The Carbon Footprint of Products: a powerful tool to support existing market dynamics in favour of a low carbon economy


The international political negotiation on climate change shows that a top-down approach is not the only way to effectively fight the anthropogenic climate change: also the market can substantially contribute. The existing mechanisms (ETS, CDM and JI) and the carbon tax have been able to generate a new economic value through the carbon price but it shall be considered only the first step towards this direction. Another important economic contribution is expected by the CFP, with its capacity to create new dynamics between producers and consumers.

A fair implementation is needed to fully exploit the CFP opportunity, to carefully take into consideration risks of any possible market distortion, in order to facilitate the creation of a low carbon path, both in developed and developing countries.

A specific interest is expected by the food sector, where the CFP may play a central role to facilitate the promotion of low-distance consumption, also known as “0 km supply”

La Carbon Footprint dei Prodotti (CFP): uno strumento potente a supporto delle dinamiche di mercato a favore di un’economia a bassa emissione di carbonio

Le trattative politiche internazionali sul cambiamento climatico mostrano come l’approccio calato dall’alto non sia l’unico modo per combattere efficacemente il cambiamento climatico antropogenico: anche il mercato può contribuire in maniera sostanziale. I meccanismi esistenti (ETS, CDM e JI) e la tassa sul carbonio hanno generato un nuovo valore economico mediante l’attribuzione di un prezzo al carbonio, ma sarà solo il primo passo in questa direzione. Un altro importante contributo economico è atteso dalla CFP per la sua capacità di creare nuove dinamiche tra produttori e consumatori.

Per valorizzare appieno l’opportunità offerta dalla CFP di tener conto di tutti i rischi di qualunque eventuale distorsione del mercato, al fine di facilitare la creazione di un percorso a bassa emissione di carbonio sia nei paesi industrializzati sia in quelli in via di sviluppo, è necessario che venga applicata correttamente.

Un interesse particolare è previsto nel settore alimentare, dove la CFP può avere un ruolo chiave per facilitare la promozione del consumo dei prodotti cosiddetti “a km zero”

Daniele Pernigotti

A top-down approach is not enough

Climate change seems to be a problem of eyesight defect.

On the one side scientists may be considered “far-sighted”, as they concentrate on what it will probably happen far from now, in the next decades or, more likely, at the end of the century. That will happen when it is virtually certain that nobody among who is writing or reading this article will have the opportunity to experience the correctness of any climate model projection.

On the other side, politicians are strongly affected by myopia, considering that they generally focus their attention on what it may happen during the few years of their mandate or, in the worst case, on the results of daily polls[1].

Out of focus in between, there is the destiny of billions of people, partially responsible of global warming with their behaviour as well as affected by the consequences of the ongoing changes.

In 2009, during the preparation of COP15, the former UNFCCC Executive Director, Mr. Yvo de Boer, repeated as a mantra that the solution for the climate crisis had to be found right there in Copenhagen because “there is not a Plan B”[2]. Nonetheless, the call for a deeper commitment of the Parties did not work and the plan A failed without excuses[3].

Today, the three-year track of the Durban Platform[4] (which was agreed last year) roughly reproduces the aim of the two-year Bali Road Map (2007) and it seems very similar to the kind of Plan B mentioned by Mr. Yvo de Boer.

The hope is to achieve plan B: that would be enough to stop the most dangerous consequences of climate change by maintaining the increase in temperatures below 2° C. Observing the negotiation process of the latest years, it is easier to find difficulties rather than a substantive will to move together towards a global, ambitious, effective and comprehensive international agreement[5].

In the meanwhile, CO2 emissions are continuously registering new records, year after year (30.6 billion of tons in 2010[6], 31.6 in 2011[7]) such as its concentration in the atmosphere, today close to the symbolic threshold of 400 ppm. The discussion about the Arctic Pole is now more oriented to who has the right and how to use its more easily achievable natural resources[8], rather than if the ice surface reduction should worry the planet. In the media, the extreme weather events are nowadays becoming almost a normal and accepted condition.

In this framework, there is no doubt that an international agreement is fundamental but not enough to solve climate change[9].

The market is already moving

It is not possible to apply an effective solution to climate change without a deep and extensive involvement of people in their double role of citizens and consumers. The first kind of involvement is necessary to create the fundamental bottom-up pressure needed to foster any government towards an ambitious global deal.

