After the disappointment of Copenhagen - where now?

It depended what, or where, you were reading, how December's COP-15 talks were spun to you. Hailed as a success in the US and the Indian Times, they were marked as a failure in Europe.

For those who saw failure for the UN Climate Change conference to conclude with a legally binding and effective deal, the blame lay either with China or the US.

Over in the US, the pro-climate action body World Resources Institute was among those who blamed Somalia and other developing nations most threatened by climate change for nearly scuppering the deal, which they claimed was "rescued" by Obama.

Meanwhile, Lumumba Di-Aping (Sudanese leader of the G77) compared the Copenhagen Accord proposed to the Holocaust and to asking African people to sign a suicide pact.

Tuvalu and other threatened states remain very bitter about the lack of transparency - the text of the Accord had been agreed before midnight by a small group of countries (including China, Japan, India, Brazil, the US and EU) and brought to the plenary.

The EC identified the biggest challenge as finding a way to share global emission reductions between rapidly-developing countries, like China and India, and more industrialised regions, like the US and Europe, responsible for the bulk of historical CO2 emissions. It said it was 'disappointed' by both the Chinese and Ameican pledges at Copenhagen.

After the dust has settled, it does seem that China was more obstructive than any other significant player.

So, after two years of wrangling and stalling, we must now wait for further meetings and talks this year to (maybe) declare a legally binding document, with firm targets.

What was decided at Copenhagen?

A small group of nations negotiated the Copenhagen Accord. However, they are responsible for 80% of emissions, and they promised immediately $28bn of short term support and $100bn/yr from 2020.

When this document was taken to the Plenary on the floor, there wasn't final agreement, but UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer claims there was "overwhelming support", citing the 120 heads of state who came to Copenhagen. But in the end, the Accord was only "noted" by those countries.

Nevertheless, de Boer argues, "it is a political tool we will deploy to resolve remaining issues over the coming year, e.g. on financial support and what developing contries need to do and what bodies need to be established".

The Accord contains no mention of targets for 2020 or 2050, but there is an "intent" to work towards a maximum 2 degree Celsius limit on average global temperature rise.

The document mentions pledges already made by some parties. Other countries can write their intentions into the scheme in the document before 1 February.

Before Copenhagen, financial pledges were made by individual countries and these are in the Accord.

For long term finance: $100 bn each year by 2020 was promised, from public and private sources.

For short term finance (2010-12) the following was promised:

$30 billion - EU

$11 billion - Japan

$3.6 billion - US.

Verification of countries' claims for emission reduction was a contentious issue: large developing countries must report their emissions every second year. There will be some kind of international surveillance but at the same time "respecting national sovereignty". There will not be a review of progress until 2015 to determine if all this action is urgent enough. We already know it is not.

In fact, de Boer said on 20 January that the failure at Copenhagen "makes our task more urgent, as the window of opportunity is closing faster than before". He acknowledged that in "financial, human and economic terms the challenge requires much greater investment". Nevertheless he acknowledged three outcomes:

1. the challenge is being met at the highest levels of government

2. it reflects a gobal political consensus

3. at negotiations away from the camera, a full set of decisions was brought to conclusion.

However, the REDD framework was not finalised at Copenhgen, so REDD money (for forest preservation) cannot be distributed.

The UN is looking forward

The names of those countries who agree with the Accord will be published in the Accord below the title.

De Boer has given countries a deadline of 31 January to be on this list, which will be updated on an ongoing basis on the UNFCCC website.

He was careful to say that signing it meant they do not "adhere" to its contents but agree to "be associated".

They can opt to adhere, or, if they are industrialised countires, to indicate the targets they will set, or, if developing countries, say what actions they will take. "The Accord is a living document" he said. No one is 'bound' to the Accord.

It will be used to advance the formal negotiations inside the UN process.

Of the short term finance pledged, many countries have it in their budgets and will channel it through the existing Kyoto Protocol measures and bodies. No more meetings are therefore required to implement it.

The next COP (16) is expected to be held in Mexico from 29 November 2010 to 10 December 2010. De Boer wants an "incentivised negotiating schedule" before then, in the second part of this year, details yet to be determined.

