Auken Keynote

Talking Points for Keynote speech by Svend Auken, Danish Minister of Environment and Energy
April 18, 2001


A. The signals from the new US-Administration
B. What went wrong?
C. Equity
D.1. Historic Climate Change
D.2. Future Climate Change
D.3. Are the changes man-made?
E. The need to act now
F. The Kyoto Protocol
G. Danish Climate Policies
H. How do we make progress from here
I. CSD 9 - and the path to a sustainable energy future

A. The signals from the new US-Administration

The U-turn on climate by the new US-administration was a big disappointment to the world. To all those of us who are convinced by the scientific evidence before us, that man-made climate change is a fact, but equally convinced that it still is possible to curb it. And especially to all of those who will be in the front-line as its most dire consequences materialise. The signal from the US, that the new administration consider the Kyoto Protocol "dead on arrival", and that it wants to withdraw from it and reconsider the US position, is a serious set-back. Not quite unexpected, perhaps, to some degree understandable and maybe even acceptable, if the impact could be limited to a delay of a few months only. The international community might even be willing to appreciate that the US feel a need to temporarily reconsider the domestic policies in order to take some necessary action to alleviate current economic difficulties and problems with electricity supply, if this could be seen as first steps towards efficient domestic climate policiesBut the really worrisome signal from Washington is the shadow of doubt, that has been cast on the scientific evidence on climate change, which has accumulated over the last 10-15 years, and the 15 % budget-cuts in federal spending for energy efficiency and renewable energy.Quite unexpectedly we seem to face a situation in which all the most basic questions are brought to the table again, and where the world can no longer rely on the US to use its formidable scientific and technological powers to move us all towards a sustainable energy future. Delays may now be numbered in years. We still hope of course, that this perspective is not for real. That the US as a close friend and ally will eventually come on board and continue to advance the great scientific and technological enterprise before us. We do not have the imagination to believe that the US might only have been paying lip-service to 10 years work based on the world-wide acceptance of the need for sustainable development.But in waiting for the new administration to make its positions clear, it may be useful to ponder the reasons why the international climate-negotiations were derailed.

B. What went wrong?

The goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change itself to curb emissions of green-house gases in order to stabilise at the 1990-level by the year 2000 was rather ambitious, but the parties were convinced that is was possible.Actually we succeeded in doing so - more by chance than by deliberate action, I am afraid to say - i.e. with the main contribution achieved through the economic collapse of preexisting industries in the USSR and Central and Eastern Europe - but anyway.We knew, of course, that this was only the beginning, and in Berlin we all agreed, that just stabilizing emissions by 2000 was not adequate. Hence we launched a clear mandate for a negotiation-process to find a balanced way of moving further.The Kyoto Protocol, to my mind, is such a balanced approach and it is of extreme importance, that we actually agreed on a goal and a time-frame for reductions by Annex I-countries to prove our resolve.But looking back at it, you may wonder whether this achievement came at too high a price: In trying to ease the pains of cutting emissions, we got sinks included, which has lead to endless complications - in terms of science and in terms of agreeing on legal text - and we got the CDM and the emissions-trade business leading to endless discussions on how much should be done at home and how much could be bought abroad.As a result, COP 6 in the Hague was bogged down in extremely complicated and technical discussions on a row of issues, with countries trying to get a good bargain, while the overall perspective tended to get lost: That we need a vigorous effort by Annex II-countries - to enhance energy savings and efficiency, - to promote technological development and the restructuring of our energy sector towards low-coal and no-coal technologies, - to transfer this new technology to developing nations, - to assist them in financing for a sustainable energy future, and - to provide the means for them to adapt to the inevitable climate changes ahead.

