4 December 2015, The Guardian, The ‘red line’ issue that exposes deep divisions in the Paris climate talks. Buried in the detail of the Paris Accord could be some innocuous-looking words that will have a powerful impact on whether it ever delivers the greenhouse gas reductions it promises. The words could “paper over” deep divisions about whether countries ever have to properly report and account for the promised emission reductions that collectively limit global warming to the already-dangerous 2.7 degrees. Key to the negotiations will be a trade off between developing countries’ demands for financing to reduce their own emissions and adapt to locked-in climate change and the insistence by both rich nations like the United States and climate-vulnerable countries like the small island states that every country should be required to at least work towards the same rules for reporting and checking their emission reductions. Since the pledges in the Paris Accord will not be legally binding and the more stringent rules applied to developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol are almost certain to lapse in five years, the direction set for this new set of reporting and checking rules is important to ensure the agreement delivers what it promises for the climate. Countries like India claim the existing rules under the overarching UN framework convention on climate change are fine. Read More here

3 December 2015, Carbon Brief, EXPLAINER: the ‘ratchet mechanism’ within the Paris climate deal. One outcome of the Paris deal is already certain: it will not succeed in limiting temperatures to below 2C. This has been repeated ad infinitum, by studies, by politicians and by observers. Perhaps the most widely quoted figure for the impact of countries’ climate pledges on global temperature is the 2.7C rise calculated by Climate Action Tracker. The World Resources Institute has analysed the numerous other studies that come to similar conclusions. The 2C limit has been enshrined as the aim of UN climate negotiations since 2010 — so if Paris has already failed to achieve it, why is it not already being labelled as a failure? This is where the so-called ratchet mechanism comes in, or the “ambition mechanism”, as some are calling it. This will ensure that actions to deal with climate change become progressively more ambitious over time. What is the ratchet mechanism? This week, countries have started the process of negotiating a 54-page draft text, helped on the way with the input of world leaders who made an appearance on day oneto set the direction. But there’s no point in searching the document for the “ratchet” — the word does not even feature once. It is not a self-contained issue within the text, but is scattered throughout the deal, linked with and integrated into other issues. Observer groups, such as Greenpeace, are pushing for a fairly simple structure. In theory, countries would submit new “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) every five years, outlining how much they intend to reduce emissions. Each submission would be more ambitious than the last, namely, ratcheting up. These submissions would then be reviewed to assess their overall impact on stemming the rise of global temperatures. In particular, it will be benchmarked against the long-term goal set up in the text. A weak long-term goal — still a distinct possibility — will mean the ratchet mechanism has to work even harder. With the knowledge gained from this review in mind, countries would then have a “homework” period, where they have the opportunity to make their intended contributions even more ambitious. And, finally, the contributions would be formalised and inscribed in the agreement. Greenpeace has written a detailed timeline of how they see the ratchet mechanism playing out for the first two cycles of INDCs. Read More here