A short film looking back at the Copenhagen COP-15 summit on climate change
After two weeks of intense negotiations, the COP-15 Copenhagen summit delivered an accord brokered by President Barack Obama with the other major economies. But what does it all mean; was this a good COP or a bad COP?
Although the odds on a groundbreaking, legally binding treaty were long before the start of the meeting, there were still hopes for a meaningful and robust agreement that would lay the groundwork for a future agreement. In the end, the negotiations came up short on that front too.
But what has been achieved? The key points of the Copenhagen Accord include the following: The objective to keep the temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times as a requirement to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Immediate US$30 billion short-term funding until 2012 and US$100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing; as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.
Environmental organizations were extremely critical of the accord, saying not nearly enough progress had been made. Many politicians, businesses and other organizations could also barely hide their disappointment.
Although Copenhagen didn’t live up to its expectations, I would suggest that some progress has been made over the last few weeks. The Copenhagen process and accord makes provision for the continuation of the international negotiation activities, momentum has been maintained and, for the first time, the major developing economies (China, India, South Africa and Brazil) were involved in drafting an agreement to combat climate change.
At the same time though, it is clear that the main areas of disagreement between developed countries and many of the developing countries have not been resolved.
Only time will tell over the next twelve months if we can succeed in creating a global, legally binding agreement. If not, the journey to a low carbon economy will still continue. There are too many business, government or even consumer driven initiatives in place for this all to grind to a halt. However, in the absence of any such agreement, progress down the road to a low carbon economy may have to come in a far less clear or coherent way.
Barend van Bergen, Associate partner at KPMG in the Netherlands
Tuesday 22nd December, 2009
It is clear to all at COP-15 that more and more countries will be developing carbon markets, each with their own rules and processes. Therefore, at least for the foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that we will have a one-size-fits-all global trading mechanism. A complicating issue will be the likelihood that we won’t have a global, legally binding, unit for accounting for carbon. This poses a significant risk to the patchwork of trading mechanisms and will undoubtedly introduce further bureaucratic burden into inter-market trading.
Another possible risk however is posed by the availability of offsets to these new developing carbon markets. Currently, the largest carbon market is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Offsets used within the ETS are either those enabled as part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Initiative (JI). At the moment, most owners of offset credits are keeping them in the bank and not bringing them to market, meaning that there is likely to be a significant shortfall in the number of credits available.
Discussions at COP-15 are looking at offset mechanisms post 2012 and what is clear is that, given recent reduction commitments by some countries and sectors which propose to largely use offsets in hitting their climate change emission targets, demand (at least in the short term) is likely to far outstrip supply. This will potentially have significant implications for both buyers and sellers of these credits. It is also interesting to note that any future US cap and trade mechanism will depend heavily on offsets. Current projections predict volumes in the region of 2bn/tonnes of CO2 offsets will be required per year to meet demand in the US.
Those involved in these discussions want to see these offset credits freely tradable on the international carbon markets. This again will pose a significant challenge to ensure that a US offset tonne of CO2 is the same as other trading schemes’ tonnes of CO2.
What is clear is that there will still be plenty of discussion through 2010 (and possibly beyond) on the difficult, but necessary, details around the creation and interplay of carbon markets and the role and use of offsets.
Simon Davies, Head of Sustainability at KPMG in the U.K.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
One of the thorny issues being hotly debated here is that of technology transfer. Underpinning the free movement and development of technology transfer will be the issue of intellectual property (IP) rights.
We are all aware of the various targets for minimising the impact of climate change (such as renewable energies accounting for 20 percent of energy production by 2020) but where is the technology going to come from and - more importantly - how long will it take to enable access to this technology around the globe?
Some of the technology already exists but a lot of it is still on the drawing board. A statistic I heard this week indicated that it takes somewhere between 19 and 30 years to “diffuse” energy related technology to a level of global adoption. By anyone’s standards, this is too long if we’re serious about reaching green house gas stabilisation any time soon, so what can be done to speed up the process yet still ensure a fair return on investment? One step forward would be to simplify and make more transparent the IP patenting process.
It is also interesting to note who holds the most of this IP. In the energy sector, large multinationals reportedly hold the majority of the IP but they don’t necessarily shout too loudly about it. I take a degree of comfort from this as it shows that some of the world’s leading companies realise that change has to come and that a large part of that is through the development and application of IP. Looking at it another way, we’re going down the route of “let’s think and invent our way out of climate change”. The challenge will be in how these organisations distribute these IP-protected products in a timely, and ultimately equitable, way in order for developing nations to deploy new climate change mitigating technologies.
