbott and his "crap" call), (if I have this right - it seems so nutty) suggested it's developed by the Chinese to roll back US dominance by bureaucratic control, and that he'd cancel the Paris Agreement and declare US energy dominance. Wow! So, possible scenarios are these: 1. A Trump president who is true to his word; a return to US climate policy dark ages; EPA remains obligated to control greenhouse gases but is delayed; US withdraws from Paris which undermines the will of other countries. 2. A Clinton presidency with Republican control of Congress, requiring continued Exec powers; resistance from the States; the question of which Supreme Court Justice replaces Scalia; a possible window for legislation to enact a Carbon tax with more general fiscal reform (with public support and private sector impatience with uncertainty). 3. A Clinton presidency with 1 or 2 houses to Democrats or detente with Congress, or Trump wins and forgets his previous lines and makes a deal. ED is not a fan of US Exceptionalism but he does see the US as decisive in climate matters. There's now a decent agreement in place, 2degC is "extremely demanding" but is depends on countries "all doing our fair share".

The local panel members were Eliza Murray and Luke Kemp. Luke spoke first. A Hillary presidency would be BAU (Business As Usual); can the Congressional deadlock [on more than just climate] be broken?; Trump ("the most interesting scenario for me as a pessimist") can't cancel Paris but can withdraw the US and this is "detrimental perhaps not fatal" and other US actors (cities, states) may continue to act and some renegotiation may be required to deal with country withdrawals (difficult and not quick). The Paris negotiations were effective but risky (but necessary given Congressional intransigence). Then Eliza on the history of policy making in Australia, how the Carbon tax/ETS were withdrawn and how a centralised approach (as in Australia) has these dangers; about how some constituencies and action, carbon farming and reinvestments were retained under Direct Action; about how maintaining a string of actors tests approaches and is less risky (but less likely in a smaller federation like Australia).

There were questions about "bottom-up" movements and city/state action and flexibility; how Obama's earlier legislation failed despite Democrats holding both houses; about the need for different language than "carbon tax" [how trivial but necessary - so much for informed citizenship]; about Hillary's approach to the election "we are going to put a lot of coal miners out of work" but offering support for the change; about country-level carbon inventories that predate Paris, how measurements are for where a fuel is burnt and how planes and shipping are not country-based; about the UNFCC; renewable industries and the US. What thinking is in place to protect Paris post Trump? Was it ED who was terrified by this scenario: US withdraws from Paris; bullish decision makers are destroyers [reminds me of Abbott once again]; without US at the table, a US return becomes harder over time. Otherwise, this has all happened unexpectedly and quickly, so little thought is yet given. What if Sanders runs as an independent (almost audible groans) and pretty much the end of the session.

There was more than this, but you get the gist. Watch this space over coming months. Mark Howden, Elliot Dirringer, Luke Kemp and Eliza Murray spoke on US Climate policy after Obama for the ANU Climate Change Institute.

Paris

I write this only a few days after the end of the Paris Climate Change convention (more formally COP21 and more). My despair over climate change had smouldered for a few months leading up to this event, obviously hoping for some positive outcome, late as it would be. Through the 2 weeks, the messages seemed to be good. In the end, there was much cheering and satisfaction. This looked positive, although there were nay-sayers too, on both left and right. There was even a staunch denialist letter to the Canberra Times arguing the cooling line, as I remember (it makes you wonder, but Trump is also unseemingly popular). I read some articles, but largely awaited this event at ANU. The event was "Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next?" coordinated by the ANU Climate Change Institute featuring 5 people (all men, noted by several woman around me) who had attended Paris, so this was informed. They were: Assoc Prof Frank Jotzo, Dep Dir, Crawford School, Dir, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy; Adj Prof Howard Bamsey, formerly Australia’s Special Envoy on Climate Change; Luke Kemp, lecturer and finishing PhD student at ANU with a focus on climate negotiations (the young one); Doug McInnes, Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade; Alex Gosman, CEO, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. Chaired by Prof Mark Howden, Dir, ANU Climate Change Institute; introduced by H.E Sem Fabrizi, Ambassador, Delegation of the European Union to Australia; summarised by Prof Brian Schmidt, Leader of the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change (and soon to be ANU's VC, and our fave local Nobel prizewinner). A powerful team, it must be admitted! Each spoke for a few minutes, then some questions, then the summary. The session didn't summarise the agreement so much as talk of why and how success was reached and suggestions for what was now required. Here's my summary.