Consumers are equally important to facilitate the drastic change in the market dynamics in order to realize the revolution expected in the next years.

Something has already started to change in the last decade. The Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) operating from 2005 in the EU, together with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Joint Implementation (JI) under the UNFCCC umbrella, introduced the CO2 as a new economic value[10]. At the beginning of May, with almost unanimity, an ETS was approved also in South Korea[11]: in this way the country exceeded the tactical moment existing in Asia, where Japan and China are slowly moving forward on this topics, but avoiding to do the first step in order to control what has been done by the respective big economical competitors. The voluntary movement of China in this area is however interesting, taking into account that it is not part of the group of countries formally committed under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) with greenhouse gas (GHG) targets reduction. In fact, a pilot ETS should be implemented in six provinces of China by 2013 as well as at the national level by 2015[12]. According to Bryony Worthington and Terry Townshend,[13] the reasons why China is moving towards ETS are threefold: to maintain social cohesion through a sustainable growth; since command and control policies applied to date do not stimulate innovation nor encourage enterprises; and, finally, because after the 2011 Durban Conference, China knows that it is expected to take part in an international agreement to cut global emissions from 2020.

In Australia the situation is more complicated:[14] the attempt to introduce ETS was one of the main reasons which pushed Kevin Rudd to resign in favour of the party’s colleague Julia Gillard. She moved straight towards the ETS, despite the strong opposition of the important national lobby of the coal industry[15]. The aim is to introduce ETS after 3 or 5 years from the launch of the carbon tax[16]. The law has been approved in November 2011[17] and a new tax will be on place from July 2012 with a value of A$23 (almost €19) per ton of CO2. An ETS is already on place in New Zealand too, from July 2010[18].

The carbon tax has also been discussed for quite a long time in the EU. France renounced to its carbon tax when the project was already announced[19] because the government was worried that competitiveness might possibly sink[20]. Ireland introduced a carbon tax of 4c a litre in 2010[21]. Italy is ready to introduce a carbon tax of a not yet defined value, included between 4c and 24 c[22].

For many countries (i.e., Norway, Australia, New Zealand) the availability to commit for more ambitious targets in the UNFCCC context is subject to the availability of a market-based mechanism[23].

The Norwegian climate policy is based on the principle to put a price on emissions, through economy-wide measures. From 2013, about 80% of emissions in Norway will be covered by economic instruments (CO2 taxes or emissions trading).

The same applies to the Switzerland, which approved a legislation in December 2011, for the 2013–2020 period, setting several instruments, such as a CO2 levy on fuels used for energy and an ETS for large industries.

A new market-based mechanism has been agreed in the UNFCCC context, although modalities and procedures are yet to be elaborated and a decision is expected by the end of 2012.[24]

The existing and evolving ETS and carbon tax at the international level are confirming the prospect of a growing and extensive CO2 price, which gives extra value to the investments in energy efficiency and facilitates the introduction of low carbon technologies and solutions.

The actual development of the Carbon Footprint of Products

A further and powerful market mechanism is growing very fast with regard to products at the international level, acting on the important producer-consumer relationship.

The crucial importance of the Carbon Footprint of products (CFP) is found in the capacity to condense in a single number the GHG emissions arising from the entire life cycle of a product. Through this tool the producers may have a double set of advantages: internally, they achieve a detailed description of the amount of GHG emitted in the product life cycle, mainly linked to its energy content, besides knowing in which phases this happens. The “external” advantages are probably even more attractive, based on the possibility to use the CFP as the preferred way to communicate the product’s climate characteristics to clients.

This is exactly what consumers are increasingly looking for at the international level, with the awareness that their purchase choices have a central role in the market dynamics in order to address the transition to a low-carbon economy. The idea that, in the near future, there will be a great spread out of information about the CFP, also has a strong potential to increase the consumers’ awareness related to choices and behaviours in daily life.

In June 2012 more than 27.000 products have obtained the CFP Carbon Trust certification in 21 countries[25]. Different national schemes for CFP have been created in several countries, such as UK, Japan, Sweden, Korea and Thailand, and it is expected that several more will be developed in the next few years.

