“What will happen when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires at the end of next year?

This paper for the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements analyzes the options going forward, including adoption of a legally-binding second commitment period, a “political” second commitment period, or no new commitment period.

It considers the legal implications of a gap between the end of Kyoto’s first commitment period and the adoption of a new legal regime to limit emissions, the prospects for the Clean Development Mechanism in the absence of a second Kyoto commitment period, and the relationship between the Kyoto Protocol negotiations and the emerging regime under the Cancun Agreements.

It concludes that a transitional regime, involving a second commitment period that is politically but not legally binding, represents a possible middle ground that could complement efforts under the Cancun Agreements to develop a flexible, evolutionary framework of climate governance.”

Source: SSRN

If any American traffic engineers, city mayors, or MPO board members would like to visit Copenhagen to see its cycling infrastructure and effects firsthand, I will personally see to it that they are housed, fed, and given a first-rate tour through the city. 

Please, let me do this for you.

Source: Secret Republic

I’m digging around the Wikileaks cables for climate change nuggets and have found incredible diplomatic relations and global security issues. (Yes, this is what I do on Friday nights, and on one of my biggest birthdays).

I’ve found over 5,000 classified cables that deal with climate change, some of them jaw-dropping. The Saudi Arabia cables especially are stunning. 

My preliminary highlights:

• UK and Argentina are battling internally over drilling for oil in the Falkand Islands
• The United Arab Emirates secretly supported (and ostensibly still supports) the Copenhagen Accord
• China’s political party, the PRC, saw/sees climate change as a soft power bargaining chip (I’m not making this shit up!). China got worried when Obama became president, but countered this worry by pointing out its rising status as a super-power would mitigate negotiations with him. 
• French president Sarkozy renegotiated a security agreement with Djibouti (borders Somalia). Sarkozy insisted climate change policy remain on the table as part of the talks.
• Russia is unnecessarily “flaring” (eg burning) untold millions of tons of natural gas at oil wells and rigs, dumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Russia flares this extra natural gas because it does not have the infrastructure to pipe or contain the resource for its cities. For context, Russian burns over double the amount of natural gas that Turkey uses for fuel in one year.
• Saudi Arabia is internally panicked by Obama’s continued strong call for energy independence. This one is a block buster: “Senior officials have pointed out to us that oil is literally the lifeblood of the Kingdom, and that it is hard for them to react to statements about energy independence calmly.”

More soon from me. Cheers!

Shakes Magic 8-Ball “Outlook not so good.” In a devastating policy outlook update, Derek Spence of the IISD, offers perspective on the upcoming COP17, which will be held this December in Durban, South Africa.

Recall that recent climate commitments achieved at the COP15 in Copenhagen, and the COP16 in Cancun were discussed just a few weeks ago at the Bonn Climate Conference held in Germany (a summary of the Bonn conference is here).

The COP17 is seen as the end point for the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 by 191 of the world’s 193 countries. Recall the US refused to sign Kyoto.

Spence writes that countries are more than reluctant to re-up on Kyoto. This is interesting, since many countries have agreed to dedicate billions to various emissions reduction and adaptation projects that were finalized at the previous COP15 and COP16. Are world leaders experiencing a sort of moral hazard, or false sense of security as a result? In other words, since these policies are in place, perhaps leaders do not see the need to re-up on Kyoto. (Note: A summary of the commitments are in the article.)

Still, Spence is clear that his pessimism lies in the suspicion that developed countries are not serious about their emissions reductions commitments: 

Prospects for agreement in Durban: Poor.

Can Durban Seal a Comprehensive New Deal?

Even an ambitious second commitment period under Kyoto will not deliver the type of emissions reductions needed to keep the lid on climate change. Some industrialized countries have been vocal in calling for a comprehensive global agreement that includes all major emitters. Only an ambitious treaty covering all key players could possibly limit global temperature rise to 2°C or less.

The concern on the part of developing countries is that such a treaty could blur the lines between the obligations of developed and developing countries. Under Kyoto, developed countries undertook to take the lead in combating climate change. This is a condition the South wants honored, and explains why they continue to press hard for a second commitment period.

Source: IISD Policy Update, “What Can a Deal in Durban Deliver?”

Proposed ski-slope envelops the smoke stack of a power plant in downtown Copenhagen. He believes public projects should be playful destinations, rather than secluded, large-scale industrial sites. 

“When you spend 3.5bn kroner [£424m] creating an energy plant in the middle of Copenhagen you make sure it doesn’t become an ugly box that the neighbours will protest against and clutters the cityscape,” he said.

 You have to make sure it becomes a public park, an attraction. And when the kids come to go skiing on top of the plant they will probably be curious to find out what’s going on inside the mountain.” Read more here.

Below, Ingel’s energetic presentation, which is one of TED’s most viewed.

Above, a photo I took in Copenhagen earlier this year. Ingel’s designed this apartment building, and spoke about it in his TED presentation.