There were three elements for the successful outcome (and it is certainly seen as successful): Ambition (<2degC, targetting 1.5degC); commitment (transparency through INDCs, 5-yearly reviews, regular overall reports and a mechanism to ramp up ambitions by individual countries); solidarity (support for developing countries and the commitment to $100b pa transfers). The success was a function of France's "masterclass in diplomacy" (day 1 commitment by heads of government then transparent, inclusive shuttle diplomacy; a multilayered approach; good planning with a tight team; the writing and release of the draft then final texts). Also, the involvement of the USA ("a vindication of Obama"); Kerry's "masterful intervention"; the pre-G20 US/China deal that so flummoxed Abbott as "instrumental"; the behind-the-scenes bilaterals. But also important was the "alignment of the stars": Trudeau cheered for "Canada is back"; Australia "in from the cold" and winning only one Fossil of the Day award (oddly, a good result!); Obama not Republicans, more. And public scrutiny: all public events being televised thus limiting negativism and promoting positive ambition; the Paris Action Agenda of commitments by 800 businesses and NGOs. Amusingly, there was talk of calling the Pope to speak to the one country with a flag up approaching the final gavel, but he was unavailable, in Mass. It was recognised that this agreement comes nowhere near 2degC (I read variously 2.7-3.5degC) but it codifies existing efforts, sends signals to industries and commits to a mechanism to ramp up action. There's a certain optimism here, but it's reasonably founded and the outcome is more than might have been hoped for. A carbon price was not included (but that's a domestic decision) and neither was decarbonisation mentioned in the text (but it's an inevitable implication). The INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) are not legally binding, but the process of 5-yearly reports and ramped up actions apparently is binding and the burden of change has been shared to some degree by all parties, developed and developing. It was "heartwarming" that Australia was back in the process and apparently we did good work, even Greg Hunt (who would'a thunk it). The plan is for net zero emissions by end-century (or was it 2050?) and this requires all manner of actions to be used, including carbon sequestration (although I imagine that's an increasingly relatively costly option). ACT presented well as a subnational government but most others displayed good intentions and talk rather than action. Carbon Tracker ( http://www.carbontracker.org/ ) is a useful incentive for divestment and BHP did well by publishing its carbon risk; carbon risk will become increasingly recognised by business. Brian Schmidt observed that "humanity is pretty good at close problems (eg, nuclear war) ... this is long term, therefore a great achievement". That this is a framework but there are challenges ahead. That technology will be important but also the social sciences and humanities. That the ANU Climate Change Institute does great work. That this is the defining issue of our times and that it requires coordinated, long term generational effort without immediate gain (mmm, that's a worrying thought).

So it's clear that Paris was a great achievement but there's still plenty of work to do and possibility of failure and, despite the worthy target, we may not win. I still mull over the ~2.1degC positive forcing in place against the ~0.7degC negative forcing and how this fits, but the broad scientific view appears to be that there's still hope to avoid runaway climate change. That's the biggy: when the positive feedback loops start up and we lose the ability to turn things around, when those tipping points are reached, then it's game over. Paris suggests we may not get there: it seems there's hope yet. And then there are the denialists who will presumably still rant away. That should be frustrating but increasingly just an amusement for the rest of humanity.

Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next? was presented by the ANU Climate Change Institute and featured Frank Jotzo, Howard Bamsey, Luke Kemp, Doug McInnes, Alex Gosman, Mark Howden, Sem Fabrizi and Brian Schmidt.