Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

Post-Kyoto negotiations refers to high level talks attempting to address global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Generally part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these talks concern the period after the first "commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire at the end of 2012. Negotiations have been mandated by the adoption of the Bali Roadmap and Decision 1/CP.13 ("The Bali Action Plan").


UNFCCC negotiations are conducted within two subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and are expected to culminate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in December 2009 in Copenhagen (COP-15); negotiations are supported by a number of external processes, including the G8 process, a number of regional meetings and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate that was launched by US President Barack Obama in March 2009. High level talks were held at the meeting of the G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue in February 2007 and at a number of subsequent G8 meetings, most recently leading to the adoption of the G8 leaders declaration "Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future" during the G8 summit in L´Aquila, Italy, in July 2009.

February 2007 Washington Declaration
In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" on February 16, 2007, the G8+5 group of leaders agreed in principle to a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, which they hoped would be in place by 2009.
Official G8+5 Climate Change Dialogue Web site
33rd G8 summit


Leaders of the 33rd G8 summit
On June 7, 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit issued a non-binding communiqué announcing that the G8 nations would "aim to at least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies. Groups of countries would also be able to reach additional agreements on achieving the goal outside and in parallel with the United Nations process. The G8 also announced their desire to use the proceeds from the auction of emission rights and other financial tools to support climate protection projects in developing countries.
The agreement was welcomed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "a major, major step forward".French president Nicolas Sarkozy would have preferred a binding figure for emissions reduction to have been set. This was apparently blocked by U.S. President George W. Bush until the other major greenhouse gas emitting countries, like India and China, make similar commitments.

2007 UN General Assembly plenary debate
As part of the schedule leading up to the September UN High-Level-Event, on July 31 the United Nations General Assembly opened its first-ever plenary session devoted exclusively to climate change, which also included prominent scientists and business leaders. The debate, at which nearly 100 nations spoke, was scheduled to last two days but was extended for a further day to allow a greater number of "worried nations" to describe their climate-related problems.
In his opening speech, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Member States to work together, stating that the time had come for "decisive action on a global scale", and called for a "comprehensive agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process that tackles climate change on all fronts, including adaptation, mitigation, clean technologies, deforestation and resource mobilization". In closing the conference General Assembly President Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa called for an "equitable, fair and ambitious global deal to match the scale of the challenges ahead".She had earlier stressed the urgency of the situation, stating that "the longer we wait, the more expensive this will be".
The day after the session ended, the UN launched its new climate change web site detailing its activities relating to global warming.


2007 Vienna Climate Change Talks and Agreement

A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Austria in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change.
A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how energy efficiency could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.
The talks set the stage for the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali in December 2007.

September 2007 United Nations High-Level-Event

As well as the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was to hold informal high-level discussions on the post-Kyoto treaty on September 24. It was expected that these would pave the way for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Bali in December 2007. Three Special Envoys on Climate Change, appointed on May 1, 2007, held discussions with various governments to define and plan the event.
In advance of the "High-Level-Event", the Secretary-General hoped that world leaders would "send a powerful political signal to the negotiations in Bali that “business as usual” will not do and that they are ready to work jointly with others towards a comprehensive multilateral framework for action".

September 2007 Washington conference

It emerged on August 3, 2007, that representatives of the United Nations, major industrialized and developing countries are being invited by George Bush to a conference in Washington on September 27 and 28. Countries invited are believed to include the members of the G8+5 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), together with South Korea, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. The meeting is to be hosted by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and is envisaged as the first of several extending into 2008. Initial reaction to the news of the conference invitation was mixed.

2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali

Main article: 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol dominated the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference conference. A meeting of environment ministers and experts held in June called on the conference to agree a road-map, timetable and "concrete steps for the negotiations" with a view to reaching an agreement by 2009.
2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań
Following preliminary talks in Bangkok, Bonn, and Accra,[21] the 2008 negotiations culminated in December with the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland.

35th G8 Summit
September 2009 United Nations Secretary General´s Summit on Climate Change

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will convene a high-level event on Climate Change on 22 September 2009 to which Heads of State and Government have been invited. This event is intended to build further political momentum for an ambitious Copenhagen agreed outcome to be adopted at COP-15.

