OOps - thought this went out three days ago. Apologies if this duplicative.
List and ccs:
1. Thanks to David for this lead on Prof. Stavins letter (found at
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/)
2. Since this provides some (not all by any means) of the detail we
have been wondering about as the SPM changed character, I read the Stavins
letter with interest. But it is hard to go back and forth between the versions
A and B of April 7 and 12 when they are in different documents. So I have
combined them as follows (no way to shorten this exercise). I have underlined
what seems to be new in the final version and underlined what was retained in
April 7 draft. The numbering of paragraphs is not in the originals, nor the
short summary titles I gave. The only major style IPCC change is that the
final contains no bolding. There was some shuffling and deletion of paragraphs
3. I have added some comments from a biochar perspective and hope
others will do similarly
#1 On UNFCC
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the main
multilateral
forum focused on addressing climate change, with nearly universal
participation. Other institutions
organized at different levels of governance have resulted in diversifying
international climate change
cooperation. [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]
Replaced
International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past
decade. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary
international forum
for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate
international climate policy
venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4,
13.5]. However, other
institutions organized at many different scales have ………
risen in importance due to the inclusion of
climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the
co‐benefits that can arise
from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5].
[RWL comment #1 - Sorry to see the word “co-benefit” disappear.
Objection maybe to the words “risen in importance”??
#2 On cooperation agreements
Existing and proposed international climate change cooperation arrangements
vary in their focus and
degree of centralization and coordination. They span: multilateral agreements,
harmonized national
policies and decentralized but coordinated national policies, as well as
regional and regionally‐
coordinated policies. [Figure TS.37, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4]
Replaced
Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in
their focus and
degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments
span: multilateral
agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules),
harmonized national policies,
and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages
of national and sub‐
national emissions trading schemes) Also, .regional and regionally coordinated
policies exist and
have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4]
RWL comment: Doesn’t seem to be a big change, especially from biochar
angles.
#3 On Kyoto
The Kyoto Protocol offers lessons towards achieving the ultimate objective of
the UNFCCC,
particularly with respect to participation, implementation, flexibility
mechanisms, and environmental
effectiveness. (medium evidence, low agreement). [5.2, 13.7.2, 13.13.1.1,
13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1, Table
TS.9]
Replaced
The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the
principles and goals
provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions
because some
countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their
commitments, and its
commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence,
low agreement).
The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target
in the first commitment
period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred
even in its absence.
The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non‐Annex I
countries, which have
grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean
Development
Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing
countries, had
generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO2eq by July 2013. Its
environmental effectiveness has
been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of
baselines, the
possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium
evidence; medium
agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries.
[13.7.2, 13.13.1.2,
14.3.7.1]
RWL comment: Missing details on Kyoto now, but I am not sure how or if this
impacts biochar.
#4 ON UNFCCC
UNFCCC activities since 2007 have led to an increasing number of institutions
and other arrangements
for international climate change cooperation. [13.5.1.1, 13.13.1.3, 16.2.1.1]
& new
#5 ON Regions
Policy linkages among regional, national, and sub‐national climate policies
offer potential climate
mitigation and adaptation benefits (medium evidence, medium agreement).
Linkages can be
established between national policies, various instruments, and through
regional cooperation [13.3.1,
13.5.1.3, 13.5.3, 14.5].
Replaced
Recent UNFCCC negotiations have sought to include more ambitious contributions
from the
countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, mitigation contributions
from a broader
set of countries, and new finance and technology mechanisms. Under the 2010
Cancún Agreement,
developed countries formalized voluntary pledges of quantified, economy‐wide
emission reduction
targets and some developing countries formalized voluntary pledges to
mitigation actions. The
distributional impact of the agreement will depend in part on the magnitude and
sources of
financing, although the scientific literature on this point is limited, because
financing mechanisms
are evolving more rapidly than respective scientific assessments (low evidence;
low agreement).
