Why did cop15 fail

However, the equation in itself is not that simple — per capita emission contribution in the US is nine times higher than it is in India. Though, a lot have been pledged and committed, what needs to be seen is how large emitters react on-ground to achieve these targets.

While India has been ramping its renewable energy capacity year-on-year, several issues, such as low tariffs, the financial position of state discoms, the inability of banks to provide funding, etc. It also plans to peak its carbon emissions by , post which the country expects to witness a decline. It will be interesting to see how China deals with the issue of coal power generation, given the magnitude of reserves that it possesses.

However, certain countries, such as Germany and Poland, are expected to miss their targets. As described by Climate Tracker, efforts undertaken by the US are not significant in the direction of reducing emissions.

The country withdrew from the Paris Agreement and has been against the Green Climate Fund, where it has been the largest contributor. It barely needs any guesswork to declare that the outcomes of COP 25, by and large, have been below expectations. There has been no consensus on carbon markets, no new finance mechanisms, and barely any movement on additional finances required for the Loss and Damage program. This being said, a strong signal has been sent to the global community that a lot needs to be achieved in the next COP 26 meeting at Glasgow, with a clear revision of NDCs that are progressive enough to set the path for a wider change.

Moreover, needs to set a new benchmark wherein the world leaders are extremely serious and undertaking necessary measures to deal with the mammoth task of climate change, moving beyond their personal interests. The UK is one of the first advanced economies to legislate the net zero emissions target by ; building on that legacy, the country should play an instrumental and defining role in presiding over the COP 26 meeting.

Our long-standing clients include some of the worlds leading brands and forward-thinking corporations. To give you best experience, we tailor our site to show the most relevant insights and content to you. You can update your preferences at any time here. Learn more about our cookie policy. Essential cookies are essential for the website to function properly.

And, for the regular operation of the website. These cookies help to remember your preferences and make your visit to our website a better experience for you.

These cookies are used for performance metrics to understand how many visitors interacted with our website, how they navigate, and what content is preferred. These cookies allow us to provide you with an improved experience on the website. Register and get access to MyFutureBridge section for exclusive content which you can personalize based on your preference.

Enter phone number without country code. Please enter business email address to register. Tell us about your business objectives here. Please enter business email address. Peril Bob Woodward.

Views Total views. Actions Shares. No notes for slide. The devil was in the details. We come to the conclusion, that Transparency is one of the key issues in Emission talks that was holding the progress and causing much of the heartburn and distress amongst the negotiators. It is not for nothing that nations distrust one another.

The problem is that transparency, its robust and effective model haunts climate change not only in Asia, but in the US and the EU too.

Since all know how to cheat, nobody trusts the other. Nonetheless, let us accept the argument that this time was required for the early stage development, and the results learnt from EU ETS can be put to use by later day followers.

As the discussion is being enlarged in view of reader feedback, the releases of the COP Failure Analytics shall be henceforth on a weekly basis and not bi- weekly. To date emission control measures in the EU ETS 2 are not controlled or monitored by any international agency which is surprising for the largest emitter group, the Annexure I countries.

National level regulators are responsible for monitoring and reporting, registry administration, verification, enforcement and data management. The measurement, reporting and verification MRV procedures adopted by U.

Since these observations would be numerous and technical in nature, they are not being discussed here. There are also few obvious and inherent problems even in the EU ETS 3 that has been supposedly revised learning lessons of phase 2 and is due to be applied from However instead of going into the basic core deficiencies and technicalities of the MRV we will present for our readers the results of the EU ETS as per published data by the British Govt, the Europol and the audit committees of UK to assess the performance of the model.

However we shall restrict our discussion here to the model country U. Emissions in U. In short this would actually result in U. Whether the UK meets or overshoots this limit again depends on the British Government.

Still as the Kyoto protocol is a moral impediment in the path of larger emissions, all out efforts are being made by EU to kill it or bury it, so that no restrictions or performance evaluation are there as per international treaties.

Though this cost will not be uniform across Europe, the preliminary estimates suggest that EU overall will spend around Euro 20 billion in the phase 2 of the EU ETS in addition to local administrative costs. For large countries like the China, India, Brazil, or South Africa with low energy density and a wide geographic spread of small energy units the cost of implementing the EUETS type emission MRV would be much greater, though the total energy produced could be lower.

Ad hoc commitments without due diligence could be way off the mark and unnecessary. The big question however is whether despite the considerable investment, and the failure to meet the Kyoto targets by a mile, the emission control model of the EU ETS and model country U.

