The Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen

Climate Change Conference

trend found in this graph…
claim related to patterns found in this graph…
 Kyoto Protocol. What is it?
• The Kyoto Protocol is part of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC or FCCC), and is aimed at fighting global
warming.
• The UNFCCC is an international environmental
treaty with the goal of achieving "stabilization of
greenhouse gases concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic (human) interference
with the climate system."
• The Protocol was initially adopted in
December of 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and
entered into force in February of 2005.
• As of July 2010, 191 states have signed and
ratified the protocol.
• Unfortunately, the US which is one of the
world's biggest polluters, signed but decided
not to ratify the treaty.
• Canada withdrew from it in 2011.
 Kyoto Protocol Countries

Green: Signed and Ratified

Orange: Signed and did not Ratify
Red: Signed and Withdrew
Purple: Signed but with no binding targets
 The Details
• Under the Protocol, countries commit
themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse
gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, sulphur hexaflouride)

• Countries also agreed to reduce their

collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2%
from the 1990 level.
 Is it working?
• The Kyoto Protocol, while well intentioned,
would appear to be doomed to failing its
objectives even before the 2008-2012
averaging period commences.
• Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are
rising at a frightening rate with no sign of
slowing. Global temperatures are continuing
to rise. 
Copenhagen Summit:
The Copenhagen Summit is the Annual Meeting of the Global
Think Tank. It is an international platform convened to stimulate
policy discussions on cognitive ageing and cognitive reserve with
key decision-makers in government, industry, and civil society.
Background:
The conference was preceded by the 
Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions
 scientific conference, which took place in March 2009
and was also held at the Bella Center. The negotiations
began to take a new format when in May 2009 UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attended the World
Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen,
organised by the Copenhagen Climate Council (COC),
where he requested that COC councillors attend New
York's Climate Week at the Summit on Climate Change
on 22 September and engage with heads of government
on the topic of the climate problem
 Copenhagen. What is it?
• The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as
the Copenhagen Summit, was held in Copenhagen, Denmark between 7
December and 18 December. Delgates from 183 countries participated in
summit.
• The conference included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
the 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol.
• COP15 was particularly significant due to an increasing international push
for new binding climate change legislature.
• A framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was to be agreed
there
• The Copenhagen Accord is not legally
binding, but allows for nations to submit
voluntary commitments. While the Accord
initially raised controversy, there has been
increasing acceptance. As of January 2010,
124 countries were engaged in some form
of voluntary commitment.
• The Accord is currently viewed as a
declaration that expresses an intent to act
on climate change.
• On Friday 18 December, the final day of the conference,
international media reported that the climate talks were "in
disarray". Media also reported that in lieu of a summit collapse,
only a "weak political statement" was anticipated at the
conclusion of the conference
• The Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the US, India, China,
Brazil and South Africa on December 18, and judged a
"meaningful agreement" by the United States government.
• It was "taken note of", but not "adopted", in a debate of all the
participating countries the next day, and it was not passed
unanimously.
 Purpose and Aim
 The purpose is to create global awareness of the importance of
the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, December 2009. Before
this UN meeting, the Copenhagen Climate Council works on
presenting innovative yet achievable solutions to climate
change, as well as assess what is required to make a new global
treaty effective.
 The Council will seek to promote constructive dialogue between
government and business at the meeting.
 By promoting and demonstrating innovative, positive, and
meaningful business leadership and ideas, the Copenhagen
Climate Council aims to demonstrate that achieving an effective
global climate treaty is not only possible, but necessary. 
 Strategies Adopted
 Creating international awareness of the importance
of the Copenhagen UN Climate Summit and the
successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
 Promoting constructive dialogue between
government, business, and science.
 Inspiring global business leaders by demonstrating
that tackling climate change also has the potential to
create huge opportunities for innovation and
economic growth.
 Country Level Initiatives:
• Australia: Reductions up to 25% by 2020, from 2000 levels
• 60% reductions by 2050
• China: Up to 45% reduction in carbon intensity, from 2005 levels
15% increase proportion in renewable fuels by 2020
• European Union: Up to 30% reduction by 2020, from 1990 levels Up
to 95% reduction by 2050
• India: Carbon intensity reductions of 20% below 2005 levels
• Japan: 25% reductions by 2020, from 1990 levels 80% reductions by
2050, from 2005 levels
• Mexico: Reductions of 30% below Business as Usual by 2020
• 50% reductions by 2050, from 2002 levels
• United States: Proposed reductions of 17% by 2020, from 2005
levels 83% reductions by 2050
Copenhagen Accord
Given these substantial constraints, the achievement of the Copenhagen Accord (and CoP15) is
significant and has far-reaching consequences for climate – and how future agreements are reached
within the UNFCCC framework. But will it stick?

