Climate change negotiations: Will the Arab world take the right decision?

Arab News 22 February, 2009

However, we should be aware that alongside the economic crisis, we are face-to-face with a severe environmental crisis too. The climate change issue is one that poses many dangers. After all, the main inputs for development depend mainly on natural resources. You cannot solve the economic crisis without taking into consideration all the environmental concerns.

The climate change problem and the economic crisis both offer opportunities for the Arab world. For a start, the Arab world could be proactive and offer a framework for sustainable development to the rest of the world. Nondestructive development is the one that avoids or mitigates various negative environmental impacts but maximizes positive ones and does not focus solely on economic aspects while ignoring the environmental ones. It is important that the right value system should govern actions/development and do not depend upon trial and error!

We have just passed in Poznan an important step on our road to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting, which is planned in Copenhagen by the end of this year. Poznan in December 2008 marked the start of a series of meetings at the official level to increase the pace of negotiations in establishing a post-2012 framework on climate change. A draft negotiating text for Copenhagen should be ready by June this year.

There is no doubt that there is a general consensus on a number of issues now. The problem lies in two areas: How will the world deal with these issues and what are the responsibilities of each country? How can we establish a fair commitment system and enforce and monitor it? None of these issues is an easy task and we have a very short time left to reach agreement. Of course, there will be an agreement at Copenhagen, but will it be the one we aspire for? Only the coming days will tell.

In Poznan, there was a general consensus on the urgent need to set clear target cuts in the short-, medium- and long-terms for the specific level of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Developing countries should also have access to affordable clean technology to reduce emissions. In fact, developed countries could provide financing for the mitigation and adaptation measures of the developing countries.

There is an urgent need to stop deforestation that has caused about a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives need to be generated for developing countries to preserve their tropical forests. On the issue of carbon trading and offsets, there should be an agreement on how systems such as the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the European emissions trading scheme set up under the Kyoto Protocol can be strengthened and expanded for the succeeding climate regime.

One significant problem is the lack of trust between developed and developing countries. Besides, developing countries are disappointed by the lack of leadership displayed by some developed countries. A clear example is the way developed countries have ignored the detailed proposals on technology and finance presented by the G-77 and China. In Copenhagen, any agreement reached must balance climate and development imperatives, mitigation, and adaptation; and it must be supported by adequate means of implementation. Besides, it is critical that all the developed countries respond by showing leadership and taking on their responsibility.

This is the first time in history that the world is facing a common problem that affects us all and we cannot deal with it unilaterally. The earth is for mankind, not for a specific group. As described in the Holy Qur’an: "And the earth: He has put down (laid) for the creatures"- Sûrah Ar-Rahmân, Ayah 10.

It is intended that man should work to improve the quality of life, keep the good things and prevent their deterioration so that he can leave the world in good shape for the coming generations.

With Barack Obama taking over as US president, immense hope is being placed on the US that it will play a more vital role in climate change, as was promised during the election campaign. As one of the world’s major carbon emitters, the US is expected to take a leading role in the new global climate change agreement that will succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, the US needs to play a bigger role so that China and India, major carbon emitters from the developing world, could follow suit. Obama’s plan to reduce emissions envisages sharp cuts by 2020. Further, he has said that the US would invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. He also called for a greater commitment to renewable energies, promotion of energy efficiency, a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, and continued development of nuclear power.

Presently, the Obama administration is struggling with the issue of domestic regulations for carbon reduction. The new administration is being pushed to take ambitious measures and set tough goals by the international community. It is unlikely that US will manage to implement the above changes and be able to join the joint efforts in Copenhagen! It may join the global efforts one or two years later. The Arab world - classified as developing countries or "non-Annex one" as stated in the protocol - does not have any commitment under the current agreement, which is one of the best from the view point of developing countries; yet the Arab world did not manage to take advantage of its benefits.

Under the current Kyoto Protocol, 37 developed nations have agreed to cut emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. A new deal is urgently needed to succeed the first expiry period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

Nevertheless, we are in a new era, with new major players economically, politically, regionally, and internationally. New escalating crisis and every country, whether developed or developing, wants to maximize its benefits from the negotiations and the new climate change convention.

Following are some of the issues on which the Arab world should have a unified standpoint:

 Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Even though Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is approved under the Law of Seas (LOS) convention, it is not yet under Kyoto. Nonetheless, CCS is cited as a major solution to mitigating climate change on many occasions. It involves removing carbon emissions from processes that utilize fossil fuels for power or industrial applications, then trapping carbon in subsurface geologic formations.

