PROPERTY ARTICLES

The Chief Executive Officer, European Climate Foundation, Mr. Jules Kortenhorst, spoke to journalists on why developed countries must keep their promises on climate change financing. Chinyere Fred-Adegbulugbe was there.

Hopes for clinching a global climate deal this year seem to have been written off. What are the key issues as we are now heading towards the next big summit, COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico, in December?

There are a number of issues. First, we need to recognise that the debate on the legal form of a global agreement is still not settled. This will continue to be an important debate; but in the mean time, negotiators can get on with some specific issues. Financing is a major one. We all hope that we can see significant progress on that subject in Cancun.

The European Union‘s Chief Climate Negotiator, Mr. Runge-Metzger, says he does not expect the financing debate to be solved by the end of this year. What would "significant" progress mean to you?

Significant progress would mean that we see funds flowing; that we see them in the magnitude that is in line with promises, and that it is largely new and incremental. There is a big issue of trust here. In the past, the developed world had failed to live up to its promises. That can not happen here again.

How do you see Europe‘s deficit crisis impacting on the financing issue?

No doubt, the fiscal crisis in Europe is making all of this more difficult. It is not just in Spain or Greece, but all over Europe, governments are worried about their fiscal deficits. What I would say is that the magnitude of the climate finance commitments is such that they ought to survive deficit reduction policies by EU governments. But we need to (and will) follow this very closely.

There is already a debate on how to distinguish climate change aid from development aid. Are you seeing governments in Europe pull back financial support for clean technology?

The distinction between official development assistance and climate aid is certainly very tricky, more so even in the case of adaptation than in the case of mitigation. The fiscal pressure is indeed resulting in a pull back of feed in tariffs. There is a big debate on this in Spain but also in Germany.

The other thing we want to see is that finance has impact. We need to make sure that early on the fast start, funding proves that it is effective. That is where the commitment of the developing countries comes in.

On finance and building capacity, there was a clear commitment from the developed countries, also in Copenhagen, to provide the fast start and the long-term finance. I believe we should hold these countries to those promises. We are intending to regularly publish the actual commitments versus promises. The best way is likely to name and shame. Pressure and lobbying is one thing to keep reminding EU governments that we are watching if they deliver.

Speaking of delivering, when do you see renewables technologies becoming a serious competitor to high carbon power?

We just published Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a low-carbon Europe. What our guide shows is that in the very near future, renewables technologies will become cost competitive with high carbon power generation. If it is cheaper and technically possible to produce power from wind and solar than from coal, then we will see the market do its work.

Will developing countries be able to afford and develop their own future renewables technologies?

This is where developed and developing countries stand to benefit together. There will be learning and new technology insights from the big solar plans that India is rolling out, just as much as from the new wind power in China and from the projects in the United States and in Europe.

Learning will go two ways. But the breakthrough from our study is that with large scale renewables, countries can build reliable and cost effective power systems. Carbon credit projects can play a role in this. It means that if Tanzania or Vietnam are rolling out a renewables project and are emitting less carbon dioxide as a result, then the developed countries will pay a price per ton of carbon dioxide reduced to Tanzania or Vietnam. Natural gas is a wonderful transition fuel. It emits a lot less CO2 than coal and it helps preserve the forests. In the long run, however, we even need to find ways to do without natural gas. And it would seem to me that in Tanzania, solar and wind power can really provide all the electricity the country needs.

Global warming is usually caused by emissions other than the destruction of forests. Some experts say the contribution of forest destruction on a global emission is just 15 per cent, the rest is fossil fuel emissions.

Indeed, deforestation is somewhere around 18 per cent of total emissions. But it is the area where we can most quickly and for relatively little cost, have the biggest impact. And once we cut down a forest, the way back takes thousands of years. So in short, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is seen to be a quick and very effective mechanism to reduce emissions.

The logging industry will be heavily affected and in developing countries, this is a big issue.

There is growing agreement on what a solution to deforestation can look like among the 15-20 countries that really matter in this debate, in particular the big forest countries and the largest developed countries that are willing to put up money to help halt deforestation. I appreciate the impact on the logging industry. But is that truly our biggest concern? Would we not like to move to sustainable forestry, instead of the logging that now takes place? It will allow for ongoing export earnings, safeguard the rainforest, keep the jobs, but increase the price of hardwood. In all, I think it will be a win-win.