2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15)


Copenhagen will be the center of climate change negotiations in 2009.
Following preparatory talks in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona, the 2009 conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the treaty succeeding the Kyoto Protocol is expected to be adopted there.
Potential topics to be discussed include carbon capture and storage, biofuels, adaptation financing, technology transfer, sustainable agriculture, emissions targets, tropical forests and rural and transport electrification (plug-in hybrids)
Development of technologies will be important to reduce carbon emissions. Even if all carbon emissions stopped tomorrow, global warming would continue for the next 30 years. James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy and member of Copenhagen Climate Council said “It is a myth that we have the technologies to do the job. We don’t. New technologies are crucial as is further development of existing technology.”
Some media sources claim that the meeting will lead to empty promises without measurable goals. In a recent meeting of the Group of Eight G8, the world top leaders agreed to halve carbon emissions by 2050; however, they did not set specific targets because they did not agree on a base year.
However members of the climate council acknowledge that action needs to happen fast. “My personal view is that the future of humanity is at stake,” said Tim Flannery, Professor at Macquaire University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, in an interview with chinadialogue.net.

360: Bottle Caps

Bottle caps are often so small that it’s easy to overlook the impact they have on the environment. If you drop one on the ground at the park or the beach, you may think it’s not a big deal.

But the Beach Environmental Awareness Campaign Hawaii (B.E.A.C.H.) found that “plastic bottle caps are one of the top 10 items found during marine debris beach clean-ups and are the second most littered item after cigarette butts.”

Recycling seems like a good option, but did you know that many cities don’t accept caps for recycling? Let’s get down to the bottom of the bottle cap mystery and find out how they’re recycled, where they’re accepted and what to do if your city doesn’t take them.


Discarding bottle caps doesn’t have to be a lose-lose situation. If you can’t recycle with your city, there are options with other organizations for turning them into valuable products. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com
All Plastics are Not Created Equal

Just by physical touch, you can tell the texture and durability of most plastic bottles is different from their caps. This is because bottles and caps are made from different types of plastics.

Polyethylene terepthalate (PET), or plastic #1, often comprises plastic bottle,s while polypropylene (PP), or plastic #5, often makes up the caps. So, what’s the big deal if the bottle is a #1 and the cap is a #5? They’re both plastic right?

It all comes down to the melting point, which has a difference of nearly 160 degrees Fahrenheit between the two. If a cap gets mixed in with bottles, the entire batch may be ruined because there is un-melted plastic in the mix.
Plastic Pays

All plastics go through the same recycling process. They’re sorted, baled, screened to remove contaminants, washed, ground into flakes, separated from contaminants, dried, melted, filtered and formed into pellets. This is an expensive and time-consuming process, and recyclers want to make sure it’s worth it financially.

Markets for different types of plastic vary around the country, but based on the recycling rates posted from the 2007 U.S. National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recyling Report, it’s easy to infer that there’s a larger market for PET, which has a recycling rate of nearly 25 percent, than PP, which has a rate of less than 9 percent. So, if your city does not accept bottle caps, it could be because the benefit is not large enough to support the cost.
What Major Cities are Doing

Let’s take a look at some cities that are taking steps to create bottle cap programs and others that do not accept caps for recycling.

* San Francisco accepts caps even if they’re left on the bottles.
* Washington, D.C. accepts emptied #1-7 plastics and lids.
* Houston also accepts lids, but unlike the two cities above, it asks that the lids be removed from the bottle. Also, be sure to rinse before tossing them into the bin.
* While New York City does not accept plastic caps, metal caps can be removed from bottles and placed in the bin for recycling.
* The City of Phoenix does not collect caps because #5 plastics “can damage the sorting equipment, be harmful to workers in the sorting facility or are too small to be sorted or make the sorting process inefficient.”
* San Diego also asks its residents not to recycle caps due to the differences in types of plastic. It does, however, accept metal caps.

