Read our fact sheet on the Reach Implementation [pdf]

Negotiations continued throughout 2010 and allowed us to establish a possible compromise on a series of decisions relating to the most advanced areas of the negotiation:

- the fight against deforestation
- technology cooperation
- adapting to the effects of climate change and the role of agriculture

The negotiators should endeavor to make progress on the issue of quantified emission reduction commitments for each country, on long-term international financing, including in particular the arrangements for establishing the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, and on the system to monitor commitments (“MRV”).

France, together with its European Union partners, is in favor of a step-by-step negotiation approach, based on the results of the Copenhagen Conference and on the Kyoto Protocol. It supports a second commitment phase in accordance with the post-2012 protocol, within the framework of a broader arrangement paving the way for a comprehensive international framework involving all of the major economies. The European Union will reaffirm its compliance with the financial commitments that it made in Copenhagen with the payment of the first annual installment of the €7.2 billion pledged under the early financing program which will extend until 2012, including €1.26 billion for France.

France is very keen for this new conference to lead to concrete conclusions within the framework of the United Nations, the only legitimate forum for these decisions. It lends its unwavering support to the Mexican presidency of the Conference as well as the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres.

France will also endeavor to defend the interests of the most vulnerable countries, notably in terms of access to sustainable energy and adaptation to the effects of climate change.

Climate change policy and participation in the international climate change negotiations are one of France’s strategic priorities. The Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, will go to Cancun from December 6 to 7. Brice Lalonde, former minister, Ambassador responsible for Climate Negotiations, will lead the French delegation throughout the negotiations.

The report is a summary of the presentations given and discussions held during the debate, with written contributions that preceded it.

The debate focused on four major topics:

- Observations and analysis methods used to assess climate change
- Determination of past climates
- Climate models
- Physico-chemical mecanisms

The following conclusions are presented in the report:

- Several independent indicators show an increase of warming from 1975 to 2003.
- This increase is mainly due to the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
- The increase in CO2 and, to a lesser degree, of other greenhouse gases, is unequivocally due to human activity.
- It constitutes a threat to the climate and, moreover, to oceans as a result of the acidification process it generates.
- This increase drives retroactions of the global climate system, the complexity of which requires the use of models and tests for the purpose of validating them.
- The mechanisms which can play a role in the transmission and amplification of solar forcing, and in particular, of solar activity, are not yet well understood. Solar activity, which has slightly decreased on average since 1975, cannot be dominant in the observed warming during this period
- Important uncertainties remain in the modeling of clouds, the evolution of marine ice and polar ice caps, ocean/atmosphere coupling, the evolution of the biosphere and the dynamics of the carbon cycle
- The projections of climate change over the 30 to 50-year period are only slightly affected by the uncertainty in the modeling of slow-moving processes. These projections are particularly useful in meeting current societal concerns, made worse by the predictable population increase.
- Climate change can only by analyzed by long series of data, both homogeneous and continuous, on a large scale. The major terrestrial and spatial observation programs, must be maintained and developed and their results made available to the international scientific community.
- The interdisciplinary nature of the problems requires an even greater involvement of the various scientific communities to further the advances already achieved in the field of climatology and to open new avenues for future research

The report is available in French here : http://media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2010/35/0/Changement_climatique_octobre_2010_159350.pdf

This report ranks France first, followed by Germany and the UK. In particular, France’s performances are high in terms of emissions, investments and skills although it ranks 4th in terms of innovation and policies and institutions. As a matter of fact, nuclear and hydro power result in a very low carbon content of GDP and exports. Low carbon stimulus spending is on the plus side. However, low carbon technologies patenting and the share of venture capital investments in clean tech must be improved. The Grenelle de l’Environnement (see fact sheet) will help France’s greening its economy.

Read “Measuring Up”:
http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/issues/programs/climate-prosperity/benchmarking/benchmarking-eng.pdf

Read Europe’s “Expression of willingness to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord and submission of the quantified economy-wide emissions reduction targets for 2020″ in the following PDF :

EU Climate Change Letter [PDF]

Origin of the French nuclear program

In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, France decided to invest in nuclear energy ? a compact source of energy ? in order to reduce its energy dependence. France launched the most comprehensive nuclear energy program ever which has led in less than 30 years to the construction and current operation of 58 industrial-sized pressurized water reactors (PWR) at 19 sites throughout France.

French nuclear power stations

All PWR reactors in operation are of Generation II type. France is currently building one AREVA EPR™ in Flamanville and plans for one more in Penly. AREVA is also working on other ongoing construction projects in Finland, China and upcoming ones in the USA, the United Kingdom, and Italy. This Generation III+ reactor model combines enhanced safety features, improved fuel utilization and economics and limited waste production. Furthermore, with a 1,650 megawatts output, it is economically competitive with fossil fuel plants.

