2. Tuesday’s deal between US/China US: 26-28% reduction from 2005 levels by 2025 China: stop growth of emissions by 2030 plus 20% renewables Are these real commitments? Probably so. Should we be impressed?

3. CO2

4. CO2 per person

5. CO2 per $GDP

6. The good news about US/China deal Making a commitment is better than not making one Commitments were meaningful US – commitment goes beyond Obama earlier & Kyoto China – level off emissions that are sharply increasing AND committing to more renewables Commitments prompt political and economic processes Domestic pressures for action International pressures for action Technological innovations Provides momentum for Paris 2015 talks

7. What’s coming up on the international scene Paris 2015 = next “real” negotiation that might do something US/China agreement provides momentum

8. Different country groups in the international negotiations Developed (Annex I) states US – United States EU – European Union Developing states: “cumulative emissions … will have surpassed those of developed countries by 2020” AOSIS – Alliance of Small Island States. “Calls by small island states and other vulnerable countries for compensation for the damage resulting from climate impacts such as rising seas and droughts.” OPEC – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries BASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India, China Latin American/Caribbean countries committed to climate action Other developing states

9. National Comparisons Emissions/$: US ~50% higher than EU or Japan Emissions/person: US 2x higher than EU or Japan and 4x higher than world average Growth from 2005-2020: US - 14%, EU - 2.5%, Japan - 5%, China/India - 70% Emissions since 1850 (CO2 last ~100-200 years) US - 30% of energy-related CO2 China - 7% All developing countries will exceed 50% by 2020

10. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

11. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

12. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

13. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystandersPushers HighDraggersIntermediates

14. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From AOSIS? Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystandersPushers HighDraggersIntermediates

15. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS HighDraggersIntermediates

16. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From OPEC? Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS HighDraggersIntermediates

17. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS High Draggers OPEC Intermediates

18. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From US? Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS High Draggers OPEC Intermediates

19. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS High Draggers OPEC, US Intermediates

20. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From EU? Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS High Draggers OPEC, US Intermediates

21. Where National Negotiating Positions Come From Ecological Vulnerability (benefits of action) LowHigh Abatement Costs (costs of action) LowBystanders Pushers AOSIS, EU High Draggers OPEC, US Intermediates

22. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

23. Questions and strategies of International agreement Formal/binding or informal/non-binding Who to involve: which states, non-states What to discuss: pollutants, activities, approach CO2 / CH4 (not NOx) Fossil fuels, forests, land use Mitigation / Adaptation / Compensation How ambitious to be How to frame things Means of implementation Response to compliance and noncompliance Negotiation process

24. Negotiation Theory ZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement) Finding the existing ZOPA Interests as exogenously “given” Can’t do more than countries involved want to do Creating a new ZOPA Interests as endogenously created Leadership Argument and persuasion Bringing external pressure to bear Engaging NGO community Creating deadlines and expectations Ensuring agreement but also follow through

25. Other Recent Climate Deals Goal: limit warming to 2 degrees and possibly 1.5 Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed countries Developing countries “will” take mitigation actions Registry for developing country actions Green Climate Fund ($30 billion for 2010-12; $100 billion per year by 2020) – compare to economic stimulus bill (~800 million) International Technology Mechanism Cancun Adaptation Framework REDD + (forest-related emissions) International forum for consequences of climate policy Carbon-capture-and-storage as policy option LULUCF included

26. Current status Commitment to new agreement in Paris in 2015 UNEP for 4F: 44 GtCO2e by 2020/ 22 by 2050; 2010 was 50; BAU is 59 in 2020; “good” would be 52 in 2020 Kyoto renewed at weak level (fewer countries, generally weaker commitments) Current status Legal form unclear Financial assistance stalled Technology requests rejected Alliances shifting a bit Much is in flux

27. Not Just International Action Governments: India, China, US, Europe, Japan; Costa Rica: 3.5% carbon tax since 1997 States: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; Western Climate Initiative Cities: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability: >1000 cities, towns NGOs/Corporations: WWF, Greenpeace, Nike, Levi’s, etc. Religions: Faith Action on Climate Change, Interfaith Power & Light, Evangelical Environmental Network, Individuals: Voluntary Simplicity, direct action