C. Equity

The US Senate and others have questioned the wisdom of not including developing countries in the emissions-scheme at this point in time. This is a very basic fault line in discussions on equity among nations.Human-induced climate change will inevitably threaten the ability of a number of countries and regions throughout the world to provide adequate food, water and shelter. Millions will be affected by extreme weather events and rising sea levels and the least developed and most vulnerable will suffer the hardest hits. The overwhelming part of man-made greenhouse gases presently in our atmosphere stems from the rich countries, and this will be the case for many decades to come, even as developing countries increase their use of energy. We are and will continue to be the main culprits and we have the knowledge and the economy to lead the way. It is a simple obligation for us to use the wealth we have accumulated to address the very problems we have created. Our present levels of emissions do not translate into a right for the future. The North has to make room for the South - contribute effectively and consistently to the contraction of overall global emissions of greenhouse gases and - at the same time - recognize that per capita emissions, or at least emission-rights, will have to converge. Not accepting this would be to opt for an unacceptable world, where present gaps in terms of development and prosperity were to be perpetuated indefinitely, contrary to the aspirations of billions of people in the developing world. To accept this responsibility is really at the heart of equity and climate change. To accept it as an urgent issue - as a process, which we have to set in motion now and not something, which can be left for others to do tomorrow - you need to appreciate the scientific evidence. So, let us take a brief look at the case before us:

D.1. Historic Climate Change

Looking back, the climate is changing but it has been relatively stable since the last ice age. Global temperature has changed less than 1 degree centigrade over any century during the past 10,000 years. Last century global surface temperature was clearly warmer than any other century during the last thousand years, and over the century we saw a warming of 0.4 to 0.8 degree centigrade.The last two decades were clearly the hottest of the century: The three warmest years occurred in the 1990s and the twelve warmest years have all occurred since 1983. Incidents of extreme weather events are increasing in several parts of the world.Glaciers are retreating worldwide. The Arctic sea ice is thinning. Since 1960 satellites show a decrease in snow and ice cover by 10 %. A quarter of the earth's coral reefs has been lost - most of them most probably due to global warming. Sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimetres from 1900.

D.2. Future Climate Change

Looking ahead the picture becomes even bleaker: One reason is that the climate changes of tomorrow are caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of today. Carbon dioxide, once emitted, stays for millenia in the combined Atmosphere-Ocean-Biosphere system, and on timescales of centuries only slowly spreads from the atmosphere to the other compartments . This means that the reversal of human-induced climate changes will take centuries to millennia, even after all our greenhouse gas emissions are stopped. At stabilised atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to increase over decades, sea level will continue to rise over hundreds of years and ice sheets will continue to adjust for thousands of years. And the changes are accelerating.Global mean surface temperatures are now projected to increase by 1.5 to 6.0 degrees centigrade by 2100. Science has improved, but uncertainty has become greater, compared to the Second IPCC Assessment Report projecting 1.0 - 3.5 degrees centigrade. Still, such changes are larger and would also occur at a rate much faster than changes over the last 10,000 years. Further, from 2100, changes would continue to accumulate from the sited values.Precipitation is projected to increase at high latitudes in winter, and decrease in mid-latitude regions during summer. Parts of Africa and the Middle East, Southern Europe and Latin America and Australia are expected to become drier.Sea levels may increase by 15 - 95 cm in 2100. Today, 50 million people are hit by flooding due to storm surges each year. A 50 cm sea-level rise could double this number. A one-meter sea-level rise would cause land losses from 1.0% for Egypt, 6% for Netherlands, 17.5% for Bangladesh, and 80% of the Marshall Islands. Tens of millions of people would be displaced, and in the case of low-lying Small Island States, it could mean the loss of whole cultures.Frequency and magnitude of El Nino events would increase, water stress and desertification would be more widespread, agricultural productivity would decrease in the tropics and tropical rainforests will be endangered.

D.3. Are the changes man-made ?