Also in Italy the situation on this topic is changing very quickly and the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Corrado Clini, is showing particular attention to the CFP as may be understood by the creation of a pilot project involving 22 different products of large use (Table 1). It is not excluded that the forthcoming months may lead to the creation of a National scheme of CFP.

All these examples of strong attention already achieved in so many countries may be explained only taking into account the combination of opportunities for producers and consumers and the consequent possibility to create new market dynamics among these actors. Nevertheless, a single international standard reference is still missing.


An international standard by summer 2013

The first reference document on CFP has been the PAS 2050, published in 2008 by BSI, the British Standardization Institute. Technically speaking this is not a standard but a Public Available Specification. The difference between the two levels of documents is mainly related to the involvement of stakeholders in the development process and the time needed to complete and publish them. Both kinds of documents may introduce specifications and requirements and, probably for this reason, now everyone calls the PAS 2050 a CFP “standard”.

The choice to develop a PAS has been related to the awareness of an already existing market request for this kind of tool. Therefore, the “time” factor has been considered crucial for the success of the project and, as a matter of fact, the PAS 2050 has been produced only in one year. Carbon Trust – a private company created in 2001 by the UK government to foster low-carbon technologies and solutions – and DEFRA – the UK Environmental Agency – promoted the document. The revision published in 2011 has been sponsored by different actors, all part of the UK national departments: DECC (Department for Environment and Climate Change) and BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), together with DEFRA[26]. This is a clear evidence of the UK Government’s attention to the market opportunity for the CFP.


Also in 2011 the PAS 2050 revision has been published and another CFP reference document has been issued by WRI (World Resources Institute) and WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). The publishing of both documents has been delayed with regard to the original time schedule due to the focus that the two processes reserved to the ongoing decision on ISO 14067. The high level of attention to this standard is justified by the awareness that this will become the main standard reference, once published. However, the development path towards the ISO standard is not so easy. In the past there have been more stops to its mandatory development steps (WD, CD, DIS and FDIS), documented by the three revisions of the Working Draft and the three revisions of the Committee Draft. Nowadays, the balloting to move from DIS to FDIS failed with a 33% of negative vote against the maximum accepted threshold of 25% (Table 2)[27] forcing to a second DIS 2 stage.

A tool facilitating low-carbon economy rather than building up trade barriers

Why such an important and expected standard is finding all these difficulties in its development, being forced to repeat time after time the same development steps (WD and CD) and then failing the ballot from DIS to FDIS? Probably there exist some internal causes in ISO because this process has not always been managed in an effective way. However, the main reasons are related to the number and importance of different interests, rather than lobbies, acting around this topic. It is normal to expect that any powerful tool may generate big opportunities as well as big risks. There is no doubt that ISO 14067 will play a very powerful role in the international market and the level of pressure influencing the Standard’s text and its requirements becomes evident.

There are, for example, different expectations on ISO 14067 among fossil and palm oil companies, concrete and wood industries, or the view of the consumers and the industrial associations. Yet, probably one of the most crucial factors that will decide the future success of the Standard is its potential role in the market relation between developed and developing countries.

For a deeper understanding of this area of interest it might be useful to describe a couple of examples.

The first one is already 5 year old. In 2007 Tesco, the big UK retail company, decided to evaluate the CFP of a set of products. Among them, there were flowers produced in Kenya. The most important contribution of the CFP on these flowers was connected with the aircraft transportation. For this reason, Tesco decided to halve the amount of flowers supplied by Kenya. A broad discussion followed these decisions in the UK, due to another kind of considerations, such as the role of agriculture for a sustainable development path in Kenya[28] or technical considerations about the environmental impact evaluation during the cold season, when the flowers coming from the Netherlands have a CFP 5 times as bigger as the African one[29], due to the additional energy input for their cultivation in greenhouses.

Anyhow, the Kenya Flower Council called for a risk of creation of trade barriers[30].

Probably this situation forced the developing countries to ask and obtain the introduction of the requirement to report separately the aircraft emissions in the current version of the ISO 14067, despite the complete absence of technical reasons to treat this emission differently than the ones arising from sail and road transportation.

The other crucial example happened before the Oslo meeting in June 2011, when a decision had to be taken on the possible upgrade of the ISO 14067 CD2 to the DIS level.

