How committed are we? Why the Copenhagen Treaty should keep the current 5-year commitment period June 2009

The Kyoto Protocol is based on commitment periods instead of single target years.
The first 5-year commitment period is 2008-12. In the lead-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, countries are negotiating the second commitment period, which starts in 2013 and should run until 2018.
However, some countries are now discussing the idea of extending the length of those commitment periods including, for example, one commitment period from 2013-2020.
While no real rationale for an extension is being offered, there are a number of very strong reasons why the commitment periods should be kept the same.
Targets and actions could not be adjusted to reflect latest science
The IPCC 5th assessment report (AR5) will be published in 2013 and 2014, and is very likely to paint an even more alarming and urgent picture of the climate crisis, leading to calls for greater emissions reductions.
The current 5-year commitment periods mean that publication of the AR5 will coincide with the start of negotiations for the third commitment period (2018-2022), allowing for adjustment of the targets and actions (of all big emitters) accordingly. For example, 8-year commitment periods would mean it would take a further six years before countries could act on the new science in the AR5.
The overall level of emission reductions up to 2020 would be lower
If 2020 goals were grouped into just one commitment period, it is likely that the overall reduction targets would be lower - for two reasons:
1.
In the 2nd commitment period (2013-2017), only a few developing countries (newly industrialised) would be expected to take on binding, economy-wide or sectoral emissions caps. However, by the 3rd commitment period (2018-2022), many of the rapidly industrialising countries are likely to reach a higher level of economic development and will have a greater capacity to act, resulting in more countries taking on binding, absolute emissions reduction or limitation obligations. A single commitment period to 2020 would mean these rapidly industrialising countries would not have to take on any binding emissions limitation commitments until after 2020.
2.
An exemption from binding emissions limits until 2020 for both newly-industrialised and rapidly industrialising countries could provide some developed countries with the excuse to take on less ambitious 2020 reduction targets, while they wait for their developing country competitors to come on board.
None of this would deliver the deep cuts needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Room for the US to upgrade
Having 5-year commitment periods would also leave room for the US to upgrade its target for the 3rd commitment period (2018-2022). The Waxman bill includes the principle of adequacy reviews (in the light of recent science) every four years, so if its first review indicated that its cap for 2020 was not adequate, it could adjust that for the 3rd commitment period.
The question remains: does the US want to upgrade its position in the third commitment period?
Decisions on action could be delayed to future governments,
Election periods are typically four to six years. Commitment periods of longer than five years could cause political responsibility to fall between election cycles.
A 5-year commitment period would help to bridge the financial and economic crisis, which can effect the Copenhagen agreement on financing. With the help of the IPCC’s AR5, which is expected to go into more detail on the costs of mitigation, the developed countries will have to boost up both ambitions on targets and financial support developing countries.
“But what about investor confidence”
A typical argument in favour of longer commitment periods is investor confidence. Having longer commitment periods would bring certainty for investments with long pay back times. Consider that this ‘certainty’ argument is one being run by big coal companies like E-ON, Peabody Coal and Vattenfall, who want certainty to continue building coal-fired power plants - the most polluting energy source on the planet.
However, the same level of confidence can be built in to the 5-year commitment periods. The Copenhagen deal could agree a default setting where – if negotiations for the 3rd commitment period didn’t conclude in time (2015) – an x% annual decrease in the QELROs (or QERCs – quantified emissions reduction commitments) would be applied for developed country targets.
The percentage for annual reductions would be in line with meeting the aggregate developed country target for 2020 (the mid point for the 3rd commitment period). Also an x% decrease in growth limitation of developing country emissions as a group could be introduced.