Simon Davies, Head of Sustainability at KPMG in the U.K.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
Over half way through the UN Copenhagen climate conference and the fate of the meeting lies in the balance. Today (Tuesday) is the last day for negotiators to find common ground before presenting the draft of an “agreed outcome” to the hundred or so Presidents and Prime Ministers on the 17th and 18th of December. But the way the talks have gone on some of the key issues, it seems likely that the political leaders may have to make many of the central decisions themselves.
There are just too many big issues still unresolved; the most contentious being the shape and structure of the future global climate regime. Certain developed countries are insisting that a new agreement be established that replaces the Kyoto Protocol. Most members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are members of this Protocol, with the United States as the notable exception. Since the US does not want to be part of the Protocol (as is currently stands), other developed countries have taken the position that another treaty which includes the US should replace it - with new obligations placed on developing countries to act on their emissions.
This is unacceptable to developing countries, since the new treaty, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, will most likely not place strict and legally binding commitments on those countries which have a historical climate emission legacy. Furthermore, the developing countries under the present rules are not obliged to take on legally binding emission-cutting commitments and, at this late stage, don’t want to be pushed into taking on new obligations that they fear will adversely affect their economic development, particularly since the promise of finance and technology transfer has not been fulfilled.
Last night, it appeared that many of the key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling, with officials saying they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from countries on payments to a global fund to help developing nations to adapt to climate change. Negotiators have also been unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions. Some said that the most important outcome from the talks would at least be an agreement that emissions would decline after 2020. However, the draft text refers only to emissions peaking ‘as soon as possible’.
Additional areas of progress from the last week have now also been weakened – such as the draft text on protecting rainforests - with the deletion of a key target for cutting the rate of forest loss by 50 percent by 2020. Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning it could be deferred.
To make matters worse, the distrust between countries over the proposed legal framework underpinning the deal was underlined on Monday. Five hours of negotiating time were lost when the developing countries staged a walkout in protest over the lack of progress on legally binding emissions targets.
Dr Zoe Lees, Sustainability Advisory Services, KPMG in South Africa
Thursday 17th December, 2009
The maritime sector is heavily involved in negotiations and discussions here at COP-15 to counter the claims that it isn’t doing enough to deal with its climate change responsibilities.
As an observer, it looks to me as though there is still a long way to go before the sector gets close to a proposal that will meet international, and in particular European, expectations. There are a number of options still being discussed but I was hoping we would be much further down the track towards getting closer to a well articulated and thought out proposal.
For me, there are two areas of greatest concern. I’m hearing that the sector (given the nature of its assets’ lifespans) will be depending heavily on offsets as a significant means of meeting any future CO2 reduction commitments. Indeed, some proposals indicate that this will be the only way the sector will be able to meet its commitments in the short term.
The key problem with this strategy will be the availability of a sufficient volume of offset credits (e.g. CDMs and ERUs). Will there be enough to meet the demand? If demand seriously outstrips supply, what will be the likely impact on price? The second problem will be time. The schedule currently being proposed is highly ambitious and concerns are being raised as to whether things like the implementation of a mechanism including carbon trading and managing an adaptation fund are achievable. Experiences with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) tell us that developing this type of architecture requires time.
The EU is keeping a watching brief on discussions here and if steps aren’t taken within the set timeframe and to its expectations, then it will likely regulate to bring maritime under the ETS just as it did with the aviation sector previously. At the moment, my view, barring any major last minute developments, is that maritime’s inclusion into EU ETS is looking increasingly likely.
Simon Davies, Head of Sustainability at KPMG in the U.K.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
Brad Sparks, Director, Global Green Initiative, KPMG International talks to Don Gerritson, Youth Representative in the Netherlands’ Government Delegation, at the COP-15 summit.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
Brad Sparks, Director, Global Green Initiative, KPMG International talks to Zoe Lees at the COP-15 summit.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
Brad Sparks, Director, Global Green Initiative, KPMG International talks to Alex Heinermann at the COP-15 summit.