Various forms frauds haunt the Carbon industry from lobbying for excess EU Allowances, to the falsification of plant carbon allowance requirements, to buying of false Kyoto credits from the third world nations to the swapping of virgin rainforests for fast growing commercial plantations, to the evasion of VAT. However for the sake of brevity we will highlight only two types of frauds here in the EU ETS that could create major problems for the developing economies, should the EU Model be duplicated in Asia , Africa or South America.

They are directly related to Energy Pricing and Tax evasion and has nothing to do with the environment and hence will be of greater interest to the political masters of the developing world. Pricing : In a free market economy nothing ever is free. The nexus between big business and politicians have always been the talk of the town, though at times unsubstantiated.

Free market economies of the West had shown a way in the seventies and the eighties how to nip the bud of this nexus, by taking away controls from the hands of politicians to simplified well laid out transparent policy directives executed by the bureaucracy and administration.

This hard earned transparency was achieved because nothing was given away free in the free market economies and every object had a price and business competitors were made to bid for the objects on offer a price. Issuance of free carbon allowances under EU ETS The issuance of free Carbon permits or the EU emission allowances destroyed this fair play and fair price equilibrium of the free markets. In the first phase of the EU ETS France and Germany haggled and got a higher quota allocated than required, whereas the United Kingdom in its bid to reduce emission went in for a fairly conservative estimate of EU ETS allowances, which ultimately resulted in large payouts for emissions by the British industry.

The small units like single owner medium scale plants, hospitals and charitable trusts got left behind and many had to purchase the carbon credits from the open market to meet their emission needs. The subsequent year saw power companies loose out as it was the cement and steel giants this year to reap the benefit of free Quotas. This year steel plants such as Drax in Yorkshire U. It was mentioned frequently during the first session, after appearing in the first draft of the post global biodiversity framework that was published in July.

The draft as it stands is not clear, and the matter will need to be thrashed out over the negotiating table. Some countries worry that a focus on quantity over quality will result in the protection of areas of little conservation value, simply to make up the numbers.

But how should quality targets be set? The draft framework does not say. Another issue is that, historically, reserves have too often worked by excluding human activity. Some signatories and NGOs are therefore ambivalent or even opposed to the goal. Li Shuo, global policy advisor with Greenpeace East Asia, told China Dialogue that despite its inclusion in the draft, the issue will be decided only at the last minute, at the second session of the Kunming talks in the spring.

DSI is information that has been obtained from sequencing and analysing genetic material. When talks on this issue began in the s the focus was on biological samples. By , when the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing of genetic resources came into effect to supplement the CBD, the digitalisation of genetic information was accelerating exponentially.

But the potential commercial benefits of this digital information were not covered by benefit-sharing mechanisms. Countries rich in genetic resources but lacking the capacity to utilise them want DSI to be covered by benefit-sharing mechanisms — a move opposed by countries strong in biotech.

The two camps have not been able to narrow their differences. Developed nations say that open access should be a principle and that there are already many public databases of DSI. They say benefit-sharing mechanisms would reduce access to those, hampering innovation.

Compliance with the Nagoya Protocol has reportedly delayed the sharing of influenza samples across national borders, impeding research and development for vaccines.

The pandemic provided extra backing to the open access stance. Another emerging concept is NbS, or nature-based solutions to climate and biodiversity challenges. These have received increasing attention since being included on a list of nine tracks of action at the UN Climate Action Summit.

Supporters hope NbS can help tackle both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as inject climate finance into the relatively underfunded area of biodiversity conservation.

One example of NbS would be the restoration of coastal ecosystems such as mangrove swamps, increasing the provision of ecological services, while also absorbing carbon and mitigating the impact of the more frequent and severe storms caused by climate change.

NbS are important for both mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and many countries have been including these in their environmental planning for the past decade or more. So why the controversy? African nations and NGOs concerned about the rights of indigenous peoples worry there has been an emphasis on the carbon storage functions of NbS, with carbon emitters using tree-planting and other carbon offsets in developing countries to avoid their duties to cut emissions, while expropriating the forest usage rights of indigenous people and local residents.

Accepting this contested term in decisions of the CBD without clear definition is like writing a blank cheque. Almost every speaker at Kunming talked of the need for ambition. But ambition comes with a price tag.

The draft framework points out an annual USD billion financing gap. Where will that money come from? Everyone is happy to talk of expanding sources of funding, leveraging non-state players and in particular the private sector, but developing nations are clear they want to see more money coming from the governments of developed nations — as that is the most reliable source of funding.

At the closing ceremony, the African Group again stressed the need for a dedicated biodiversity fund, as well as the importance of technology transfers and capacity building to allow for the use of bioresources and their DSI. The Latin America and the Caribbean Group warned that two years of the pandemic had resulted in an unprecedented shortage of funds, making it hard to fulfil obligations.