The potential for CCS is enormous given its significance in the concept of clean coal and the fact that coal-fired power generation accounts for 41 percent of global emissions. However, CCS still faces difficulties in gaining widespread use due to technical issues, and because of insufficient legislative incentives, incomplete regulatory frameworks, and lack of public acceptance.

Many supporters of CCS say that the global long-term target for emissions cuts cannot be reached without CCS, and CCS is only a transition technology until we find alternative solutions, especially in renewable energy.

CCS will be implemented in the oil industry anyway because the industry sees it as a new means of injection to increase production from old reservoirs. However, the technology for this is not yet ready. Many people are also against CCS saying that it will not be ready before 2020-2030, which is too late to help cut emissions in time. In addition, it is very expensive and adds up to 20-90 percent to the cost of energy production, and reduces efficiency of power plants by 10-40 percent. Besides, CCS cannot deliver emissions cuts in short- and even medium-target, in time that is the priority currently. Plus, CCS allows the current fossil-fuel industry to continue in business as usual. Finally, CCS will divert public funding from already proven and cleaner technologies. It is sad to learn that CCS is being pushed mainly by fossil fuel-producing countries and international oil and gas companies.

The more dangerous is that they are looking for CCS as a Clean Development Mechanism; however, CDM is a mechanism to reduce emissions through proven means, not an R&D fund. Unfortunately, many Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE and Algeria that already have a pilot project ongoing, think of CCS as a solution.

The greatest concern surrounding carbon dioxide storage is the potential for it to leak, as researchers have already pointed out. The leakage would lead to more global warming, defeating the purpose of the storage in the first place. In addition, researchers are concerned about the potential risks of carbon sequestration to human health, mainly through asphyxiation and groundwater contamination. Drinking water contamination is the more probable danger. For example, if carbon dioxide enters the groundwater somehow, it can increase the water’s acidity, potentially leaching toxic chemicals, such as lead, from rocks into the water. To address these risks, scientists are studying reservoir geology to better understand what happens after injecting carbon dioxide underground.

Supports of CCS say it is not only emission reduction we need, but also providing energy to the millions of the poor in developing countries. Their argument is that it is necessary for the sake of development. Which is not true in fact and high-risk damages might arise from CCS. The following Qur’anic saying clarifies this argument "And when it is said to them: ’Make not mischief on the earth,’ they say: ’We are only peace-makers.’ indeed! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not."

Nevertheless, basics first: CCS should not be part of the CDM; CCS should not be used unless we are scientifically sure about its safety. Islamic rule says that: Doubt only can be removed by certainty. So as long as we are not sure of potential impacts we should not depend on it as a solution, especially, when there are other promising RE technologies that require direct public support, such as CSP. And, after all, one CCS project in one Arab country can absorb and divert all the CDM funds from hundreds of other CDM (non-CCS project) in the whole Arab world.

 Mitigation: The issue of mitigation involves determining individual states’ targets in reducing carbon emissions. Targets will be set for short- to medium-term, commensurate with the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range at the high end of the 25 to 40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990. It would be applied to both developed and developing countries with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The Arab world, as part of the developing world, should do its best for the active mitigation of emissions and be prepared to enhance its actions in return for additional financial, technological and capacity building support from developed countries. On the other side, they should push developed countries to have clear binding reduction targets in the short-, medium- and long-term. Giant developing emitters like China and India should also have clear binding cut targets in the medium- and long-term. Other developing countries should implement cuts voluntarily.

 Adaptation: The developing countries need assistance to cope with the impact of climate change such as floods, diseases and droughts. Developed countries have been pushing for adaptation and even establishing funds for the purpose. While the fund may be used to adapt to the current climate change impacts, this should not divert our efforts from focusing on emission cuts. I believe as the world is failing to cut emissions successfully, many voices are calling for adaptation. Mitigation should be the main focus for the whole world. We have to mitigate not to rush toward adaptation.

To sum up, mitigation should have the first priority. For confirmed impacts on developing countries, adaptation financing should be delivered as grants not loans.

Arab countries need to take a unified and strong position in the current international negotiations, focusing on technology transfer, mitigation, and then adaptation. If technology transfer was the only benefit that could come out of the Copenhagen protocol, the Arab world should do everything possible to derive the benefit. Technology transfer alone is the real addition in line with the additionality concept, which is the heart of the current Kyoto protocol. The Arab world should be proactive in the current climate negotiations and not mistakenly perceive that the oil trade will be affected.