Thursday 17th December, 2009
As COP-15 headed into its second week, certain crucial issues still retained the ability to spark fierce debate. Amongst them is the very use of the generic term “developing countries”. The term covers a large number of countries of different sizes and cultures and at different stages of development. Correct application of the term in a kind of “one size fits all” manner appears problematic, especially when you consider the implications it has for access to funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation programmes.
Funding for climate change is just part of the problem though. Emission reduction commitments for developed countries and NAMAs (National Appropriate Mitigation Actions) for developing countries are far from being agreed upon. Hopefully, the huge amount of prime ministers and presidents heading to Copenhagen this week will add some more momentum to cope with this issue.
Whatever happens in the remaining days, developing countries are facing enormous challenges. It is clear that businesses in developing economies will have to shift into a low carbon emitting pattern if they want to be part of the global marketplace.
Perhaps with this in mind, a pioneering initiative was announced by the Brazilian Stock Exchange (BM&F / Bovespa) on Tuesday. Starting in 2010, the companies listed in the IBX 50 index will publish a carbon efficiency rate, stated in tones of carbon dioxide equivalent, as part of their financial results. Such a rating may well become a core factor behind future investment decisions, especially those of government backed banks and pension funds.
As COP-15 President Connie Hedegaard said yesterday, it is not just the climate which is at stake at this meeting; it is also about whether citizens can believe that global leaders and private organizations are ready to handle the 21st century challenge of climate change.
Ricardo Zibas, Global Sustainability Services Manager, KPMG in Brazil
Wednesday 16th December, 2009
Jose Luis Blasco, Head of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain, gets the view from the man on the street at the COP-15 summit.
Tuesday 15th December, 2009
Jose Luis Blasco and Eric Israel, Heads of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain and the U.S. respectively, give their views on Business Day at the COP-15 summit.
Monday 14th December, 2009
In spite of recent praise for the operational improvements at the
Adaptation Fund, the reality is that developing countries have received less than 10 percent of the money promised by developed countries to help them adapt to global warming. This failure is fostering deep distrust between nations and is seriously undermining key negotiations on a global climate deal.
The world's wealthiest countries have together pledged nearly US$18bn in the last seven years but, despite world leaders' rhetoric that the finance is vital, less than US$0.9bn has been dispensed and long delays are plaguing many funds. The lack of action is causing growing concern among diplomats and UN climate talks negotiators who have warned that a global agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto treaty is at risk if rich countries do not make the money available.
Africa, the poorest continent, has received less than 12 percent of all the climate fund money spent in the last four years. The point has been made that it can take poor countries more than three years to access money and that much of the money promised for climate change comes out of official aid budgets, thus leaving less for health, education and poverty action.
The World Bank has set up four other climate funds but no money has been deposited in them. In the current economic crisis, analysts believe wealthy countries are likely to use delaying tactics and it could be several years before deposits are made. In addition, poor countries do not want the World Bank to administer money pledged for them as they perceive it to be run in the interests of rich nations. Developing countries are also not convinced that the market will find them the US$100 billion dollars they believe they need. They want guarantees.
Dr Zoe Lees, Sustainability Advisory Services, KPMG in South Africa
Monday 14th December, 2009
Jose Luis Blasco, Head of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain, and Barend van Bergen of KPMG in the Netherlands give their views on climate change issues in the transportation sector.
Friday 11th December, 2009
Up until now, the main point of interaction between the global financial investors and the Kyoto climate change process has been through the “flexible mechanism”. Investors are able to develop projects, a wind farm in Egypt or a new energy technology at an Indian steelworks for example, and claim carbon offset credits which can then be sold.
Such projects are operated under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and it is evident from events at Copenhagen this week that this process has not always been a smooth one and that there are tensions between the participants. The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) released a report that criticised many aspects of the CDM Executive Board’s operations and cited several examples of where they believe the process to have failed. To an outsider, this may appear a trivial issue but it is important to remember that this is the main way in which private cash is currently attracted to fund climate change mitigation.
The use of these mechanisms has always been contentious. The original idea for the CDM was sound; to use the sale of offset permits to fund additional emission reductions in countries that would have otherwise not been able to afford the technology. It has many critics. For example, the environmental NGOs criticise its environmental integrity and its development benefits while the finance sector believe it to be slow, lacking in transparency and creating a level of investment risk that they cannot deal with.
