Yesterday (Feb 13), upon the opening of the Third Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament of the Province of British Columbia, Premier Campbell’s liberal government announced its intention to “take concerted provincial action to halt and reverse the growth in greenhouse gases.” The “Throne Speech” (full text available here) delivered by The Lieutenant Governor, The Honourable Iona Campagnolo, expressed the government’s goal of reducing BC’s greenhouse gas emissions “by at least 33 per cent below current levels by 2020” (in Kyoto terms: this will put BC at 10 per cent under 1990 levels by 2020). Included is a “Climate Action Team” that will set interim reduction targets for 2012 and 2016 as well as a long-term target for 2050. This team will also establish a plan to make the BC government “carbon-neutral by 2010.”

Also included in the speech was a commitment that “effective immediately, B.C. will become the first jurisdiction in North America, if not the world, to require 100 per cent carbon sequestration for any coal-fired electricity project.” This move should, in effect, keep any coal-fired electricity plant, including proposed projects in Princeton (see Elissa’s blog) and Tumbler Ridge, out of the province for several years as the implied technology has yet to become viable.

The speech also included the following (extensive list of) commitments to curb climate change:

-All electricity produced in B.C. will have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

- 90 per cent of B.C.’s electricity will come from clean, renewable sources.

-Oil and gas industry GHG emissions will be reduced to 2000 levels by 2016, including a zero-flaring requirement at producing wells and production facilities.

-A new $25-million “Innovative Clean Energy Fund” will be established to encourage commercialization of alternative energy solutions such as bioenergy, geothermal energy, tidal, run-of-the river, solar, and wind power.

-Tailpipe emission standards for all new vehicles sold in B.C. will be phased in between 2009 and 2016, reducing carbon dioxide emissions from autos by 30 per cent.

-A low-carbon fuel standard will be established to reduce carbon intensity of all passenger vehicles by at least 10 per cent by 2020.

-Extension of $2,000 sales tax exemption on new hybrid vehicles.

-All new cars leased or purchased by the Province will be hybrids as of this month.

-A new unified B.C. Green Building Code will be developed with industry and communities.

-Legislation will be developed to phase in requirements for methane capture at landfills, the source of about nine per cent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.

-New incentives to retrofit existing homes and buildings make them energy efficient.

-New measures will help homeowners undertake “energy audits” to identify possible energy savings.

-Real-time, in-home smart metering will help homeowners measure and reduce energy consumption.

-Province will consider ways of encouraging personal consumer choices that are environmentally responsible.

-Through seismic upgrades, Parliament Buildings will include new standards of energy efficiency.

-New strategies will be launched to promote Pacific Green universities, colleges, hospitals, schools, prisons, ferries, and airports.

-The Province will substantially increase its tree-planting efforts.

-The Province will ensure school curricula inform students how they can reduce individual impacts on the environment at home and at work.

-Beehive burners will be eliminated.

-Trees infested by the mountain pine beetle will be used to create new, clean energy.

-A federal-provincial partnership will invest $89 million for hydrogen fuelling stations and the world’s first fleet of 20 fuel cell buses. The new fuelling stations are part of the initial phase of the hydrogen highway from Whistler to Vancouver, Surrey, and Victoria.

-The Province will work with Pacific states to encourage a hydrogen highway from Whistler to San Diego by 2020. It would be the longest hydrogen highway in the world.

-This spring, the Province will invite all Pacific Coast governors and key ministers to B.C. to forge a new Pacific Coast Collaborative extending from Alaska to California.

-B.C. will work with its neighbours to create electrified truck stops to reduce idling.

-The Premier will meet with governors to assess and address the impact of climate change on our oceans and establish common standards for Pacific ports.

-The Province will seek federal co-operation to electrify ports and reduce container ship carbon emissions in all Canadian ports.

- The Province will work with the federal government and Pacific partners to develop a sensible, efficient system to register, trade, and purchase carbon offsets and credits.

The government also announced initiatives to increase conservation through a new “Citizen’s Conservation Council” with new parks and extensions to existing ones. Changes will also be introduced to strengthen forest stewardship and reduce forest fire risk and initiatives will be taken to address housing and urban sprawl.

According to The Globe and Mail, the Provincial governments program is “tougher in parts than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vaunted green plan in California.” The far reaching and ambitious goals outlined in the Liberal speech have yet to be described in detail, however “climate and energy plans” are expected to be announced soon. According to NDP Leader Carole James “Gordon Campbell is known for lots of flowery words and grabbing on to the issue of the day, but he has a terrible record of actually following through.” This speech does comes at a politically strategic time with climate change becoming an increasingly popular issue, however, the attention to climate change and urgency of taking action is encouraging nonetheless. It is now the responsibility of legislators, the news media, and all constituents to hold the provincial government accountable to their commitments.

In the words of Lieutenant Governor Campagnolo: “The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real. The more timid our response is, the harsher the consequences will be.”