Under the 2011 Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, delegates agreed to craft a
future legal
regime that would be 'applicable to all Parties … under the Convention' and
would include
substantial new financial support and technology arrangements to benefit
developing countries, but
the delegates did not specify means for achieving those ends. [13.5.1.1,
13.13.1.3, 16.2.1.1]
As a complement to – or in the absence of — a new binding, international
agreement on climate
change, policy linkages among existing and future regional, national, and
sub‐national climate
policies offer potential climate mitigation benefits (medium evidence, medium
agreement) [13.3.1,
13.5.1.3, 13.5.3]. Linkages can be established between carbon markets and
through regional
cooperation, such as embodying mitigation objectives in trade agreements or the
joint construction
of infrastructures that facilitate reduction in carbon emissions [14.5]. 2
[RWL: #4 seems to shorten the deleted material. #5 seems to be
favoring regional cooperation, which is OK for biochar. International is being
downplayed, but is still in #4 - but see deletions below that seem to downplay
the international policy angles.
New #6 More on regions
Various regional initiatives between the national and global scales are either
being developed or
implemented, but their impact on global mitigation has been limited to date.
(medium confidence)
Many climate policies can be more effective if implemented across geographical
regions. [Table TS.9,
13.13, 14.4, 14.5]
Replaced
Regional initiatives – those between the national and global scales ‐ focused
on mitigation are
either being developed or implemented in many areas. Their impact on global
mitigation has been
limited to date. (medium confidence) Many climate policies could be more
environmentally and
economically effective if implemented across broad geographical regions because
of the co‐location
of infrastructures and trade advantages. Only in areas of deep integration
(e.g., in the European
Union) have such initiatives had an identifiable impact on mitigation through
binding policies that
include regulation and market‐based mechanisms. Many regional initiatives
oriented around goals
other than climate change, such as coordinated investments in natural gas and
electricity grids as
well as regional trade and investment agreements, are relevant for mitigation.
Some new literature
suggests that regional power pools and gas grids have supported the replacement
of high‐emissions
fuels with low emission or renewable energy sources, and that regional trade
agreements with
environmental agreement have on average modestly reduced emissions among
participants. [14.4,
14.5]
[RWL comment: Doesn’t seem to impact biochar. Main idea seems
retained.
These two (old #5 and #7) apparently totally dropped On International
Cooperation
International cooperation may have a role in stimulating investment, financial
incentives, and
regulations to promote technological innovation and diffusion (medium evidence,
medium
agreement). Technology policy can help lower mitigation costs, thereby also
increasing incentives for
participation and compliance with international cooperative efforts,
particularly in the long run.
[1.4.4, 2.6, 3.5, 4.3, 13.3, 13.9]
International cooperation regarding mitigation and adaptation policies and
measures can be
understood in the context of broader societal goals. Several framing concepts
and principles can be
brought to bear: maximizing global net benefits; equity, burden‐sharing, and
related principles of
distributive justice; precaution and prevention of future risks; and
sustainable development. These
criteria may at times conflict, forcing tradeoffs among them. Distributional
equity and fairness may
be considered important attributes of climate policy because of their impact on
feasibility of
international cooperation. [2.3, 3.10, 4.6, 13.2]
[RWL Comment: From a biochar perspective, the loss of these two last
summary paragraphs are significant, since funding would seem to need
international cooperation.
Overall, I can now better understand the unhappiness of Prof. Stavins - but
maybe best to just live with that imperfection in a system that needs political
input. All the original is still around.
Ron
On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:20 PM, David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call to the three
> Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all
> people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need to read the
> entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page summary. It matters,
> when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the document in question
> was subject to government comment, or whether it was subject to government
> approval. He suggests the Summary For Policy Makers should be called the
> Summary By Policymakers from now on.
>
> He blogs that "the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built
> political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity." In the part of
> the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, "all" controversial text,
> i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed. The objections of one
> country were enough to force removal of whatever they were objecting to. It
> didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor: "any text that was
> considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral
> negotiations was treated as unacceptable."
>
> He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people
> such as himself to "put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year
> periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected"
>
> If Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an
> argument such as Stavins puts forward.
>
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:
> I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering by
> politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that
> gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to
> create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a
> consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to
> explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process.
> Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics.
> there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians'
> are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary
> matter in WGIII about ethics)
>
> best, o
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
