17 November 2015, Washington Post, In a major step on the road to Paris, rich countries agree to slash export subsidies for coal plants. After a concerted push from the United States, members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development agreed Tuesday to slash subsidies aimed at exporting technology for coal-fired power plants. The decision by the world’s wealthiest countries to eliminate export credits for the least efficient coal plants, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2017, and can be strengthened four years later, marks a major negotiating success for the Obama administration in the run-up to U.N. climate talks later this month. The U.S. and several other key global players–including France, the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development–have already limited its export financing for coal plants and had been pressing other nations, including Japan and South Korea, to follow suit. A senior administration official, who briefed reporters about the agreement reached in Paris on the condition of anonymity, said that under the new rules OECD countries would still provide export credits for coal plants using ultra-supercritical technology and help finance slightly less-efficient plants in the world’s poorest countries. But the policy would effectively cut off public financing for 85 percent of coal plants currently in the pipeline, he said. Jake Schmidt, who directs the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, estimated that these export agencies typically fund between five and seven coal plants a year. A large number of private banks follow the OECD guidelines for their own lending practices, he added, so the move could have “a ripple effect.” Read more here
Tag Archives: UNFCCC
13 November 2015, Carbon Brief, Explainer: The legal form of the Paris climate agreement. The aim of the UN summit in Paris is to seal a universal, international agreement on avoiding dangerous climate change, that has legal force. In broad terms, this means the Paris agreement is almost certain to include a legally binding treaty at its core, despite headlines to the contrary. Yet the treaty’s precise legal form remains unclear. What will the treaty bind countries to do? Will it even be called a treaty? Carbon Brief has read the lengthy legal texts and spoken to the experts on the legal form of the Paris climate agreement — and whether the legal form matters.
Read More here
12 November 2015, Common Dreams, France Wonders If Kerry ‘Confused’ on Upcoming Climate Talks. Kerry’s comments that there will be no legally binding agreement from COP21 puts him at odds with voices around the world. John Kerry’s statement that the upcoming United Nations climate talks in Paris will result in no “legally binding” agreement on emissions reductions is being met with rebuffs on Thursday, including a retort that the U.S. Secretary of State must be “confused.” In an interview with the Financial Times Wednesday, Kerry said the outcome of the talks known as COP21 was “definitely not going to be a treaty,” and would not include “legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto,” referring to the 1997 Protocol that did call for such binding targets. Kerry said later on Wednesday speaking at Old Dominion University that “we are seeking to reach an ambitious, durable, and inclusive agreement at the UN climate conference next month in Paris. That’s our goal.” Kerry’s French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, shot back at Kerry’s take. “Jurists will discuss the legal nature of an accord on whether it should be termed as a treaty or an international agreement,” Reuters quotes Fabius as telling press. “But the fact that a certain number of dispositions should have a practical effect and be legally binding is obvious so let’s not confuse things, which is perhaps what Mr Kerry has done,” he said. The EU made its position clear in September, stating that the bloc “is pressing for a global, fair, ambitious and legally binding international treaty that will prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.” Read More here
9 November 2015, Energy Post, The biggest sticking point in Paris: money. In the run-up to the Paris climate change conference, there is much focus on countries’ voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (their so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). But much less attention is paid to a part of the negotiations that is just as important, writes Henrik Selin of Boston University: how to finance the efforts of developing countries at mitigation and adaptation. The national climate plans (INDCs) are, of course, a significant aspect of any global effort to address the climate change threat. But another critical policy issue that is at the center of the Paris agenda is an age-old one: money. Going into the negotiations, there is a goal to scale up existing efforts toward providing US$100 billion a year to support climate change action primarily in developing countries by 2020. Ideally, these efforts should also contribute to long-term sustainable development. Many Paris financing debates will focus on how to most appropriately use the recently created Green Climate Fund (GCF) – the new main multilateral vehicle for helping developing countries to lower their GHG emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change. However, there remain significant questions about how the GCF will function, how it will operate alongside other organizations, and how effective the overall financing system may be. Indeed, the unresolved money question was front and center in the just-concluded Bonn talks, which were intended to pave the way for a Paris agreement. How will it work? Read More here