Now that the UN Climate negotiations in Nairobi are over participants have had time to reflect and rethink what has happened and what still needs to happen. Of course the progress made in the negotiations does not come close to adequately addressing the magnitude and severity of our climate crisis. However, progress has been made and if we look past the (slow and convoluted) politics there are clear positive outcomes and reasons to remain optimistic. One of the outcomes that is particularly encouraging and exciting is the official launching of the African Youth Initiative on Climate Change! Many individuals and organizations (particularly the Greenpeace Solar Generation team!) have been part of bringing this initiative together. Those of us who were in Nairobi and had the opportunity to meet and work with many of the passionate and dedicated youth and organizers involved in this initiative can attest to its strength and significance. I would tell you more about it but would rather let the African Youth involved speak for themselves. The short video attached, put together with the help of several people from the Conference of Youth in Nairobi, was used for the official launch of the AYICC in a side event during the United Nations climate change convention. This video contains some of the voices of the youth from across Africa who are concerned about climate change and who are taking action and making a difference.To learn more or to help fund this vital organization please visit www.AYICC.org for more information.

To understand the context behind these discussions the Brazilian situation is a good place to start. According to Carlos Ritti, Greenpeace Climate Campaign Coordinator of Brazil, 17% of the Brazilian Amazon has already been lost. If we reach 20% forest loss the feedbacks intensify and speed up deforestation. If we reach 40% forest loss in the Amazon it is already too late: the impact will be a new regional climate that will transform the landscape of the once lush Amazon into that of a Savannah. In his opinion there isn’t much time left, we need a framework to address deforestation by the next COP.

The proposal that Brazil presented at the deforestation workshop this summer in Rome represented a significant step forward for Brazil towards taking action to protect the Amazon. Under their proposal financial incentives are to be provided, outside of the Kyoto Protocol, to countries that voluntarily reduce emissions from deforestation. This would involve extrapolating and compiling historic deforestation trends in order to determine a “pre-defined deforestation reference rate”. Several challenges are encountered in this. Without commitments there are no baselines to reference and since domestic records are seldom complete or fully accurate, adequately determining a reference rate for most countries is not easy. Recording current rates in a manner that would allow reductions to be measured would require a well-developed, transparent monitoring system. Such a system, as discussed in the SBSTA workshop, would require satellite imaging complimented by ground truthing, both of which, while feasible, require financial capacity and verifiable, consistent methodology. Also, creating economic value in carbon storage in forests would only work if there were strong emissions caps in developed countries (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Standards) that would create market demand for carbon credits. Furthermore, there is the concern over “leakage” which contends that it is possible that avoided deforestation in one country would be replaced by increased deforestation in a different country, hence no net reduction in emissions.

While the SBSTA Contact Group broke to allow time to discuss and digest the new draft text I spoke with members of the Canadian delegation. They expressed their view that a new funding mechanism to support countries voluntarily working to prevent tropical deforestation would not work because such “benevolent” efforts have not been successful so far. New funding is scarce, that is apparent; however, there is money accessible through the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The key, said Peter Graham from the Canadian Delegation, was the convergence of SBSTA discussions on deforestation with negotiations on post 2012 commitments under the KP. However, Brazil is adamant to keep International Law out of its sovereign forests and therefore keep deforestation out of the protocol. Their stubbornness to avoid any form of commitments under the UNFCCC even earned them the Climate Action Network “Fossil of the Day” award for their stance on post 2012 comitments during the review of the KP under Article 9. It is expected that Brazil will bring back their deforestation proposal again next week during the “Dialogue” on long-term goals however, this arena is widely viewed as an impotent “talk shop.”

The Brazilian refusal to allow avoided deforestation to be credited under the KP is warranted though because permitting such activities would allow developed (Annex-1) countries to receive emissions credits while avoiding real domestic reductions. Avoided deforestation is not a real net reduction in emissions; it is a delayed reduction. Forests are not anthropogenic “sources” (of emissions), they are a natural part of the Carbon Cycle with which humans interfere. While growing trees absorb Carbon from the atmosphere mature trees mainly just retain their carbon. Forests aren’t permanent: they decompose, they burn, they are illegally logged, and they are especially vulnerable in the context of Climate Change. For these reasons, under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism currently allows emission reduction credits for aforestation and reforestation projects but not for avoided deforestation.

It is worth taking into account that any mechanism that provides financial incentives to avoid deforestation runs the risk of further condemning tropical forests. The potential exists of creating a perverse incentive to increase deforestation rates in order to be eligible for greater funding to later reduce deforestation emissions. Taken to an extreme level any sink that could become a source, like a forest or an oil field, could be held hostage in demand for funding to prevent unleashing the Carbon they contain. Also, representatives of The Congo Basin have argued that such a financing system is flawed as it would leave out countries, like theirs, that have not been actively deforesting their land thereby offering them no incentive to continue conserving their forests.