At the end of May / early June there will be a review of progress towards Mexico. Mexico could conclude in a legally binding agreement, but that can only be decided then. De Boer said he had spoken to 15-20 countries sine Copenhagen, who believe that discussions in Mexico will reach a conclusion after which it will be decided how to package it in legal terms.

The decision making process

The cumbersome nature of discussions came under much criticism at Copenhagen. Individual countries could hold up major discussions on points of order.

Could it be improved upon? De Boer now believes that "You can't have 192 countries involved in all the details all of the time on all issues.

"These are the most complicated negotiations the world has ever seen. They must be broken up into smaller parts. Transparency is vital. Countries will decide where they want to be involved.

"Then, when any decisions are brought back to the whole community, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This will build confidence among all parties," he said.

The vulnerable countries strike back

Many countries feel excluded from the UN process. Pablo Solon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN said on 18 January:“The US climate envoy Pershing must be very deaf if he thinks that only a small minority of countries opposed the Copenhagen Accord. The agreement was roundly condemned in almost every quarter of the world, because it patently fails to tackle the climate crisis.

"The leaders of the world's largest polluting nations have failed us. That is why Bolivia is organizing a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change in April to put forward effective proposals for saving humanity from climate chaos. We invite all people committed to saving our planet to join us.”

Climate Justice will mean radical reduction of emissions in industrialized countries and the transfer of resources and technology to developing countries.

"If the US and other governments can so easily find money for endless wars, bank bailouts and bonanza bonuses for the rich, they clearly have the resources to help save lives and protect future generations.”

Solon added: “The US admission that it wants to exclude the vast majority of the planet from decisions about climate change is deeply offensive, when the climate crisis will fall first on those who are most vulnerable.

"The earthquake in Haiti has shown very clearly how vulnerable impoverished countries will be to environmental crises. The US decision to ignore our voices is the attitude of a colonial ruler.”

Europe struggles to lead the way

The Commission has proposed immediate action on climate finance agreed in Copenhagen, including fast-start funding ($30 billion) for 2010-2012 and long-term finance ($100 billion per year in 2020).

At an informal meeting of European energy and environment ministers in Seville on 16 January there were calls for swift implementation by the EU of the Copenhagen Accord. They urged other countries to follow suit and reach a legally-binding agreement in 2010.

"Doing so will require an active outreach by the EU, including at bilateral and regional levels, but possibly also through facilitating a meeting of 'Friends of the Accord' during the first quarter of 2010," a statement said.

The EU (which accounts for about 14% of the world's CO2 emissions) has committed to achieving a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990, as called for in its climate and energy package adopted in 2008. It would commit to 30% if other developed countries commit to comparable emission reductions and economically-advanced developing countries - namely China and India - contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. 

The nominee for European climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, told a European Parliament hearing on 15 January that she hoped the EU's conditions for moving to 30% would be met before a meeting set for Mexico later this year.

The EU's newly-appointed president Herman Van Rompuy (a former Belgian prime minister) has said he will be focusing on Europe's recovery from the financial crisis and on tackling climate change during his two-and-a-half-year tenure. 

Though the Copenhagen climate talks lfailed to meet European expectations, they laid a good foundation for further work, Van Rompuy told the German chancellery. 

Angela Merkel has said that without European participation in the Copenhagen summit, China and India would not have taken any responsibility or confronted the issue of climate change. 

In March there is an EU Summit to endorse the European Energy Action Plan for 2010 onward.

US prospects

The loss of a Democrat majority in the US Senate on 20 January was seen as potentially making it more difficult for the US cap-and-trade climate change bill to be passed.

Steny Hoyer, Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, said the bill was not dead, but parts aimed at increasing energy independence were more likely to pass than those aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

De Boer put a brave face on the news: "No political development in US will mean we go back. US concerns on fuel prices and scarcity and economic problems will not go away.

"At Copenhagen Obama committed to a reduction of 17% - the global community will hold the US accountable to this," he said.