One Agreement – Breaking the Deadlock

 Developed by 30 countries representing 80-85% of global GHG emissions
 Explicitly built on the scientific consensus of 2 degree Celsius temperature limit
 Offering unprecedented international funding for adaptation and mitigation
 Achieved extraordinary support from Parties, despite falling short of adoption: 188 signaling
for and 5 opposing following open debate

Global Leadership
 United States leadership was essential to break the UN deadlock and construct the Accord .
Without President Obama there it would not have happened
 A new US + BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) dynamic emerged. Is it durable?

Credibility of the Accord is Being Tested Immediately

 By January 31, 2010:
 Annex I Parties agree to submit commitments to implement economy-wide emissions
targets
 Non-Annex I Parties will communicate mitigation actions
What will be the level of response?
Copenhagen Accord – The Details
“The Conference of the Parties, takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009.”

Global Temperature • Hold global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius

Target

Emissions Cuts • Industrialized Parties to submit by January 31 st 2010 economy-wide emissions targets
• Developing Country Parties shall report mitigation activities every 2 years

Reducing • “Crucial role” of REDD plus recognized

Deforestation • Agrees need for immediate establishment of REDD-plus mechanism and to mobilize financial
resources from developed nations

Market • Agreed to explore “opportunities to use markets”

Mechanisms

Funding • “Scaled-up, new, and additional, predictable, and adequate”

• Listed Funding for REDD-plus, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-
building explicitly listed
• New resources approaching $30 billion total from 2010-2012
• Goal of $100 billion annually by 2020 for developing countries

NAMAs • Nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be recorded

• Supported NAMAs will be subject to international monitoring and verification

Assessment • Implementation of the Copenhagen Accord shall be assessed in 2015

• Consideration of strengthening long-term goals, including global temperature increases

Source: UNFCCC, C-Quest Capital

Copenhagen Accord: Last Minute Changes
What was almost agreed in the Accord is just as important. It was a clear signal of intent and would
have been published if China had not signaled disapproval
Draft Accord
 A view to reduce global
Global Cuts
emissions by 50 percent
below 1990 levels, taking
into account the right to
equitable access to
atmospheric space.
 Annex I Parties to the
Annex I Cuts
Convention commit to
reducing their emissions
individually or jointly by at
least 80 per cent by 2050.
 We call for a review of this
Accord and its implementation
Implementation
to be completed by
2016…”consideration of
strengthening the long term
goal to limit the increase to 1.5
degrees Celsius..
Source: UNFCCC, C-Quest Capital
Final Accord
 A view to reduce
global emissions so
as to hold the
increase in global
temperature below 2
degrees Celsius.
 Annex I Parties agree to
implement individually or jointly
the quantified economy-wide
emissions targets for 2020… by 31
January 2010.
 We call for an assessment of the
implementation of this Accord to
be completed by 2015….to include
strengthening the long term goal
referencing various matters,
including in relation to
temperature rises of 1.5 degrees
Celsius
Copenhagen Conference – Clean Development Mechanism

CDM reform measures approved are sweeping and comprehensive enabling CDM to become the anchor in
global offset trade at scale with potential post-Kyoto period demand

Market Capacity
Building: Third-Party
Verification by Private
Sector Entities (DOEs)
• To avoid market disruption from suspensions and to remove the
bottleneck of third-party validation and verification:
• Streamlined and continuous monitoring and performance reporting of
Designated Operational Entities (DOEs)
• Proactive cooperative measures to increase capacity and performance of
DOEs and to enhance transparency on guidance
• Continuous training on CDM project cycle and increased guidance

Accountability: An • To enable arbitration and recourse against the “Regulator” and its
Appeals Process agents:
• For DOEs under performance improvement measures
• Against decisions by the CDM Executive Board itself

Streamlining: • To make offset project registration and issuance faster and more
Registration and predictable
• Speeding up registration and issuance of projects and credits (CERs)
Issuance
• Making Programmatic CDM easier
• Allowing and encouraging consultation and feedback between the
Regulator, DOEs, and private sector market participants
• Quality assurance on the Regulator – Independent technical assessment
of secretariat analysis
Source: UNFCCC, C-Quest Capital
Copenhagen Conference – Clean Development Mechanism

CDM reform measures approved would make CDM to be truly scalable to meet post-Kyoto period,
including North America , Japan and Europe, but reform will take years to fully implement

Extending: Market
Reach of CDM by Asset
Class and Geography
Sustainable land use and
Agriculture
• To make CDM easier for low offset supply countries
• Tailoring methodologies to local needs, deferring registration costs, making
DOEs collaborative
• Increased study of CDM potential in low offset supply countries (<10 CDM
projects)
• Agriculture /Soil Carbon, revegetation, wetlands, and grazing lands to be eligible
activities. Replacing temporary credits with buffer reserves, and insurance
mechanisms to cover risk of impermanence (KP draft text, no brackets)

Standardizing: Baselines • To reduce uncertainty and increase efficiency within CDM project approval
process
• Developing broadly applicable baselines
• Considering specific national circumstances as well as environmental integrity