Ice-core data shows the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to be higher now than at any time during the last 420,000 years. This is without any doubt caused by human activity; beginning with deforestation and agriculture and now overwhelmingly due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Since 1750 the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30 %, nitrous oxide by about 15% and methane has more than doubled. Our emissions of greenhouse gases will increase: Projections of emissions of coal from the combustion of fossil fuels ranges from 5 to 35 GtC per year in 2100, compared to current emissions of about 7 GtC per year. To keep increase in average temperature within 2 degrees centigrade - twice or threefold the increase we have seen in the past century - we need to stabilise the atmospheric content of CO2-equivalents at 550 ppm - 450 of which would be CO2. To do that, global emissions of CO2 must be cut from around 7 Gt/year to 2.5 Gt/year within the current century. In fact all scenarious leading to stabilisation of the CO2-concentration will in similar timeframes require reductions to levels below the presentThe scientific evidence leaves us no escape. We witness the fingerprint of human activity. The changes we have seen - especially the warming since 1970 - cannot be explained by changes in solar activity and volcanic emissions alone.

E. The need to act now

The message from the IPCC is clear:The question is not whether our climate will change as a result of human activity, but how much and how fast. And which consequences we will see in different regions of the world.There is no excuse for sitting back and look at the scientific evidence piling up. Broad consensus among the world scientific community tells us, that climate-induced environmental changes cannot be reversed quickly - if at all - due to the long time scales working within the climate system. We have got to decide now on precautionary measures to limit anthropogenic climate change. Just waiting will narrow down our choices and scope for possible action.Leadership is urgently needed, if we are to reverse the trends, which threaten to undermine the very foundation of sustainable human life on Earth.

F. The Kyoto Protocol- common but differentiated responsibilities

All nations share the responsibility to mitigate climate change. But the initial burden must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the industrialised countries. Per capita emissions of CO2 in the United States are more than 20 tons, average emissions in developed countries are 12 tons, but in developing countries, only 2 tons.The notion of common, but differentiated responsibilities of the Climate Convention is very well placed when we talk about man-made climate change.The Kyoto-protocol is only a first step towards the curbing of global warming. Its 5 % reduction of emissions over a decade or so is just embarking us on a course to prevent dangerous changes in the climate system as we have committed ourselves to do in the FCCC.To keep changes below dangerous levels, the industrialised countries have to undertake very large cuts in their emissions to make room for developing countries - a 75 to 90 % reduction in fact. There is no way around mutual responsibility and common action.The Kyoto-protocol stakes out the course. Larger reductions must be undertaken in later commitment periods, where developing countries are brought onboard with quantitative emission-targets. The inclusion of sinks and the so-called Kyoto-mechanisms - although complicated to handle, as mentioned - provide for an unprecedented flexibility for parties to fulfil their commitments in a cost-effective way according to differing national circumstances.But the environmental integrity of the Protocol could not be safeguarded in the Hague, so we had to leave the riddle unsolved - jeopardising technological innovation and the transfer of technology to the developing world.

G. Danish Climate Policies

To me, this was all the more disappointing, since Denmark has met our CO2 emission stabilization target according to the Convention and since we expect to meet our commitment according to the Kyoto Protocol and our national target of reducing CO2-emissions from energy by 20 % already in 2005 as well.A vigorous energysavings- and efficiency policy has kept our use of energy stable for 30 years while our GPD has grown by 75 %, and - during the nineties - CO2-emissions from energy use in Denmark have fallen 10 % while the economy grew by 23 %.We know from experience, that it is possible to meet the requirements. It is not about reducing western standard of living. It is about paying the extra dollar and doing things a little bit better. It is about spending a tiny fraction of our wealth to meet a common global goal. In fact not even that, it's a tiny fraction of our steady increase in wealth only. How could we claim to go for sustainable development, if we were to demand continued economic growth, without setting aside just a tiny fraction to make sure, that this does not lead to steadily increasing emissions? But it is about new opportunities as well. About establishing a Green Economy as an integral part of the evolving high-tech information-society. That is the spirit in which Denmark - as the first country in the world - has imposed tradable CO2 emission quotas on the power industry. That is the spirit in which we will work with our Nordic neighbours to use the Baltic region as a testing ground for JI projects and emissions trading. And that is the spirit in which we will use our bilateral environmental assistance to work with developing countries to prepare for CDM projects. We know it can be done. And in that vein, shortly after this trip, I am going to propose to our Parliament to give its consent to the Government's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, so we are in a position to actually ratify as soon as the EU is ready.