US intransigence caps Copenhagen fiasco

If anyone should shoulder the blame for the failure of the UN Climate Change conference to conclude with a legally binding and effective deal it is President Obama.

Other countries had made or been ready to make concessions, even though no-one did enough to secure the measures required to avoid a temperature rise of at least 3 degrees Celsius.

China conceded that it would no longer seek financial support from rich countries to help it reduce its emissions. But when it saw no new US measures on the table, it felt no compunction to accept independent monitoring of its emission reduction efforts.

The EU had agreed a unilateral 20 per cent emissions cut by 2020 on 1990 levels and offered to raise this to 30 per cent if other rich countries did more. It also promised to pay its “fair share” of a global total of €22-50 billion in international public money.

The UK seems unwilling to criticise the US, putting a brave face on the fact that Obama came to Copenhagen at all.

The text agreed so far contains only an aspiration to provide $100bn by 2020, with no certainty about how much is public money from rich countries. The money may largely come from carbon trading - a volatile, unpedictable market.

Lumumba Di-Aping (Sudanese leader of G77) compared the Copenhagen Accord proposed to the Holocaust and to asking African people to sign the suicide pact.

Tuvalu and other threatened states are very bitter about lack of transparency - the text had been agreed before midnight by a small group of countries (25-10-5 countries, including US and EU) and brought to the plenary.

There is no tight deadline to convert the deal into a legally-binding agreement - so no sense of urgency.

After two years of wrangling and stalling - what a tragedy for the most vulnerable nations and the whole world.

The governments of the world have behaved like irresponsible schoolchildren who had to prepare for an important exam but left everything to the last minute and failed the exam, rather than like responsible custodians of the planet.

What a betrayal of our trust.

What does the Accord say?

Targets: no mitigation targets for 2020 or 2050
The document mentions pledges already made by some parties. Other countries can write their intentions into the scheme in the document before 1 February 2010.

Finance:
- long term finance: 100 bln USD each year by 2020 repeated, no concrete pledges. The money should go from public and private sources.

- short term finance 2010-12
10,6 bilion USD - UE
11 bln USD - Japan
3,6 bln USD - US

Verification/control: control wording taken out. Big developing countries have to report their emissions every second year, some kind of international surveillance but at the same time "respecting national sovereignty".

What developed nations have put on the table at Copenhagen

Here is a document from the Oxfam policy team on what the countries below have stated in terms of emissions reductions, financing for developing countries and political dynamics.

China, India, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Africa Group, Least, Developed Countries (LDC)
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), , Indonesia, South Korea, EU, US, Norway, Australia, Canada, Japan
New Zealand

Naturally it is not enough, but it's where we are at today.

Civil rights abuse in Copenhagen

A good blog by singer-songwriter David Rovics on the police clampdown in Copenhagen, civil rights and politics in Denmark.
Report from Cop-enhagen

Yes, it's - The Stupid Show

Watch the Stupid Show from Franny and Co. live from Copenhagen!



Or watch it at www.stupidshow.tv.

From the people who brought you the great film Age of Stupid...

US Youth Crash Climate Denier Event in Copenhagen

Young Clean Energy Advocates called "Hitler Youth" by Climate Denier Lord Monckton

Fifty young Americans took over a climate denier conference hosted by a prominent conservative organization this evening in Copenhagen, rushing the stage and telling the live TV audience that a clean energy future is the real road to prosperity in America.

The young people, merely a fraction of the more than 350 US youth in Denmark for the UN climate negotiations, entered a session of the Americans for Prosperity "Hot Air Tour" speakers series and were able to drop two banners and gain access to the conference's stage. The live event was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies in cities across the United States.

The students entered the event in small groups, joining a paltry audience of five conference attendees, who had come to hear climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton speak about the Copenhagen climate negotiations.

After the first five minutes of the event, student representatives from SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs displayed banners reading "Climate Disaster Ahead" and "Clean Energy Now." After security agents at the event took the banners, the young attendees began a chant of "Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy."