To check if your city accepts caps for recycling call or visit the Public Works or Department of Sanitation section of its Web site. You can also search Earth911.com for plastic #5 or plastic bottle cap recycling locations.
How Private Companies are Stepping In

If you’re in an area where plastic cap recycling is not available, seek out retailers that accept them. A few of companies are taking the lead when it comes to tackling the issue of recycling #5 plastics.

Aveda, a company known for its commitment to improving its impact on the environment through its naturally-derived products, eco-friendly packaging and production processes, is now accepting #5 plastic bottle caps for recycling at its stores and salons. Any Aveda network salon or store will accept the caps to be made into new Aveda caps. Aveda recycles the caps into new packaging for some of its product lines.

Types of Caps Accepted

* Twist caps on threaded neck bottles (shampoo, soda, milk, water, etc.)
* Flip caps on tubes and food product bottles (condiments, etc.)
* Jar lids (peanut butter, pickles, etc.)
* Laundry detergent lids

Caps Not Accepted

* Pharmaceutical lids
* Metal lids
* Plastic pumps or sprayers
* Bendable or breakable lids

Preserve, in partnership with Stonyfield Farms and Organic Valley, is another company that accepts #5 plastics for recycling. You can mail in your caps to Preserve or drop them off at your local Whole Foods location.

What’s Accepted?

* Any plastics clean and stamped with the number 5
* Filters from Brita water pitchers
* Used Preserve products

What Do They Make From RecycledCaps?

* Preserve products
* Personal care items, such as razors and toothbrushes
* Tableware, such as plates and cutlery
* Kitchenware, such as measuring cups and cutting boards

Chevron

The global demand for energy will increase in the coming decades, and this rising demand presents significant opportunities for our industry. As demand increases, however, the complexities of global climate change also pose serious questions for the energy industry and the broader society. At Chevron, we are working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and expand our energy supply portfolio to meet the demands of customers for affordable, reliable and lowerimpact supplies of energy.

Our multifaceted response to climate change involves seeking ways to reduce GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, expanding the use of alternative fuels and renewables, and improving energy efficiency.
Climate Change and Chevron's Response

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states in its Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to manmade GHGs. Chevron is working to be part of the solution to the energy and climate challenge facing the world. Near-term mitigation actions, development of advanced energy technologies for the long term, and adaptation to the potential impacts of climate change are needed to meet the challenge.
Our Action Plan on Climate Change

Now in its seventh year of implementation, Chevron's Action Plan on Climate Change continues to guide our activities, including emissions reduction, efficiency improvements, research investments, business opportunities and advocacy positions. While we continued to grow our business, our total GHG emissions remained relatively flat due to the efforts that follow.

In 2008, our total emissions were 59.6 million metric tons, which is better than our goal of 62.5 million metric tons.1 Our preliminary goal for 2009 is 60.5 million metric tons, slightly higher than 2008's actual emissions. This goal accounts for emissions growth from new major capital projects and emissions reductions from anticipated declining production from maturing fields, continued energy efficiency in our operations, and continued reduction in flaring and venting. We estimate that combustion of our products resulted in emissions of approximately 382 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 20082 — about 5 percent less than the 404 million metric tons in 2007. When compared with the International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics (2008 edition), these emissions represent approximately 1.4 percent of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Our GHG emissions intensity in 2008 was approximately 37 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per 1,000 barrels of net oil-equivalent production from our upstream operations and 36 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per 1,000 barrels of crude oil that was input into our refineries.
Reducing Emissions
Flaring

Routine flaring and venting of the natural gas associated with crude oil extraction are a significant source of our total corporate GHG emissions. We remain committed in our efforts to reduce routine flaring and venting in our operations. Since 2003, we have reduced emissions from flaring and venting by about 15 percent on an equity basis, and we continue to work aggressively to reduce routine flaring and venting in our operations wherever technically and commercially feasible.

Chevron's flaring reduction standard is aligned with the World Bank–led Global Gas Flaring Reduction voluntary initiative, a public-private partnership that is active in several developing countries where we operate. While we have made significant progress in reducing routine flaring and venting from our operations, we face many challenges, including local security, approval delays, partner funding, competing government investment priorities, materials availability and the lack of infrastructure. In these limited circumstances, flaring is currently the safest and most feasible way to manage the associated gas in the near term.