It is fair to say that there is a very strong imperative in the current COP-15 negotiations to find a mechanism that can provide the billions of dollars and euros worth of investment needed to create low carbon economies. However, it is also critical that whatever mechanism is used maintains the principle that it delivers real reductions. These mechanisms are set to increase in complexity as different types of credits evolve. There are likely to be more types of carbon offsets in forests and soil but these will need to be used appropriately as a transition tool and not as an excuse to delay the investment in carbon efficient generation and industrial processes.
One feature of the negotiations that will be very interesting to watch is the extent to which political pragmatism will come into play. Can you ever keep every one happy? Probably not, so maybe the question should be whether keeping everyone happy should actually be the objective…
Nick Wood, Associate Director Sustainability, KPMG in Australia
Friday 11th December, 2009
Issues around accounting for greenhouse gases (GHG) continue to be debated at COP-15. Just how does an organisation measure and report its GHG emissions?
As you can imagine, this conference is attracting everyone with an interest in climate change, including the promoters of software solutions aimed at “meeting all your climate change needs”. The general consensus here is that whilst these may have an important role to play as part of a GHG accounting system, they are in all likelihood still far from being a complete solution and that what is needed is for organisations to develop a greater ability to account for their emissions themselves.
My experience to date is that there are still a large number of organisations across the EU that are struggling to come to terms with getting accurate data and - more importantly – struggling to decide what use to make of that data, both internally and externally.
Current discussions at COP-15 show that great effort has been made in determining countries’ GHG inventories but the feeling is that still not enough has been done in terms of corporate GHG inventory management. Current negotiations around measures such as Nationally Applicable Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) lead me to conclude that where a country comes up with a NAMAs plan, it will have to look to its industrial, commercial and governmental organisations for good quality data. In a post COP-15 world, renewed and greater emphasis will thus be placed upon organisations’ data collection, management reporting and verification.
Simon Davies, Head of Sustainability at KPMG in the U.K.
Friday 11th December, 2009
Jose Luis Blasco, Head of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain provides further commentary on the topics likely to be a key focus at the COP-15 summit.
Thursday 10th December, 2009
Much commotion on Tuesday and Wednesday morning was focussed on the Danish text for a political “Copenhagen Agreement under the UNFCCC” which was leaked by the UK’s
Guardian newspaper.
The paper was not well received by many delegates, particularly those from developing countries as there is a strong emphasis on the OECD countries and on monitoring and verification - and it has come from outside the negotiating process.
Developing countries also felt that this was non-transparent and secretive and expressed concern that this could be an attempt to “hijack the high-level segment” and to give the impression that the negotiators have done nothing all year. However, the job of the host government of the meeting is to try and move the discussion along so this kind of thing is not that unexpected - and has happened before at other COP meetings.
In effect, the text does not contain anything too significant and some say that perhaps it’s a good thing that it is now out in the open, with all sensitivities and some weaknesses revealed. For example, the paper is weak on substance and legal form.
What is interesting is that they (the text’s authors) are looking for hooks back into the existing work and to agree a framework which builds on what has already been done. From a business perspective, it is a much clearer text than what we already have.
Corridor talk is of at least three such texts being drafted by parties outside of the meetings by different government groupings. There will undoubtedly be more. These are unofficial documents that might or might not contribute to an agreement next week.
What it does underline is the tension and the embedded level of distrust between some developed and developing countries – arguably the single biggest barrier to success in Copenhagen in the next two weeks.
Dr Zoe Lees, Sustainability Advisory Services, KPMG in South Africa
Thursday 10th December, 2009
Jose Luis Blasco, Head of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain gives his views on climate change ahead of the COP-15 summit.
Tuesday 8th December, 2009
As delegates continue to flow into the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, the incredible variety of the different agendas at play becomes clear. Outside the conference venue, NGO’s are pressing the Kyoto Protocol parties to reach consensus in a timely manner. Alongside them, indigenous peoples from around the world are using traditional music and dance to attract attention to their viewpoint on the climate change debate. And, of course, you can see business leaders everywhere looking apprehensive about how the negotiations will affect their global operations. The only point of agreement is that there are a lot of items on the agenda and time is running out fast.
Emerging economies seem to be more open to discussions than in the previous COP meetings. Non-Annex I countries talking about commitments and NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) were not in evidence in the Nairobi, Bali or Poznan climate change meetings.
