Good COP, Bad COP

Jason Hartke
Vice President, National Policy
U.S. Green Building Council

Cross-posted from GreenSource's The Green Source: A Blog of Sustainable Building

Like on any of the nighttime dramas, we watch time and time again how yet another police duo utilize the classic good cop/bad cop routine. Well, in my final blog from Durban, I leave you with my own good COP/bad COP. Let’s play good COP first.

A Deal is Struck
The good news is that we have an agreement to create a legally binding deal by 2015, a Durban Platform for Advanced Action. Significantly, and thanks to our stalwart U.S. negotiators – Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing – the framework for that agreement will include all countries. That is a significant departure from the old paradigm that created a firewall between developed and developing countries. This Durban agreement will now include all major emitters – like China, India and Brazil. On Sunday afternoon, following what was the longest COP in history, Pershing said it is “a major step forward on climate change.” He continued, “It’s the most constructive collective action in a decade.” The bad news is that the details won’t be finalized until 2015 (see below: A Commitment to Commit...)

The Green Climate Fund
The design for this critical funding mechanism was inked in Durban, too. The Germans are putting up $40 million to create the implementation infrastructure to get this fund off the ground. But apparently more headway was needed to figure out how countries are going to fund it and at how much. The promise of the fund in Copenhagen (COP15) was to grow it to $100 billion a year by 2020. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s urging that it “must not be an empty shell” has yet to be addressed with any actual money.

The Kyoto Protocol’s Stay of Execution
For the past two weeks, many experts and pundits were suggesting that Durban would be the final resting place of the Kyoto Protocal, the 1997 global pact enforcing carbon reductions. The reports of its demise, using a Mark Twain expression, were highly exaggerated. Kyoto received a five to seven year extension taking it out to 2017 or 2020.

The night sky of Durban frames a construction crane.

The Host City of Durban
With long hours spent tucked away in the recesses of a conference center, too few negotiators and delegates were able to see the glint of the sun sparkle off the waves crashing onto the shores of Durban, the beautiful South African host city facing the vast expanse of the Indian Ocean. In a country known for some of the wildest, most majestic places on Earth, I’m not sure anyone was prepared for the wave of discontent, discouragement and dismay that also swept through the city as action and agreement at COP17 seemed to be consistently trumped by delay and division. Through it all, the city was a gracious, friendly and hospitable host to more than 16,000 participants from more than 190 countries.

And now for the bad COP:

An Urgency Gap?
Your reason for coming to Durban was made quite clear from the outset. Upon arriving, negotiators and delegates saw banners and signs the host country placed all over the city announcing the conference’s motto: “Working together to save tomorrow today.” Echoing that sentiment, a variety of world leaders tried to put the global meeting in perspective, arguing that COP17 was about nothing less than negotiating the world’s future. The exclamation point on that perspective came from several delegates from the world’s small island states, who told us that failure to take global action soon would literally leave them under water and without a home. But even with scientific clarity around the devastating impacts of climate change, countries are responding with varying degrees of urgency, unsure about how to effectively and fairly balance the economic challenges of today with certain intensifying difficulties of tomorrow.

International Negotiations: Nasty, Brutish and Long
One of the best analogies to describe our climate future comes from James Hansen, a premier U.S. climate scientist, who famously referred to climate change as “a ticking time bomb.” The analogy is simple: We can defuse the bomb if we act quickly or we’ll be forced to pick up the pieces after it detonates. And one thing he says every chance he gets is that time is running out. But international negotiations are nasty, brutish and, this is the departure from Hobbes, long. It was somewhat encouraging as negotiators worked into the weekend to salvage some agreement in Durban, but many were left wondering if we’re waiting too long.

Students from a youth delegation at COP17 wear the “I love KP” t-shirt. KP standing for Kyoto Protocol.

A Commitment to Commit Later On…Maybe
When it comes to a Facebook relationship status for the world’s countries working to craft a climate deal, they’re still just "In a Relationship." There might now be an engagement, but there’s certainly no marriage. Covering Durban was like trying to listen in on a couple talking about whether or not to get engaged…maybe. Ultimately, the plan advanced during the final days in Durban to move on a legally binding carbon reduction plan is a commitment to commit later. Sure, it was what salvaged a deal and now all emitters will be held accountable. But climate change is accelerating and a finalized agreement by 2015 wouldn’t go into effect until 2020. If I recall, the motto was “working together to save tomorrow today,” not 2020.

For more photos from Jason's trip to COP17, browse our Dispatches from Durban album on Facebook.

Scaling up Energy Efficiency Financing

Hope Lobkowicz
International Advisor
GLOBE Alliance

Here at COP17, some experts have said that the single most important outcome that can emerge from Durban is an agreement on the design of the Green Climate Fund – the new long-term mechanism for dispersing billions of dollars of climate finance for clean technology, adaptation, and capacity-building.

I’m interested in seeing a fair and equitable design for the fund. I’m also interested in watching how agreement on the fund can help bolster climate finance for energy efficient building projects – which so far occupy only a slim piece of international finance – yet offer the largest mitigation potential.