In the official balloting before the meeting, Egypt voted to move the document from CD to DIS. After that, the India Foreign Minister wrote a letter to the Egyptian Foreign Minister to claim for the positive vote of the Mediterranean country. It is really unusual, almost surely the first time in the environmental sector, that such a high level politician takes part directly in an ISO technical process.

As a consequence, Egypt expressed a negative vote in the following ballot in June 2012 (to decide if moving the DIS to FDIS), although it is possible that additional causes contributed to this change of position. Informal confirmation of a broader lobby activity from India pushed other countries to decide for a negative vote. For example, Armenia expressed, with its negative vote, full support to the Indian position[31] and, on the “secondary data” item, India and other three countries expressed exactly the same comment. The large majority of negative votes from other countries were justified by the concern that ISO 14067 would have created a new kind of trade barrier (Table 3).


To give an answer to this concern, in the same month, at the Bangkok meeting, a specific clause was been proposed (4. Application) in the ISO/DIS2 14067, improving the previous Oslo’s version[32] and specifying that the standard shall not be adopted or applied in a manner that results in barriers to trade that contradict WTO requirements, aiming at solving the developing countries’ opposition.

Carbon will play an important role in future markets

The CFP is, therefore, just in the middle between the risk to facilitate the creation of an unattended trade barrier and the strong need to use the market potentiality to build up the needed pressure from the bottom, in order to complement (or substitute, in the worst case) the necessary international top-down new political deals.

As a matter of fact, bottom-up and top-down approaches have a complementary role and the hurdle of politically achieving an international deal may force some countries to ask for the introduction of different kinds of market tools. In this respect, the choice of Mr. A. Montebourg, the France Minister of Industrial Renewal, to introduce a carbon tax on goods imported from outside Europe should be understood [33]. This was thought in order to balance the European situation with other developed countries, whereas the absence of any commitment on GHG reduction may generate a different structure of costs for goods’ production hence creating a clear market distortion.

The possibility to create trade barriers is therefore deeply connected with the existence of strong, comprehensive and effective international agreements.

Within this framework, the possible role of CFP as trade barrier should be considered more connected with external factors and political choices rather than with technical characteristics, such as requirements introduced in an ISO standard.

Global and local food

The CFP may play an important role in the food sector to facilitate the development of local markets as possible alternative of the globalization. This may generate large discussions on the implication of this case in terms of lack of economic opportunities, but it is fundamental to always keep in mind the dimension of the challenge that climate change is asking to face.

This implies that strong changes in consumer behaviours are not more deferrable. Just last year, on the occasion of the ISO meeting in Toronto to develop the ISO 14067, in a restaurant a maitre served me a bottle of water produced less than 100 km from my house in Italy. And this happened in a country that does not have any problem of water availability. H

ow is it possible to imagine 50% of global GHG reduction by 2050 (compared with 1990) without changing this kind of market pattern? This personal experience could be probably replicated for large part of the food sector, where the main contribution of foods and beverages to CFP may be due to their long transportation distances.

In order to reduce the importance of this kind of GHG global emissions and to promote local agriculture, several movements promoting the “0 km products” approach in the food sector were initiated in the last years . In this context, the CFP could play an important role to support with objectivity this evolution that started to be part of the market dynamics before the idea of CFP was launched.


A radical change from the globalization to the localization approaches may seem today unlikely considering the actual market dynamics. Reality is also expected to change radically in the next years to build up an effective answer to the anthropogenic global warming, and it is very likely that what today seems impossible in few years may become simply the reality.


The high level of attention paid to the development of the CFP standard ISO 14067 shows the important role this document will have at the international level when published. Some developing countries are worried that the new standard may create undesired trade barriers but this seems to be related more to the international political negotiation than to the content of a technical standard. The ISO 14067 development process has been largely delayed, as evidence of the large level of existing interests, but it does not seem possible it will fail considering that other CFP standards are already present in the market. The CFP will probably play a key role, particularly in the food sector, where it may objectively support the already existing dynamics in favour of the local agriculture production.