Simplifying: • To increase transparency and objectivity in additionality assessment

• New guidelines for demonstration and assessment of barriers
Additionality
• Standardized calculations of financial parameters
• Guidance for project participants on first-of-a-kind barriers
• Simplified modalities for renewables projects under 5 MW and energy
efficiency projects under 20 gWh per year
Source: UNFCCC, C-Quest Capital
 The Details
• The document recognized that climate change
is one of the greatest challenges of the
present day and that actions should be taken
to keep any temperature increases to below
2°C.
• The document is not legally binding and does
not contain any legally binding commitments
for reducing CO2 emissions.
 Result of the Summit
The international negotiations on climate change
wrapped up Dec. 19 in Copenhagen. The conference
achieved an interim agreement, known as the
Copenhagen Accord, which could put the major polluting
nations on a pathway to reducing global warming
pollution, and it continues to set the expectation for U.S.
domestic action on climate change.
Much work remains, but there were also numerous
notable achievements and meaningful insights into how
the United States can gain from leading the world
toward a new international clean-energy agreement.
 Impact on USA
As the Washington Post editorial board observed, the
Copenhagen Accord “should prod the U.S. Senate to
take up climate-change legislation.” President
Obama said that we should meet our commitment to
reduce pollution, not only because the science
demands it, but because it offers enormous economic
opportunity to build new clean-energy companies. This
first step in Copenhagen committed the United States
to passing legislation to make way for an international
binding agreement.
Copenhagen Implications: United States
The U.S. has finally and fully re-engaged at the global climate negotiating table, while pressing forward
with a domestic climate agenda

“As the world's largest economy and the world's second

largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in
addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that
responsibility…. So America is going to continue on this
course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen.
But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we
act together.”
-President Barack Obama
Copenhagen, December 18, 2009
Copenhagen Implications: United States
Efforts in the United States and global climate efforts are mutually dependent on each other

US draft legislation is tied a UNFCCC agreement outcomes in various ways:

Funding of developing countries to implement a UNFCCC agreement
Funding of multilateral instruments as part of a UNFCCC agreement
US use of international offsets must follow UNFCC rules or be issued by UNFCCC entities
US-approved REDD and A/R must satisfy the UNFCCC rules

What the US needs from global process: What the US can bring to a global process:

 Improved mitigation transparency from China  Funding commitments as seen in Copenhagen

and developing countries (major success for US
in Copenhagen)  Senate climate bill passage in the US will remove
major roadblock in negotiations
 Commitment by other OECD States to
commensurate GHG reduction targets  Acceptance of international offsets – REDD, ARR
and CDM credits for US compliance
 Adequate burden sharing within OECD of
funding commitments for developing country  Support for technology transfer
adaptation and technology

 Clear and consistent rules for REDD

 Ample supply of CDM credits to lower cost of

compliance domestically
Copenhagen Implications: United States

International Investment:
1. Expanded Offset Supply: US investors can have increased confidence in scalability of
the CDM following 2-3 years of implementation of agreed reforms
2. Commitment to REDD: International commitment to REDD as a new element in
climate change management under the UNFCCC supports the US domestic
commitment to REDD as a source of international offsets. Bilateral and Multilateral
efforts to create the framework for REDD trade have gained momentum
3. Markets and Market Continuity: Using markets to support climate change
management is recognized in the Accord, sweeping CDM reform provides de-facto
support for market continuity, as do long term funding promises
Support for Domestic Policy-Making:
1. Transparency in Implementing Commitments in Large Emitters: Obtaining a
commitment to a Monitoring, Verification and Reporting regime, focused on China,
was a key victory for the US
2. Central Role President Obama in Breaking UN Deadlock: Sends signal of commitment
of Administration to the Climate agenda, and US Climate Bill.
3. US Role in Catalyzing Change in UN Process: Potential sea change in how agreements
are reached in the UN framework should be seen favorably by US lawmakers to move
forward with a climate bill
• In January 2014, documents leaked by Edward Snowden and
published by Dagbladet Information revealed that the US
government negotiators were in receipt of information during
the conference that was being obtained by spying against other
conference delegations. The US National Security
Agency provided US delegates with advance details other
delegations' positions, including the Danish plan to "rescue" the
talks should they flounder. Members of the Danish negotiating
team said that both the US and Chinese delegations were
"peculiarly well-informed" about closed-door discussions: "They
simply sat back, just as we had feared they would if they knew
about our document."
 Finding Agreements
• Climate change agreements have proved difficult to
achieve because MEDC and LEDC cannot find
agreement on cuts.
• MEDCs are the biggest polluters so should reduce
emissions.
• However, LEDCs say they should be given the right to
develop (and pollute) just like MEDCs have in the past.
• MEDCs argue that this unfair and will give LEDCs a
competitive advantage and that everyone should make
cuts.