At a UNFCCC side-event on financing energy efficiency, panelists from the Global Environment Facility (the GEF), World Bank Group, and the Asian Development Bank presented a briefing note that summarized the results of an independent evaluation of these institutions’ investments in energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly, the evaluation acknowledged that:

• Investments in energy efficiency are highly cost-effective
• Fossil fuel subsidies are hampering investment
• Current obstacles and perceived barriers can be overcome – and the financial sector can in fact be persuaded to invest further in energy efficiency

To underpin these findings, the World Bank Group’s analysis offered some insightful statistics: Every $1 of GEF support for energy efficiency catalyzes a reduction of about 2.2 tons of CO2. The same investment in renewables catalyzes a reduction of 0.4 tons. Some energy efficiency investments, such as lighting, offer paybacks in a matter of weeks. Meanwhile, fossil fuel subsidies, which hinder efficiency investments by artificially lowering the cost of energy, remain larger than public spending on health in many countries.

This event made me realize that major international financial institutions do understand the environmental and economic benefits of energy efficiency. As President Obama recently said in his announcement of another $4 billion to improve commercial buildings and industrial facilities in the U.S.., “It is a trifecta.” So what’s standing in the way of global large-scale investment?

The panelists offered some suggestions. First, we need more data to help reduce the perceived risk. Second, we need capacity-building and technical assistance. Third, we need instruments such as loan guarantees from international institutions (and national governments) to catalyze investment in countries that are perceived as risky – especially the many in the developing world with poor credit ratings.

There are many drivers and varied approaches for financing green and efficient buildings. I am hopeful that the Green Climate Fund, which will oversee resources on the scale of $100 billion per year come 2020, can help with some of the above in order to leverage climate finance and spur even more investment in this “win-win-win” solution.

For more on how green buildings also improve lives, check out the COP17 legacy project spearheaded by the Green Building Council of South Africa.

Think Buildings: At the Vanguard of the Green Economy

Jason Hartke
Vice President, National Policy
U.S. Green Building Council

Cross-posted from GreenSource's The Green Source: A Blog of Sustainable Building

One of the bright spots at this COP is the work being done to quick start funding for the Green Climate Fund, which was one of the most significant outcomes from last year’s COP in Cancun. The idea is to create and grow this Fund to $100 billion a year by 2020, which would support climate mitigation and adaptation measures. As you can imagine, delegates are negotiating intensely through the end of the week to determine how to best and most fairly finance this fund, including opportunities to leverage private sector investment.

Of course, maximizing these investments will be essential (start thinking buildings).

Sarah Rushmere of the Green Building Council of South Africa helps spread the word about the global climate change impact of buildings.

Among all sectors, in all countries, and at all cost levels, the building sector represents the greatest and most cost-effective reduction potential, according to UNEP.

But what does that mean? It means that if we were to identify the critical path to clean energy, greater energy security, and more resilient communities (i.e., the building blocks of a green economy), we would start with buildings. This simple, but profound message is getting through here at Durban.

And the proof is widely represented at COP17, from the 1.7 million square feet of LEED projects certified each day, to projects like the Cato Manor ‘Green Street’ effort led by the Green Building Council of South Africa, and to the climate solutions implemented in cities around the world. We learned yesterday that of the more than 4700 climate change actions taken by the C40 cities since the organization’s formation in 2005, 30% of them are building related.

Simply said, green building solutions offer us the largest, cleanest, cheapest, safest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Buildings, which represent more than a third of the world’s energy use and associated carbon emissions, are not only the largest opportunity for emission reductions but also the most cost effective. In fact, of all the cost-neutral reduction opportunities across all sectors identified by the IPCC, 90 percent of them came from the reduction measures in the building sector.

As shown in the graph above, developing countries represent the greatest opportunity for reductions, underscoring the need for an international effort to rapidly enhance sustainable building practices in such countries and to capitalize on this emission reduction potential.

This is the fundamental message of the GLOBE Alliance, a broad-based international action network of nearly 40 environmental, business, industry, financial, faith-based, academic and community organizations around the world who share a commitment to advocating for sustainable building practices as a key strategy for combating climate change.

As we’re finding in the U.S., paid from savings mechanisms used in green retrofit programs offer unprecedented opportunities to save energy in buildings, increase comfort and valuation, while avoiding any first costs. Recently, Greg Kats found that we could see a fivefold increase in annual energy efficiency financing from $20 billion to $150 billion by ramping up these types of financing strategies.

Later today, I’ll be moderating a side event at the U.S. Presence Center to sharpen that message for international delegates. The session features success stories from green building leaders across various platforms. From the private sector, we’ll hear from Institute for Energy Efficiency at Johnson Controls and the Center for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability at Ingersoll Rand. We’ll also hear about government leadership from the Obama Administration and its Better Buildings Initiative, from India’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency, and ICF’s collaborative work to advance energy efficiency in Indonesia.