H. How do we make progress from here ?

The new administration in the US has signalled its wish to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. I won't comment on the intriguing legal aspects of this. Just state, that Denmark - in accord with the other European Union Member states - is strongly committed to ratifying the Kyoto protocol by 2002 at the latest and continue to work on rallying the necessary backing for it to enter into force.As it is, we have three options - all unsatisfactory - but we have to choose among them:1) We could give up the goals of the Kyoto Protocol altogether. This is clearly unacceptable following the conclusions of the IPCC. Postponing action would be an irresponsible transfer of costs to our offspring. 2) We could accept the suggestion of the Bush Administration, that the agreement has to be remade from a different point of departure (which?). But think about it for a second: We would waste a lot of valuable time - spending perhaps another decade to reach an agreement. And developing countries would object - and with good reason to my mind - to be made a part of any such agreement. 3) We could make the best of a bad situation and proceed without the US. In my opinion, this is the only real option, in the present state of affairs. By getting the agreement entering into force, the world would make a strong statement and could start moving things in the right direction. The US could and hopefully will continue efforts to move along on the substantial issues and thus prepare itself to enter at a later stage. But would of course find itself outside future decisions of the parties to the protocol. I have no doubt, that climate change will stay close to the top of the international political agenda for the decades to come. Staying out of the international action the US will loose influence over the course of events, and would also miss the many business opportunities that we believe exist for those joining the game. And its credibility will suffer in other international fora as well - in environmental negotiations, in development and financial institutions and in the WTO, where a host of "soft" issues need to be accommodated for.

H2I am well aware, of course, that the US opinion is divided on these issues. That there is a strong backing from large parts of the US opinion to move things forward - in the general population, in the NGO-community and among an increasing number of large, progressive American enterprises. I hope, that all good forces in the US will work to convince the new administration, that it is in the best interest of the US to join an international agreement at the earliest possible stage to take part in the scientific and technological developments - and to be a part of the emission-trading regime which will stem from the Kyoto Protocol.Withdrawing from it will not be in the best interests of the US, I am afraid to say - especially not, if we succeed in having it entering into force without the US, as we are trying to. We are disappointed at this stage, but we have no hard feelings: We will welcome the US whenever you are ready to re-join international efforts to combat global climate change.

I. CSD 9 - and the path to a sustainable energy future

From this discussion, some of us move on to the ninth session of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) where energy is one of the main issues on the agenda. (An issue that Denmark has been pressing for years, by the way.)One theme, of course, is going to be the need to change current way of production, distribution and use of energy in developed countries.But, more importantly, the session will be about how the developed world can contribute to a sustainable energy future for the developing world - how we can assist them to skip the heavy-handed "industrial revolution" - phase, that we have been through.One of the key issues is the question of market reforms and "getting the prices right". We need to make sure, that the full environmental costs are included in the prices of energy. The internalisation of total costs (through energy taxes, charges etc.) is a vital mean to move towards sustainability in rich and poor countries alike.The removal of harmful energy subsidies is the other side of this coin. They present an obstacle to economic growth and sustainable development in many cases; they usually result in economic losses and a heavy burden on the environment. There are many pitfalls and challenges on our way towards a sustainable energy future. But finding it is no impossible task. I have mentioned our Danish experience. Much of it can be put to good use in other parts of the world. Restructuring of the energy sector can be made economically and environmentally sound at the same time. But we need investment for research and development, international co-operation and exchange of ideas and vigorous commitment from all parties to devise sustainable energy paths that will improve the livelihood of people without doing irreparable damage to the global climate and our environment.