The chant lasted five minutes, as the youth took the stage and displayed their message for the live video feed being sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, despite evasive action on the camera crew's part. As they left the stage, Lord Monckton repeatedly called the activists "Hitler Youth" and "nazis."

"Clean energy creates jobs," says Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, "These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public."

Laura Comer, 21, of Strongsville, OH, seconded Barge, saying, "We're representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science."

For more information, contact Ben Wessel, +45 50 11 12 48, ben.wessel@sustainus.org

Current national policies mean an average rise of 4.4 degrees

Click on the image to the right to go to Climate circus and see the results of the developed countries' policies in terms of projected temperature rises.

None of them come below four degrees Celsius at present.

At Copenhagen they need to be forced to limit emissions by 40% by 2020 to get down to two degrees Celsius.

World headed for 3.5 degree warming based on current pre-Copenhagen promises

Antonio M. Claparols, president of the Ecological Society of the Philippines has published a heartfelt account of climate change and deforestation on eco-friendly website www.ecoboom.co.uk.

The article, entitled “Will Copenhagen Save the World?” evokes stark images of the catastrophic devastation caused by climate change. In an extract from the article Claparols comments: “As I write this, the entire world is talking about climate change and its effects to the environment, agriculture and humankind. The effects of climate change have manifested itself all over the world. In the Philippines the effects of typhoon Ondoy and Pepeng are still fresh in mind. But the real issue is-do we have enough political will to abate climate change?”

A fair deal at Copenhagen is absolutely crucial, but at the moment the world is heading towards disaster.

A sobering new assessment by the “Climate Action Tracker” of the emission commitments and pledges put forward by industrialized and developing countries for the Copenhagen climate negotiations shows that the world is headed for a global warming of well over 3oC by 2100. Carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be over 650 ppm, with total GHG concentrations close to 800 ppm CO2 equivalent.

This will mean catastrophic sea level rises that will directly affect low-lying areas like Bangladesh, the Pacific Islands and the Philippines.

Everybody must push hard against their political leaders to get them to deliver a legally binding agreement as part of the COP-15 talks.

“The pledges on the table will not halt emissions growth before 2040, let alone by 2015 as indicated by the IPCC and are far from halving emissions by 2050, as has been called for by the G8. Instead global emissions are likely to be nearly double 1990 levels by 2040 based on present pledges”, said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

“In 2020 we project total GHG emissions to be around 55 billion tonnes CO2 equivalent per year from all sources, a reduction of about 3 billion tonnes compared to business as usual. In ten years from now global emissions will already have to be well below current levels of about 46 billion tonnes (in 2008) to have much chance of meeting temperature goals such as 2°C, as called for by the major emitters globally, or below 1.5°C as put forward by the Small Island States and Least Developed Countries as essential for their survival”, said Dr (h.c.) Bill Hare of Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“After accounting for the new position of Russia, the announcement of President Obama of a US emission reduction pledge for Copenhagen, the developed country emission reductions as a whole are currently projected to be 13-19% below 1990 levels by 2020. However the proposed forest credits these countries want would degrade this by about 5% with the effective reductions in industrial GHG emissions being 8-14% below 1990 levels by 2020. The low reduction target (8%) is unconditional for most countries and the highest reduction target (14%) is linked by most countries to a strong agreement in Copenhagen”, said Dr. Michiel Schaeffer of Climate Analytics.

Around 25-40% reductions by industrialized countries by 2020 from 1990 GHG emissions levels are described as necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Recent announcements such as the Chinese carbon intensity reduction target for 2020, and the Korean emission goals for 2020 and 2050, are very important and useful. However the overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions (excluding deforestation) is disappointing; with overall developing country emissions projected to be close to, or significantly above, the IPCC range for 2020” said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

“Faster economic growth than expected, particularly combined with slower improvements in carbon intensity in China explain part of this. China has ambitious policies on energy efficiency and renewable energy, but the new international target falls short of that ambition. A reduction from “business as usual emissions” by the developing countries as a group is needed in 2020 of 15-30% is needed to limit global warming to 2°C or even lower.