We are actively pursuing projects to further address this challenging problem in Angola, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. These long-term projects include major processing capacity to convert gas into liquid fuel that can be more readily used in the marketplace, and the commissioning of a new pipeline that will carry natural gas from the Niger Delta to Ghana and other markets. Construction is completed on the pipeline and testing is under way before the line is put into service.

Reinjection is one option to reduce flaring when there are suitable reservoir conditions and when the comparatively large financial investment is justified by the technical feasibility and expected life of the project or the expected duration of the need for injection. An example of a feasible and successful reinjection project is at the Agbami deepwater field in Nigeria. Other projects, for example, those that have a strong likelihood of near-term development of gas markets, are not generally candidates for reinjection.
Carbon Sequestration

Chevron holds large natural gas reserves in Australia and is making major investments to reduce GHG emissions. Our Gorgon project, located more than 81 miles (130 km) off the northwest coast, will produce liquefied natural gas, a lower-carbon fossil fuel. The project will include large-scale reinjection and storage of carbon dioxide. Gorgon represents the world's first commercial-scale GHG storage project to undergo an environmental impact assessment including public review and comment. In addition, Chevron and its joint-venture partners — ExxonMobil and Shell — committed to public disclosure of monitoring data from the injection project to assist in the further development of sequestration technology.
Improving Efficiency

Improving our energy efficiency lowers the life-cycle emissions of our products. In 2008, we updated our energy efficiency evaluation process to design new capital projects to optimize energy use. This allows cost-effective conservation measures to be part of the initial design. We incorporate the cost of carbon emissions in our decision-making process for capital projects. In 2008, we initiated a major effort to upgrade our GHG evaluation tools and methodology, which will improve our ability to assess the potential impact of the GHG emissions from our proposed activities and to identify the most cost-effective ways to address those emissions.

As of 2008, Chevron reduced the total energy consumption required to complete all of its business functions by 28 percent compared with the energy the company would have consumed in 1992 to complete the same business functions. In 2008, the cost of energy to the company was approximately $7.6 billion. For our company's operated assets, the total energy consumption in 2008 was approximately 914 trillion Btu. Because fuel combustion is the largest source of GHG emissions from our operations, improving our overall energy efficiency represents a corresponding reduction in our carbon emissions. We are increasingly attentive to opportunities to save on energy costs — as seen in the projects that follow.

As part of the upgrades planned for our refineries in El Segundo and Richmond, California, we proposed adding to the existing cogeneration facilities at both locations. Onsite cogeneration is a highly efficient technology that replaces the need for generating steam in a boiler and for purchasing electricity offsite.

The Richmond Refinery is the most energy efficient of all Chevron's operated refineries, and the workforce is always looking for ways to make the refinery more efficient. Approximately one-fourth of the refinery's annual operating costs represent fuel costs associated with producing steam throughout the facility. With strong support from senior management at the site, a coordinated team of operations, maintenance staff and facility engineers are working together to look for ways to optimize overall steam use and minimize venting waste steam. Compared with 2007, Richmond reduced its annual use of fired steam by about 17 percent, representing significant cost savings and the avoidance of an estimated 90,000 metric tons of GHG emissions.

Chevron Energy Solutions Co. assisted our Richmond, California, refinery in installing 55 kilowatts of solar power generation to help meet the facility's electricity needs with clean, renewable energy.

We continued to improve fuel efficiency in our shipping fleet by instituting a propeller painting and polishing initiative on our oil tankers. By reducing resistance across the propeller blades, we are able to decrease the amount of oil required to power each tanker by approximately 24 barrels per operating day.

We joined with the other members of the European Petroleum Industry Association to develop and launch an industrywide driver awareness campaign to promote more fuel-efficient driving habits among Europe's motorists.

Through a variety of employee-based programs, such as supporting vanpooling and public transit subsidies in some locations, we encourage our workforce to reduce miles traveled. And our recently launched "I Will" campaign, visible to the public, deals with energy conservation and efficiency, sharing facts about our corporate efforts and highlighting energy saving measures of individuals, such as vanpooling and unplugging appliances not in use.
Pursuing Business Opportunities and Investing in Research, Development and Technology

Chevron invests in research partnerships to develop alternative fuels whose life-cycle production results in less CO2 than do conventional liquid fuels per unit of energy.