Back to the UNFCCC: when the SBSTA contact group rejoined countries stated their views on the draft text. Papua New Guinea spoke first followed by Brazil both emphasizing the need to focus on specific policy approaches and incentives at the next workshop. Japan talked about the need to deliver from the next workshop to SBSTA 26 (next year) a report that is “practical, feasible, and implementable.” The UK on behalf of the EU expressed their general support for the paper and said they thought it “seeks a substantive outcome for COP 13.” While India supported the paper they mentioned the need to compensate for ongoing efforts of conservation, taking into account those forested countries with low deforestation rates (like in the Congo Basin). The US spoke up to ask that they further define the issues and terms of reference for the workshop and reminded delegates that “workshops are not for negotiating” (they are for talking). Canada reiterated the concerns of the US asking for clarity and mentioning the need to define the role of the Secretariat. The Chair, Mr. Rosland, brought up the importance of continuing this dialogue after the end of the mandated period next year and called for Informal Consultations to be held later on that afternoon.

I tried to get into the Informal Consultation but I was promptly asked to leave the “closed” meeting. Later I found out that inside the Informal Consultations the US had taken a hard stance reiterating their position that more data, more analysis, more methodology, basically, that more of anything other than trying to take action is needed. Now a compromise on the text is uncertain. The US sees this process as an opportunity to gain more methodological data however does not seem interested in participating in international policy to address this pressing issue. There has been enough talking; it is time to begin to move towards policy now, during this COP.

As if it wasn’t enough that deforestation threatens 800,000 people who live in or around vulnerable forests or woodlands, endangers the majority of the worlds remaining terrestrial biodiversity, and degrades and destroys the valuable ecosystems that provide a myriad of essential environmental services, deforestation is a major source of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases contributing to our changing climate.

Today tropical deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of total global emissions of carbon dioxide (3.8 B tons per year), almost twice as much as does global road transportation. Since the 1950’s, 5% of tropical forests have been lost per decade. In just the past five years, over 50 million hectares of tropical forest (about the size of France) have been lost.

At the UN Climate Conference in Montreal last year (2005) Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea brought forward a proposal, on behalf of the Rainforest Nations, to address the issue of emissions from deforestation. The proposal, calling for positive financial incentives for developing countries that voluntarily reduce their emissions from deforestation, initiated a two-year process of dialogue and information gathering. The Nairobi negotiations, marking the halfway point in this process, will be crucial in determining the nature of the final outcomes at the next Conference of Parties.

This past August, upon the request of the UNFCCC secretariat, Parties, Intergovernmental Organizations, Non-governmental Organizations, and technical experts met in Rome to share experiences and consider relevant aspects, including scientific, socio-economic, technical and methodological issues, relating to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries. The report of this meeting is the foundation for current SBSTA discussions on deforestation.

Earlier this week the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice discussed the issue of emissions reductions from deforestation in developing countries. Much of the talks centered on the need for another workshop with views differing as to what should be the focus of such a session. Most countries emphasized the need to develop policy and “operationalize” the technical and scientific issues that have been addressed so far. Bangladesh, on behalf of Less Developed Countries (LDCs) emphasized the need for financial incentives. The Congo on behalf of the African Group stressed the urgent need of funding for capacity building and expressed their preference for voluntary as well as compulsory funding. Japan reminded parties that the UN Framework on Forests had established a global objective of achieving sustainable management of forests by 2015 and that long-term perspectives were necessary to address emissions from deforestation. The United States stressed the need to improve inventories, further elaborate methodology, better define terms of reference, collect more data, and improve data submissions from developing countries before being able to begin talking about policy options. Brazil responded to the US by acknowledging the need to elaborate terms of reference while emphasizing the importance of focusing on policy, “we must know where we are going and what we need to achieve before we delve into scientific aspects.”

A contact group will be meeting today with results expected by early next week during the higher-level ministerial segment.

When members of the North American Youth Delegation met with the US delegation Dr. Harlan Watson, Head of the US Delegation, made it clear that new funds to prevent deforestation were not an option and emphasized the unilateral efforts already being taken by the US. While such efforts, to, for example, exchange debt relief for forest conservation activities under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, are obviously appreciated and significant they are clearly not sufficient to address this global problem on their own. The complexity, magnitude, and urgency of deforestation and climate change necessitate concerted international solutions. If we are to adequately address these problems we must take action now. The effectiveness of International regimes, like the UNFCCC, depends entirely on the will and effort of their member parties. As the global economic superpower the US has the responsibility and ability to lead a strong effort in this regard. If the US continues to disregard international bodies and neglect its responsibility as the leading contributor to global green house emissions it will be at the detriment of us all, but especially our host continent: Africa.

If efforts to secure funding for voluntary reductions in deforestation, as has also been proposed by Brazil, do not advance in SBSTA we can expect that reductions in emissions from deforestation will play a more prominent role in ongoing negotiations of post 2012 commitments, under the Kyoto Protocol, without US.