“On deforestation, we have accounted for the announcement of Brazil and of Indonesia which taken together would reduce deforestation emissions globally by about 40% from recent levels by 2020 (or about the same from estimated 1990 deforestation emissions), which is a very important contribution” said Dr Michiel Schaeffer.

“With no concrete pledges on the table for international aviation and marine CO2 emissions these are projected to grow to over double 1990 levels in 2020, reaching about 1.8 billion tonnes per year, and to nearly 4 times 1990 levels in 2050, about 3 billion tonnes per year” said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

Wall Street versus climate science

We must not underestimate the pressure against a coherent deal at COP-15.

The on going controversy about the hacking into the e-mails of the Climate Research Unit in the UK exemplifies how extreme in the battle is becoming.

We must fight this anti-science and anti-democratic attitude at every chance. I am taking the opportunity to pass on comment on this by a colleague in the Cap and Share campaign group of which I am a part. (And if any of you don't know the difference between Cap and Share and Cap and Trade, see http://www.capandshare.org/. )

Lets not mince words - what we have in the CRU hacking is a financial sector and carbon economy sector attack on climate science, indeed on the scientific method in general.

For those who think this view is extreme then I invite them to read the following article in the Wall Street Journal about this crisis:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

In order to get maximum clarity about the issues at stake I have cut out and selected phrases from this article to thrown them into maximal relief:

"much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming"

"how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced"

"the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start."

"this privileged group" (climate scientists who published in peer reviewed journals)

Note the phraseology - peer review is "enforcing a single view" "rigging climate tracking right from the start" by a "clique".

"only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science."

" critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged."

note the words. Climate scientists who submit to a peer review process are regarded as a: "clique"

Climate Research Journal "blackballed"

"The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

Comment:
What is at stake here is nothing less that the future of scientific method - and whether it is going to be subordinated to commercial interests. The climate crisis is not going away - and nor will the financial interests who want to stop action on climate change. This crisis will get worse and the pressure on the scientific method will get worse too.....

Consider how climate science - or any other science - will evolve if not subjected to peer scrutiny by qualified colleagues: any explanation that you want will prevail to explain how the world works - as long as you have the money to pay "scientists" or " Institutes" in Washington and elsewhere to selectively and uncritically pick the data that suits the case you want to make. Scientific "truth" will be made by lawyers and the PR industry and will be available to the highest bidder.

...and the people with the most money to give will be in the banking and fossil fuel sectors......

Brian/ David

Even the military want a deal at Copenhagen

A group of serving and retired military officers from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the US released a statement today calling on all governments to “work for an ambitious and equitable international agreement” at the global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

The statement, presented at a meeting today at Brookings in Washington, and issued simultaneously in Brussels, Dhaka, Georgetown, London, New Delhi and The Hague, says that “incremental, and at times, abrupt, climate change is resulting in an unprecedented scale of human misery, loss of biodiversity and damage to infrastructure with consequential security implications that need to be addressed urgently.”

The officers are part of an international initiative on Climate Change and the Military led by the Institute for Environmental Security (IES) in The Hague and 10 other think tanks from Asia, Europe and North America.

IES Vice-Chair, Tom Spencer, former President of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights and Defence Policy, said the aim of the statement was to stress that “climate change creates a common security problem that requires global and comprehensive co-operation.”

Quoting from the statement, Air Marshal (ret) AK Singh of India, Chairman of the project’s Military Advisory Council and Project Director, Climate Change & Security, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi warned that “failure to recognise the conflict and instability implications of climate change, and to invest in a range of preventative and adaptive actions will be very costly in terms of destabilising nations, causing human suffering, retarding development and providing the required military response.”

Maj Gen (ret) Joseph Singh, Former Chief of Staff, Guyana Defence Force, added that, “Based on the fact that we have been involved in disaster relief operations, we know the trauma, the human misery, the damage to infrastructure. So that hands on experience gives us the confidence that we have some knowledge and expertise that we can share and work in a collaborated way with decision-makers to anticipate, to pre-empt and to be involved in contingency planning.”