Brazil will officially present its ambition of a 36 to 39 percent emission reduction target through till 2020 (based on 1994 levels). Although some issues on the proposal are not clear yet – such as how this reduction will be financed – it is nevertheless a welcome shift in position. The commitment will focus on the reduction of deforestation rates, as more than 85 percent of the country’s energy come from renewable sources.
China is coming to the United Nations meeting with an announced commitment of 40 to 45 percent reductions per GDP unit, including a domestic energy efficiency target (-20 percent per GDP unit until 2020) and a renewable energy target (15 percent of primary energy by 2020). While it is difficult to compare these figures with other countries’ commitments, emissions are unlikely to be cut abruptly and may even rise further before they start to fall.
India recently disclosed a quantitative emission reduction target of 20 to 25 percent until 2020, also linked to GDP growth and external financing, which also presents a paradigm shift on the previous qualitative domestic measures scheme.
As negotiations evolve, no one wants to be seen as the deal breaker, or even the “Fossil of the Day” (a daily award given by an NGO at the conference). A happy ending - or at least a consensual one - is the Christmas gift all COP participants want more than anything.
Ricardo Zibas, Global Sustainability Services Manager, KPMG in Brazil
Tuesday 8th December, 2009
While transporting goods by ship is a low carbon transport option, compared to moving goods by air or road, the carbon lens is nevertheless now focusing more clearly on maritime transport greenhouse gas emissions. To date, there seems to have been lots of talking but little movement on an agreement of how to progress with reducing the sector’s contribution to climate change.
Looking at the experience of the aviation sector and its troublesome inclusion into the European Union’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), it could well be that time is running out for the maritime sector to come up with a universally acceptable reduction mechanism. Failure to come up with a scheme or mechanism of its own could mean that Europe is more likely to regulate to bring them into the ETS.
I fully expect that within the next 12 months, firm steps will be taken which will mean that shipping operators will not only have to begin to take account of carbon but will also have to begin preparations for entry into a trading or taxation scheme that will put a price on their emissions. Discussions ahead of COP-15 lead me to conclude that this is a certainty. The only unknowns are when this will happen and what it will look like.
Feedback from maritime operators in the lead-up to COP-15 confirms that they know something is going to happen; that a price will be placed on carbon upstream - in fuel, via a tax - and/or downstream via emissions. There is palpable nervousness across the sector for what this means for the future.
Simon Davies, Head of Sustainability at KPMG in the U.K.
Monday 7th December, 2009
So this is it; the day it all takes off. More than 15,000 people from 192 governments, the private sector and the media will now be descending on Copenhagen.
Ahead of the event, many business leaders have been vocal in asking world leaders to set an ambitious goal within a predictable framework. As was stated in the Copenhagen Call in May of this year, “business is at its best when innovating to achieve a goal”. However, some companies face a number of issues that may prevent them being at their best; namely a perceived lack of clarity and concerns about operating on a level playing field.
Business is a key player when it comes to innovating and investing in technologies that can deliver a low-carbon economy. However, a lack of clarity about reduction goals and market mechanisms creates uncertainty over the potential return on investment; something which may cause some companies to hold back, despite having the technology and the know-how to deliver the required solutions. A clear reduction commitment as a result of the Copenhagen negotiations could well be the catalyst for levels of innovation and investment well above and beyond those currently exhibited.
As for the level playing field, in climate change terms this relates primarily to an international carbon market that ensures carbon price stability and unified and reliable measurement, reporting and verification. This will enable fair competition and a meaningful comparison of companies’ performance. A framework for a global carbon market and reporting and verification as a result of Copenhagen would stimulate companies to progress the climate change agenda – as competition and benchmarked performance are amongst the key drivers for any business to act.
Wim Bartels, Global Head of Sustainability Services practice at KPMG
Monday 7th December, 2009
Some companies are already anticipating the opportunities which will likely arise from a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They recognise that an agreement would bring greater certainty for investments in new and renewable energies, technological changes aimed at reducing emissions and substantial changes in public investment and tax policy.
There would also be an immediate effect on the strength of the carbon markets, which in 2008 alone, despite current financial difficulties, accounted for approximately US$127,000 million according to the World Bank.
Depending on the scope of any agreement which might be reached, we may see an increase in the phenomenon of “carbon leakage” - in which emissions are effectively off-shored by transferring emission-heavy industries (such as steel, cement or paper) to countries not subject to emission restrictions. Such an approach is unlikely to prove popular with states that take a protectionist approach to domestic industry but there may be others prepared to consider this approach.