Per informazioni e contatti:

Daniele Pernigotti – Italian delegate to ISO/TC 207/SC7/WG2, National Coordinator of UNI WG on GHG


Political progress registered, but China and US may be undermining EU goals


“The USA is blocking, blocking, blocking!” The assessment of Tim Gore, the Oxfam representative, during yesterday’s NGO press conference is quite clear. His request that the EU and the developing countries move forward in any case, even if the US do not, resembles events at the COP 15 in Bali. In 2007 it was Al Gore who put forward a similar demand, echoed during the final plenary session by Kevin Conrad, the Special Envoy and Ambassador for Environment & Climate Change of Papua New Guinea. The roar of approval in the assembly forced the US to accept the Bali Road Map.

It now seems possible that the same script will play out next Friday night in order to launch the 3-year Durban Road Map proposed by the EU.

The first target in Durban is undoubtedly the need to assure a future to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) through the II commitment period, beyond 2012. But the second goal seems to be the need to find a way to involve the US, which in political terms stands on tenuous ground. Everyone knows that it is very difficult to negotiate with a government that seems unable to impose to its own Senate the ratification of any agreement.

Yesterday there was a bilateral meeting between China and the US, probably crucial for the development of the COP 17. No official statement was issued.

But the previous day, Minister Xie Zhenhua, the Head of the Chinese Delegation, had sent an indirect message, almost certainly meant for US negotiators: “It is time to see who is acting in a responsible way to solve a common challenge for the human race.”

Rumours circulated by Greenpeace suggest an agreement between China and the US to postpone the deadline of a new global deal until after 2015, the date on which the EU is instead insisting as a condition for it to subscribe to a second KP commitment period. The situation is further complicated by China’s announcement to be ready for a legally binding agreement, without clearly specifying whether this means Beijing’s acceptance of the year 2020 as a deadline for the introduction of its own absolute mitigation target.

At the same time, the uncertainty and the shifting of political positions might be interpreted as a positive sign, showing that negotiations are having an effect on the original positions of the parties involved.

In the meanwhile, progress is being reported on financing issues as the idea to collect funds for developing countries from taxation of international aviation and shipping is gaining ground and could be one of the Durban conference’s positive results.

Growing attention is also being given to Mexico’s and Papua New Guinea’s proposal for the introduction of a threefourths majority voting for the COP decisions. What could be seen as a simple procedural aspect may became one of the most interesting outcomes of the COP and facilitate the future of the Durban Road Map.

Decisions needed as leaders arrive in Durban for COP’s second week


The Conference of the Parties (COP) 17 enters its the last week of negotiations with the High Level session starting tomorrow afternoon and might be  useful to identify which are the most important topics under discussion.


Some positive results are expected  regarding technology transfer, a crucial issue in facilitating a more sustainable development path for developing countries.


Copenhagen and Cancun had outlined a financing mechanism, the Green Climate Fund, capable of supporting adaptation and mitigation to help in particular the less developed countries. It foresaw a three-year period (2010-2012) of fast tracking  $10 billion per year, to be increased up to $100 billion by 2020.


Christiana Figueres,  the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, underlined last Friday during a press conference that  there has so far been no decision on how that figure will be reached. She also pointed out that already last year the High Level financing panel set up by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had highlighted the need for “a combination of traditional and innovative sources of finances.”


Financing is needed as well to support the REDD mechanism (Reduction Emission from Deforestation and Degradation). In this field some problems have been raised by Brazil, which does not appear willing to accept a regime of international reporting of how safeguards in REDD will be addressed and respected.


But mitigation remains the main point for which a political solution must be found by the 12 Chiefs of State and 130 Ministers starting to arrive in Durban already this afternoon..


It is no longer possible to postpone a decision about the future of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) because its first commitment period expires at the end of 2012. Linked with the destiny of the KP is the decision on how to forge a new broader international pact, to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of all major emitters actually under discussion in the Long Cooperative Action (LCA).


The most concrete proposal submitted up to  now is the one prepared by the EU. With the public refusal on the part of Japan, Russia and Canada to be part of the II commitment period, the EU becomes the main mover in favour of the KP survival.


This allows the EU to lay down its own conditions to save the only existing, legally binding accord, i.e., the KP, still crucial for all developing countries. Figueres is aware that the EU will accept to support the KP’s renewal “only under certain conditions,” spelled out last Friday by Thomasz Chrusczow, representing the Polish EU Presidency: “it is necessary that the new pact include 100% of the global emissions.”


