January 15, 2016

Kyiv COPs a bye in Paris

More

Some skeptics called it the “hot air summit.” Officially, it’s called the “Conference of Parties – 21st Session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” or COP21-UNFCCC. The meeting took place from November 30 to December 13, 2015, in Paris. In all, 195 nations showed up, including presidents, princes, celebrities and dictators. Ukraine sent its small delegation, for it stands to gain some financial rewards for its fortuitous stance on reducing greenhouse gases.

President Barack Obama recently stated that “no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a change in climate.” The COP21 summit came just two weeks after the horrific slaughter of over 200 innocent civilians in Paris, on top of tens of thousands of deaths in Syria and Iraq during the past year, together with over 4 million refugees from that civil war. COP21 was one of President Obama’s crown jewels of achievements, along with the Iranian nuclear deal.

However, COP21 was almost derailed in the last minute by a single word. Someone had inserted “shall” instead of “should” into the text, referring to financial commitments by the developed world to the developing world. A crisis was averted with some extra-legal juggling and discretion of the chair of COP21, Laurent Fabius, the French minister of foreign affairs and international development.

The entire two-week meeting was made of many such compromises – of changing “shall” to “should” and “will” to “may.” Many supporters of the agreement were disgusted with the watering down of all enforcement mechanisms. John Kerry repeatedly had to twist the arms of Saudi Arabia, China and India, who resisted all calls for mandatory requirements, to stay the course. The result is a largely voluntary agreement, which is not officially termed a treaty, otherwise it would have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

It was a historic summit, nevertheless, and considered a huge success by nearly all who participated. In the world of diplomacy, it is a truly a monumental accomplishment to get 195 countries to even agree on the simplest of realities. Though most of the commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next 15 years are voluntary, and there are no enforcement mechanisms, except for voluntary reports. The hope is that peer pressure and subsequent COPs will ultimately ratchet up mandatory requirements. They will be needed, if they hope to limit global average temperature increase to just 2.0 degrees C (3.8 degrees F).

Ukraine submitted its “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC) early. This is U.N.-speak for what Ukraine agreed to as its target for reducing GHGs by 2030, as part of the COP21 agreement. All national targets are based on 1990 emissions levels. Ukraine’s GHG emissions during the peak of its Soviet industrial era in 1990 was 943 million metric tons (MMt). According to the latest figures (2012), it stands at 281 MMt, and is probably even lower now that industry in Donbas is operating at about 30 percent of what it was in 2012.

But, here’s the rub, and why Ukraine got a bye at the COP21 climate summit. Ukraine’s promise to keep greenhouse gas emissions at 60 percent of 1990 levels looks very good on paper, at a time when most countries are having trouble reducing GHGs by only a few percent, and China and India are increasing theirs by 40-50 percent. However, 60 percent of the 1990 emissions level translates to 386 MMt of GHGs. This actually represents a 40 percent increase in GHGs over current emissions in 2012. This is one of those rare times that lady luck is with Ukraine, i.e., that 1990 is the official baseline.

There were two key contentious issues at COP21 that separated the delegates of developed and developing nations: are the commitments voluntary, and how big the package of financial aid will be for helping developing nations to convert to renewable energy. China, Saudi Arabia and India led the resistance to mandatory requirements, while the developing world, the G-77 as they are known, led the campaign for pledges to create a fund of $100 billion per year to assist their conversion to green energy, i. e., low-carbon-intensity sources. And of course, we the taxpayers, will be picking up the tab.

The deal takes us to 2030, when GHGs are expected to peak, and China, India and other coal-consuming nations will start to replace their carbon-based economy with renewable energy sources. China has pledged to peak at 14,000 million metric tons of GHGs by 2030, a 40 percent increase from 10,000 MMt currently emitted. The U.S. has promised to reduce its emissions from 5,500 MMt to 4,500 MMt, a 20 percent decrease, while India is to increase its emissions from 3,000 MMt to 4,500 MMT (a 50 percent increase). In other words, just two nations, China and India, will be allowed to produce more GHGs over the next 15 years than all the pledged reductions from all the other nations combined. Net global emissions will actually increase over the next 15 years.

The net result is that scientists say, based on their models, this agreement will reduce temperatures by only 0.17 degrees C (0.3 degrees F) by 2100, without some technological miracles by 2050. Temperatures will continue to climb well beyond the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) level that was agreed to as the upper limit, to about 4.5 degrees C (8 degrees F), by 2100, based on the commitments of COP21.

So what exactly is the value of this agreement? A panel of five leading climate scientists, who are in charge of modelling the outcomes of such agreements and commitments, said that in order to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees C, net GHG emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050. That spells economic catastrophe for most developing nations.