The success of the COP-15 summit will not be judged solely by achieving an ambitious emissions reduction target. It also depends on the design of a suitable framework that boosts the global economy for the next decade and on identifying the entrepreneurs with the foresight to make this a reality.
Jose Luis Blasco, Head of Sustainability Advisory Services at KPMG in Spain
Monday 7th December, 2009
As the day draws ever closer when governments around the world have to show their leadership and come to an agreed position on the common enemy of climate change, it is promising to see that some of the major economies have released preliminary commitments as a starting point for the ultimate negotiations.
It can be seen as a breakthrough that countries such as the US, China, Brazil and India have shown their willingness to contribute to the solution. Will this lead to a treaty at Copenhagen itself? I don’t expect so. However, I would expect the participating governments to be able to agree on the principles, the framework and the numbers; numbers in terms of financing commitments and numbers in terms of carbon reductions. Both will be needed in order for Copenhagen to be a stepping stone for an ultimate treaty in the years to come.
I would expect such an outcome to encourage business leaders to persist with the efforts already put into carbon reduction programs and measurement, providing an example for the rest of the business community to follow.
Wim Bartels, Global Head of Sustainability Services at KPMG
Friday 4th December, 2009
Expectations of what COP-15 can actually achieve are many and varied. The official line is that the conference will yield some form of agreed outcome as stated in the Bali road map. It should be noted that this is not the same thing as a complete and ratifiable treaty. To an outsider, this may look like a weak compromise – but such is the nature of political pragmatism.
The challenge for the negotiators is to ensure that the conference process establishes the robust foundations for an international framework on tackling climate change. This should be focused on a long-term approach rather than on political manoeuvrings around short-term targets.
The role of business at the conference will be crucial as it is only really the forward-looking elements of business community that can counter the scare campaigns about the potential job losses and the damage to economic growth which some see as accompanying many of the proposed measures.
The debate in Australia has seemed to suffer in this regard. It has lacked the real keynote input from senior business leaders who could portray a low carbon vision for their companies and for society in the way that Lord Browne and Lord Oxburgh were able to do in the UK.
Nick Wood, Associate Director Sustainability, KPMG in Australia
Friday 4th December, 2009
As COP-15 approaches, the emerging economies, which had dramatically increased their emissions since the Kyoto Summit in 1997, are still not aligned on their commitments to tackle climate change. In a welcome shift of position, Brazil, which has been a strong defender of the historical responsibilities of the OECD countries, is now going to present a voluntary target of a 39% reduction in emissions by 2020. China recently disclosed reduction commitments linked to GDP while India is focusing on a qualitative plan of domestic measures.
Even if the COP is unable to reach consensus on a detailed document for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, it is crucial that it still sends a strong message to the business community about making investments which point us in the direction of a low carbon global economy.
Ricardo Zibas, Global Sustainability Services Manager, KPMG in Brazil
Friday 4th December, 2009
I fervently hope that the COP-15 discussions go beyond the scientific debate about climate change and focus more on the business imperative for companies to embrace the climate change debate. The US appears to understand this; realising that it’s about efficiency, competitiveness and innovation, rather than “just” trying to save the planet. That’s how businesses become engaged.
I also hope that COP-15 can help to reduce the complexity of future legislation and regulation in this area – and the amount of red tape associated with it. As an example, although we have cap and trade schemes in places, many governments are also introducing carbon taxes, bringing extra complexity into the mix. In some instances, this results in a double whammy whereby consumers are affected by higher production prices (due to cap and trade costs being passed on to the end-user) as well as being hit by a carbon tax (car purchases being a prime example).
To be successful, COP-15 should be clear in how it wants to deal with the necessary detail – such as standards around accounting, reporting and verification. If such details are not ironed out, then any proposed solutions emerging from COP-15 may prove unworkable in reality. Right now, there is a lot of uncertainty in this area and companies simply do not know what to do.
Eric Israel, Head of Sustainability and Climate Services, KPMG in the U.S.
Friday 4th December, 2009
| 2009 |
Sep |
|
|
|
|
| |
Aug |
|
|
Jul |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun |
|
|
|
|
|
May |
|
|
Apr |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar |
|
|
|
|
| 2008 |
Dec |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep |
|
| |
Aug |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul |
|
|
Apr |
|
|
Mar |
|
|
Jan |
|
|
|
|