He asked for a kind of “Durban Road map,” a three-year negotiating process in order to finalize a full and global agreement by 2015 which should then become operative before 2020. Chrusczow’s request to base this new process on the same principles as the Bali Road map and the Cancun agreement indirectly confirms the failure of the COP 15 in Copenhagen and the entirely unsuccessful Rasmussen COP 15 Presidency. The evidence is that it is now necessary to restart the process for a new legally binding agreement.


But the international situation has radically changed from that prevailing at the time of the 2007 Bali conference and even more with respect to 1992, when the UNFCCC was signed. For Artur Runge Metzer, of the EU Commission, it is therefore no longer possible to base a future agreement only on historical responsibility. “We are aware of our historical responsibility, but this is not enough. If we shut down the EU tomorrow or next Saturday as result of the COP 17, we don’t save the climate. Others have to come on board”.


The message is clearly directed at the USA, increasingly absent from the negotiation process, as shown by the vague answer of the Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change,


Jonathan Pershing, during last week’s press conference and by the US attempt to postpone the new negotiation process until after 2020. The indirect answer comes from Keya Chatterjee, representative of WWF US. She urged her national delegation to keep  in mind this year’s  climatic events in the U.S., where for the first time 47 States had to declare a state of emergency because of  weather-related disasters.


But the EU message is meant also for the emerging economies, considering their increasing contribution to total GHG emissions. Chrusczow did however specify that it is necessary to differentiate between various national conditions because China, the main global emitter, has a value per habitant of 6 tons of CO2, while India’s is well below 2.


Srinivas Krishnaswamy, of the NGO CAN South Asia, is asking for a more leading role of the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). They are already part of the G77+China group, but Krishnaswamy notes that they are increasingly behaving as an official negotiating group. This could be interpreted as a natural evolution of the developing countries’ block characterized by growing differences among them in terms of interest in the oil economy, level of development and direct hardship due to climate change-related consequences. To the group belong countries as different as Saudi Arabia, China, Tuvalu and Bangladesh.


There is finally another important point that may be on the discussion table in the days to come. It is the proposal presented by Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Mexico at the beginning of last week and already introduced in a less strong way by PNG at the Copenhagen conference. The proposal is to move the current consensus-based decision-making process towards a qualified majority approach. According to informal rumors, there is growing sympathy for this proposal, despite the opposition of some important parties. If nothing else this would force clarification of the meaning of “consensus,” often left to the interpretation of the COP Presidency, and speed up the decision process, considering that climate change will not wait for the conclusion of the long political debate.

Il punto – Il fallimento, il prezzo della Cina


“A Copenhagen ci dovranno essere gli impegni di riduzione delle emissioni nero su bianco”. “Bisognerà arrivare ad un accordo politico, che diventi legalmente vincolante entro sei mesi”. Queste le richieste che Yvo de Boer andava facendo da mesi per poter considerare la COP15 un successo. Nessuna delle due è stata raggiunta e quindi il giudizio non può essere altro che quello di un fallimento.

Eppure la costruzione strategica della conferenza sembrava fatta ad hoc. Tensione mediatica e politica altissima, trasferita direttamente sugli sherpa fin dal primo momento. Spesso la stanchezza facilita le possibilità di mediazione in queste situazioni e tra attese snervanti e sessioni notturne lo stress già nella prima settimana è stato forse unico rispetto al passato. Il lavoro è stato qui concentrato su aspetti tecnici (REDD, LULUCF, trasferimento di tecnologie, adattamento) lasciando fuori i due aspetti principali: mitigazione e finanziamento. Per questi c’era l’incontro dei capi di stato degli ultimi due giorni, pensato per condividere ad alto livello gli impegni di riduzione delle emissioni e i soldi da mettere sul tavolo per i più poveri.

Fino all’ultima bozza del documento dei grandi sembrava quasi fatta. Poi la versione finale è stata annacquata. Il dietro le quinte racconta di un Obama che interrompe un incontro tra Cina, India, Brasile e Sudafrica, per convincere soprattutto la Cina ad aprire le porte a maggiori controlli esterni sulle emissioni. La sola incrinatura della muraglia cinese sul tema della verifica ha un costo altissimo. Via gli obiettivi al 2050 per tutto il mondo (50%) e quelli per i paesi sviluppati (80%), con la motivazione che anche quest’ultimo numero potrebbe essere un appiglio futuro nei confronti della Cina. E allora via anche quello al 2020, perché su questo un accordo non si trova.