In order to stabilize temperature at 2 degrees C by 2050, GHG emissions would have to be balanced by the natural and man-made absorptive capacity of the earth. The hope is that technologies for carbon sequestration can be found to enhance the absorptive capacity of forests and oceans. This is called the “GHG emissions neutrality” target. That means that technological adaptation must accelerate dramatically over the next 25 years in order to achieve that drastic goal of zero net emissions by 2050.

Over the next decade, rich countries and multilateral lending organizations, like the World Bank, will be diverting over $1 trillion to so-called “climate aid” as a consequence of financial pledges made in Paris. What this really means, is that COP21 is telling 1 billion of the world’s worst-off people, suffering from poverty, tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition, that what they need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients or even jobs, but a solar panel.

Ukraine sat largely on the sidelines at this conference, for its commitments looked very good at first blush. Also, Ukraine would be a beneficiary of whatever climate fund is set up – either based on trading carbon credits or direct grants. It would be in a very good position sell its unused carbon credits to other industrial nations that cannot fulfill their pledges.

Ukraine got a bye at COP21, i.e., it was not asked to make any sacrifices, by virtue of its dismal economic performance since the break-up of the USSR, and its recent troubles in Crimea and the Donbas. Back in 1990 Ukraine was the fourth largest producer of GHGs – today, it ranks 21st.

How Ukraine’s share of carbon credits and other financial grants will be used or misused in the midst of widespread ingrained corrupt practices is yet to be determined. Judging from the previous misuse of hundreds of millions of dollars from the original Kyoto Protocol, the prospects are bleak.

The greatest problem of the COP21 commitments is that it will greatly slow down economic growth, especially in developing nations such as India, Indonesia, Philippines and most of Africa, which are dealing with explosive population growth and are struggling desperately to reduce crushing poverty and child mortality.

In contrast to the numerous uncertainties associated with global warming and climate change, we are certain that poverty kills millions of people each year – mostly the young. The irony is that energy use reduces poverty because it is a sign of wealth, growing economies and job creation.

The recent economic growth of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) contributed to most of the gains in poverty reduction seen over the past decade. These countries also produced most of the increase in GHGs of the past decade.

In addition to China and India building over 200 coal-fired power plants each year, the Philippines is set to open 23 coal-fired power plants over the next five years to meet rising electricity demand, illustrating the challenge climate-talk negotiators faced in crafting a deal that reduces carbon emissions. In the Philippines and in dozens of other developing countries, coal remains an essential fuel for building more prosperous societies.

Two large industrialized nations have taken different paths towards this goal. France relies for over 75 percent of its energy needs on nuclear power, which does not produce GHGs – it is considered clean energy. Brazil meets 75 percent of its energy through hydropower. Ukraine currently generates 20 percent of its energy using nuclear power, with coal providing 35 percent and gas contributing to 35 percent as well. Ukraine has over 100 years of shale gas reserves locked up in the Carpathian region, and another 300 years of reserves in the Donbas region.

Why Ukraine can’t seem to adopt the relatively simple fracking technology that has revolutionized oil and gas exploitation in the U.S. is beyond comprehension. There are several U.S. companies exploring Ukraine’s deposits and transferring fracking technology. Ukraine can be both green and energy independent, simply by substituting gas for coal, and constructing a few more nuclear power plants. Natural gas produces about half the GHGs as the equivalent energy value of coal.

Massive corruption is impeding Ukraine’s economy and goals for energy independence. Ukraine’s GDP in 2005 was $86 billion. In 2013, it rose to a peak of $183 billion and dropped in 2014 to $132 billion. It is projected to be about $90 billion in 2015. Ukraine’s 2015 GDP rank is 65th out of 185 nations, just below Ecuador, Angola and Morocco, and just ahead of the Slovak Republic and Sudan.

It’s not only the poor economy, the frozen conflict and loss of the Donbas that’s the problem. The persistent underlying blight is that the oligarchs and petty government officials at all levels are plundering the wealth of Ukraine. It can never recover from its economic malaise unless corruption is tamed.

That’s why U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Ukraine (December 7, 2015), just before the COP21 meeting, pledged an additional $190 million in new U.S. aid to Ukraine will help the country implement reforms and fight corruption. “It’s absolutely critical for Ukraine, in order to be stable and prosperous and part of a secure Europe, to definitely, thoroughly completely root out the cancer of corruption,” Mr. Biden said in Kyiv during a joint briefing with Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko following bilateral talks.

Comments are closed.