Chevron Technology Ventures is working on a number of research projects and partnerships to develop low-carbon fuel from biomass.

Through our partnerships with universities, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California at Davis, we are supporting innovative research in the environmental and economic impacts of climate change as well as in energy efficiency and other strategies to help reduce overall GHG emissions.

Chevron participates in joint-industry projects to enable the development and safe, widespread deployment of significantly lower-cost carbon capture and storage technologies. These projects draw on the best talent offered by the participating companies, universities, government and private research organizations to investigate a broad range of potential technologies in order to commercialize those that offer the most benefit to the participants. Chevron actively participates in the Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (http://www.co2crc.com.au) and the CO2 Capture Project (http://www.co2captureproject.org). In addition to financial support, Chevron provides industry guidance, technical expertise, and program management. Results from these research efforts are being integrated into Chevron's Gorgon liquefied natural gas project in Australia and may be considered for potential future projects involving CO2 capture and storage.
Supporting Flexible and Economically Sound Policies

Our Seven Principles for Addressing Climate Change summarize the fundamental aspects of achieving a sustainable and economically viable carbon management program. We are actively engaged with governments and nongovernmental organizations in several jurisdictions currently considering climate policies — including in Australia, Canada and the United States (in California and other jurisdictions) — advocating for sound climate policy in line with our Seven Principles.

1. Chevron's net decrease of approximately 0.8 million metric tons of CO2- equivalent emissions from 2007 to 2008 can be attributed primarily to reduced flaring accounting for 1 million metric tons at the Cabinda (Angola) and Nigeria operations. Flare reductions in Nigeria are attributed to the Escravos Gas Plant facility and shutdowns caused by sabotage to pipelines. Continuing energy efficiency improvements also helped to minimize growth in emissions. Additional significant reduction of GHG emissions is attributed to decreased production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and California. Chevron Shipping Co. also lowered its emissions. Decreases were offset by emissions from a new deepwater operation in Nigeria; increased GHG emissions from Chevron’s share of the Yeosu Refinery in South Korea, which saw a new heavy oil unit come onstream; increased throughput at Chevron’s Richmond Refinery; and increased production from Chevron’s U.S. midcontinent upstream operations.

Chevron's 2007 emissions have been restated to 60.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent from 60.7 million metric tons due to a correction in data primarily from two business units.

Chevron's 2008 GHG emissions data are reported on an equity basis for all businesses in which Chevron has an interest except where noted as follows. The following entities are not currently included in the Chevron corporate GHG inventory: Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, the Azerbaijan International Operating Co., the Chad/Cameroon pipeline joint venture, Caltex Australia Ltd.'s Lytton and Kurnell refineries, and other refineries in which Chevron has an equity interest of 16 percent or less. These are entities over which Chevron does not have full operational control or which do not generally follow Chevron’s corporate GHG inventory protocol or a compatible protocol.

Due to rounding, individual numbers may not sum to the total numbers.

2. Product emissions are calculated based on total 2008 upstream liquids, gas and coal production figures from Chevron's 2008 Annual Report. The emissions factors used are from the American Petroleum Institute's Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimations Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry, published in 2004.

Updated: May 2009

Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever

Nov 2009

Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.

Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: "It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes".

The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to cause a global sea level rise of seven metres. Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000.

At the same time that surface melting started to increase around 1996, snowfall on the ice sheet also increased at approximately the same rate, masking surface mass losses for nearly a decade. Moreover, a significant part of the additional meltwater refroze in the cold snowpack that covers the ice sheet. Without these moderating effects, post-1996 Greenland mass loss would have been double the amount of mass loss observed now.

This work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council.


Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by University of Bristol.

Journal Reference:

1. Michiel van den Broeke, Jonathan Bamber, Janneke Ettema, Eric Rignot, Ernst Schrama, Willem Jan van de Berg, Erik van Meijgaard, Isabella Velicogna, Bert Wouters. Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss. Science, 2009; 326 (5955): 984 DOI: 10.1126/science.1178176