Ne esce un documento debole che subisce l’umiliazione ulteriore della plenaria che non lo recepisce in toto, ma ne “prende nota”, aprendo un tema di riflessione anche sui sistemi di voto dell’UNFCCC. Quanto gli USA abbiano perso in questo confronto è leggibile nello sguardo e nel tono della conferenza stampa di Obama. Quanto ci abbiano perso i cittadini di tutto il mondo è nel pianto di un delegato brasiliano che mi confessa l’adesione del suo paese ad un “accordo” vuoto.

Gli scienziati ci avvisano che il picco delle emissioni deve arrivare al 2015, e dopo quella data devono iniziare a calare per evitare il peggio. Andare oltre quella data richiederebbe ipotesi di riduzione delle emissioni future così repentine da rischiare di essere tecnicamente irraggiungibili, almeno nelle condizioni di stabilità politica internazionale attuali. Ora ci sono sei mesi di tempi supplementari delle decisioni. Vediamo se i politici decideranno di smettere questa partita di Risiko sulla pelle degli abitanti della terra e riusciranno a dimostrare la grandezza necessaria per le responsabilità che ricoprono.

E’ più alta la febbre del Continente nero


I 2 gradi dei Paesi occidentali in Africa diventano 3.5 E i meno responsabili del riscaldamento globale saranno i più duramente colpiti dalle sue conseguenze


Copenaghen – La maggioranza dei politici a Copenhagen concorda sulla necessità di bloccare la febbre del pianeta al di sotto dei 2 gradi, rispetto al periodo preindustriale. I delegati africani, però, sanno che per loro questo potrebbe già essere un dramma. Gli scienziati non lasciano dubbi. I 2 gradi di aumento della temperatura sono un dato medio, ma alcune aree del pianeta si scalderanno molto di più. Per l’Africa le previsioni indicano un aumento fino a 3,5 gradi.

A pagare di più saranno i meno responsabili. L’Africa intera emette al- l’incirca come il Giappone e ci vogliono venti africani per raggiungere il peso di un singolo statunitense sulle emissioni di gas serra.

I singoli interessi che da sempre caratterizzano il continente africano si traducono in un peso politico negoziale fondato solo sui principi. La situazione, però, è cambiata improvvisamente quando a novembre i Paesi africani hanno deciso di bloccare i lavori preparatori per Copenhagen, causa le continue promesse da parte dei Paesi industrializzati, restii a mettere sul tavolo negoziale nuovi impegni per una seconda fase del Protocollo di Kyoto.

Lo strappo, mai definitivamente ricucito, è del 7 dicembre con l’apertura dei lavori della Cop15. Dopo un secondo abbandono, l’Africa si presenta con un unico nome, attraverso la voce della Oua (Organizzazione dell’Unione Africana), per «metter in campo un singolo gruppo negoziale», come ha ribadito il Primo ministro etiope, e portavoce Oua, Meles Zenawi. L’obiettivo, portare avanti i bisogni dell’intero continente piuttosto che dei singoli paesi. Immediata la replica degli industrializzati, disponibili a dare risposta alle richieste di finanziamento con 30 miliardi di dollari, favorendo una frattura interna al gruppo G77. L’obiettivo è isolare le principali economie emergenti, come la Cina, per costringerle ad assumersi maggiori responsabilità sui tagli delle emissioni. Il continente africano paga già i danni maggiori per il cambiamento climatico causato dai paesi ricchi. Per questo non può permettersi la morte del Protocollo di Kyoto, né il fallimento di Copenhagen. Da oggi c’è un protagonista nuovo nella politica climatica.

Il punto – Ma una speranza c’è


unita dormire

Finalmente il nodo è venuto al pettine! E l’ha fatto nel modo più eclatante possibile.