Asked to illustrate an experience from his region, U.S. Brig Gen (ret) Wendell C. King replied, “The hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans.” He added that America’s ability to respond was severely stressed and if such a technologically capable nation such as the USA thus struggled, the picture was not too rosy for nations not having adequate capabilities.

At its first meeting in Brussels earlier this month the group of officers were especially concerned about the rapid increase in glacial melt in the Himalayas, which will result in increased flooding followed by devastating water shortages throughout the region.

Maj Gen (ret) Muniruzzaman, President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies, said that the affects of climate change could lead to the migration of millions of people in places like Bangladesh where the impact of climate change would cause an estimated annual loss to the economy of $ 1 billion of GDP by 2010 and $ 5 billion by 2070.

Water scarcity will have severe adverse impact on human access to fresh water, food production, fisheries and wildlife, river transports, hydropower and human health according to a report by his institute.

The joint statement calls on all governments to ensure that the security implications of climate change are integrated into their respective military strategies and also calls upon the military to be part of the solution by reducing its own carbon “bootprint”.

> Institute for Environmental Security (IES)

Don't use the European Trading Scheme as a model for Copenhagen

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is important because the scheme covers half of all EU carbon emissions produced by power companies and industry.

If the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not helping to cut these, the EU as a whole will not meet its targets.

The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), from 2005 to 2007 was a failure.

Huge over-allocation of permits led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to €8 per tonne, meaning that the system did not reduce emissions at all.

In 2007 energy suppliers' 1.8% cut in carbon dioxide emissions was just higher than the UK's average of 1.7% down on 2006.

The residential sector and business sector both achieved better emissions cuts than the power sector in 2007, 4.6% and 2.6% respectively.

Meanwhile, there were increases in emissions from the transport sector (up 1%) and from industry (up 9.5%). [source:NewEnergyFinance/DECC]

The reason why the recession hasn't hurt big companies signd up to the ETS (according to International pro-business NGO The Climate Group) is because allocation of free permits to energy-intensive participants has helped them to ride out the recession, passing any price increases on to consumers.

Companies mentioned by The Climate Group include Centrica, Johnson & Johnson, Tesco, cement producer Lafarge, a British glass manufacturer, a German engineering firm, a global steel maker, a global aluminum firm and a financial services company. Fluctuations in energy prices and the economic downturn had more substantial effects on businesses than the price of carbon.

The only way that the ETS can work is if all of the permits to pollute are auctioned off and industry pays the price for abusing the atmosphere - which actually belongs to every single global citizen, as well as every other living organism.

Sandbag, another NGO, has used the large amount of information generated by participants in the scheme to create a Google map.

You can search it by country or year, sector, company, plant name, permits allocated, used and surrendered, and so on. London, for example, contains 44 registered emitters.

It has issued a report which highlights the harms that overallocation of permits has caused: "industry is likely to have nearly 400,000,000 tons worth of surplus permits across the period 2008-2012" they say. As a result they weren't out to reduce their emissions and instead will be old to sell their surplus for windfall profits of over Euros5 billion. There may also be an estimated surplus in the New Entrance Preserve of over 300 million permits by 2012.

All of this is because the caps were set too high and there is no way in the market to bring down the supply permits.

Sandbank concludes by saying that there could be 1.6 billion surplus permits and credits available during phase 2 of the scheme. this will permit European companies "to stand still on cutting domestic emissions further next seven years".

Sandbag recommends that the next phase of the emissions trading scheme should be immediately increased to deliver at least a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 rising to 40% if a deal is reached at Copenhagen.

They should also take steps to effectively tighten caps in phase 2 of the scheme.

The scheme undoubtably has great potential to cut carbon emissions using the market and uncover the most cost-effective abatement opportunities.

The Low Carbon Kid says that it just needs designing so that it isn't one of the greatest rip-offs of all time (banking bonuses excluded), that's all.

And if any deal being pushed for by American industry wants to follow the current ETS model you know why. It will benefit their pockets and it won't make the slightest dent in carbon emissions.

What's the solution? Oliver Tickell has researched and developed it in his book and website Kyoto 2.