Negli ultimi giorni molti delegati, a denti stretti, hanno riconosciuto nella mancanza di impegni di riduzione delle emissioni per le economie emergenti il principale scoglio da superare per arrivare ad un accordo ambizioso entro venerdì. Non si mette in discussione il loro diritto di continuare il processo di sviluppo e la lotta alla povertà, ma di garantire che questo sia intrapreso attraverso un modello a basso contenuto di carbonio. Nel linguaggio di Copenhagen ciò significa: non chiedere alla Cina di ridurre le proprie emissioni in termini assoluti, ma di farlo rispetto al trend di crescita previsto in mancanza di azioni specifiche (il cosiddetto Business As Usual).

Non è stato un passaggio indolore. Gli sherpa hanno lavorato tutta la notte tra martedì e mercoledì per preparare il documento per i ministri. Alle 5 di mattina il coordinatore del gruppo ottiene l’assenso del G77 sul testo. La delegazione americana però non ci stà e impone ulteriori modifiche che complicano ulteriormente il quadro. Alle 7 si arriva comunque ad un testo finale. All’avvio dei lavori, però, il colpo di scena.

Rasmussen, che ha preso la presidenza della COP15 per la sessione dei ministri e dei capi di governo al posto di Connie Hedegaard, annuncia la prossima presentazione di un proprio documento di compromesso. Si alzano le barricate dei paesi emergenti, che secondo le indiscrezioni sarebbero chiamati nel nuovo documento ad assumersi maggiori responsabilità, appoggiati più tardi anche da un appassionato Hugo Chavez che denuncia un metodo non democratico.

Lapidarie le parole di Rasmussen, all’insegna della concretezza: “il mondo aspetta una risposta sul cambiamento climatico, non può essere una questione solo di procedure”.

L’inizio della riunione di presentazione del documento viene aggiornato alle 13.00 e poi posticipato più volte fino ad aprirsi alle 22.00. Nel frattempo il lavoro è trasferito in altre sale, quelle che contano realmente.

In tarda serata arriva la notizia che il Giappone è disposto a mettere 11 miliardi di dollari dal 2010 al 2012 in aggiunta ai 10,5 della Ue, se l’accordo ci sarà. A questo punto l’attesa è che USA offrano ancora di più, per compensare il minore impegno di riduzione delle emissioni.

Tutto è ancora molto difficile, ma un accordo non sembra più impossibile.

Il punto – L’importanza di Connie Hedegaard


unita Connie

Si è aperta ieri la sezione politica plenaria della COP15 di Copenhagen, con la presenza di Ban Ki-moon, il Principe Carlo ed il premio Nobel Wangari Maathai. A brillare di più è stata però ancora lei: Connie Hedegaard. Se mai la Conferenza sul clima arriverà ad un accordo ambizioso, una buona parte del merito dovrà essere riconosciuto a questo politico capace e carismatico, venerato anche da chi si dichiara appartenente all’opposizione.

Da lunedì i lavori degli sherpa sono proseguiti in modo schizofrenico, con lunghissime riunioni fino a notte fonda e continui rinvii nel corso della giornata. La priorità è quella di completare la stesura dei documenti politici che da questa mattina dovranno essere trasferiti nelle mani dei ministri e più problemi resteranno aperti sul tavolo, più complessa sarà la fase politica. Gli ingredienti per una possibile soluzione sono tutti contenuti nei discorsi di apertura della sessione plenaria.

La Hedegaard si appella subito ai governi “Noi non possiamo fare niente senza di voi. È a voi che sarà riconosciuto il successo o il fallimento”. Lo stato dei lavori è nelle parole di Yvo de Boer “Ci sono stati dei progressi importanti, ma non abbastanza per arrivare al successo.” Rasmussen enfatizza la valenza unica del momento, ricordando che mai come in questo momento l’attenzione è stata così alta sul cambiamento climatico, con la consapevolezza diffusa che gli impatti si ripercuoteranno sul mondo intero nessuno incluso. Riprende poi una frase di Churchill “Ci vuole coraggio per alzarsi e parlare, ma ci vuole anche coraggio per sedersi ed ascoltare”. E ancora la Hedegaard  “C’è il rischio di un fallimento. La parola chiave deve essere il compromesso. Bisogna agire e agire subito”.

Da oggi ai ministri spetta la risoluzione dei problemi ed ai capi di governo la passerella mediatica, in cui far capire al mondo intero cosa vogliono chiedere e soprattutto a cosa sono disposti a rinunciare.