Nuclear production and safety

Reaching a power capacity of 63 gigawatts, the nuclear plants operated by the French utility EDF account for nearly 80% of French generated electricity. The competitiveness of nuclear electricity and the large volume of baseload electricity generated in France enable exports to other European countries, making EDF the world’s largest net exporter of electric power.
The 40 year experience of industrial operation of nuclear energy has provided France with a demanding and high quality safety culture. The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), which is responsible for regulating nuclear safety and radiation protection in order to protect workers, the public and the environment from the risks involved in nuclear activities, was established as an independent body.

Recycling

France has always been sensitive to nuclear waste management issues and aware of the risk of exhaustion of uranium resources. It has developed for many years a strategy for recycling its spent nuclear fuel ? fuel that cannot sustain nuclear reactions anymore ? instead of considering them as waste to be disposed. About 85% of EDF’s spent fuel is reprocessed today at the La Hague plant in Normandy. Plutonium is recycled in MOX fuel and ultimate waste is vitrified and stored in small buildings, in La Hague, awaiting for final disposal. This process currently allows saving of up to 25% of uranium resources and diminishes the volume and level of radioactivity of final waste awaiting underground disposal by a factor of respectively 5 and 10. Additionally, final waste after recycling doesn’t raise proliferation concerns and is hence relieved from safeguard obligations.

Environmental and GHG benefits of nuclear in France and potential for the United States: how cap and trade can support nuclear energy.

The environmental footprint of nuclear plants is very small, since they do not generate the pollution and CO2 byproducts of regular fossil fuel plants. Mostly due to nuclear energy, total pollution from the country’s energy system dropped by more than 80% during the 1980 to 1990 period where France tripled its nuclear energy capacity. Over the same period of time, French overall CO2 emissions (energy, transportation…) were cut off by 25%.
If the United States were to adopt a cap and trade system, with an hypothesis of about $20 per metric ton of CO2 emitted, each new nuclear reactor on the basis of the EPR™ reactor in project in Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, would allow saving 5 million metric tons/year of CO2 emissions and $100 million/year in permits purchase, compared to a gas powered station; 11.5 million metric tons/year CO2 emissions and more than $230 million compared to a coal powered station.

President Sarkozy - Press Conference

THE PRESIDENT – (…) We’ve got an accord. Right up to the last moment, the French delegation and I were pondering the right course of action. I’m going to report to you as briefly as possible on the problems, what was adopted and what was committed. (…)

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZATION

THE PRESIDENT – (…) Europe will propose the creation of a European Environment Organization which will have two responsibilities: monitoring each country’s environmental commitments and the honouring of the financial commitments vis-à-vis the poorest countries. Why at European level? Because we didn’t get it at global level. But Europe is determined to lead the way and this Organization will, of course, be called on to accept the candidature of every country wishing to join in its work. (…)

AQUILA G8/MEF/COPENHAGEN/WEO

Q. – I’d like to know how the commitments China, India and the United States made in Aquila and at the Major Economies Forum differ from what they’ve done here. I can’t see how they do, since they had already recognized the 2º and there’s nothing binding. What is there that’s new?

THE PRESIDENT – To my knowledge, there was no commitment in Aquila. But if you want something else: there was no €100 billion in Aquila, so no commitment could have been made – I mean the €100 billion [for the poor countries] as from 2020. The €30 billion over the first three years wasn’t on the table in Aquila. The commitment to put the emissions reduction targets in the annex wasn’t there at all in Aquila. And there was no commitment, in writing, to meet the objective of limiting the temperature rise to 2º in Aquila either. And then there’s innovative financing: when Bernard Kouchner and I were talking about the possibility of taxing financial transactions, do you remember what people said? There was nothing about that at all. 20% for the forests, to combat deforestation; everyone can clearly see that the best way to fight emissions is to combat deforestation, there was nothing about that in Aquila. Nor about the 40% for Africa. As you know, we were still working on the Millennium Development Goals, with participants voicing scepticism on the issue.

So if you want to ask me what’s missing, it’s clearer to get straight to the point. To my mind, two things are missing: the 50% target in 2050, which we’d have preferred to see kept. It wasn’t possible, from this point of view it’s a disappointment, even though we’re keeping the 80% target. Am I making myself clear here?

And the second disappointment is that there’s no World Environment Organization, even though we took advantage of the meeting to push for the European Environment Organization which is destined to become a world organization. Those are the two points on which we didn’t get satisfaction. (…)

FRANCE/EUROPE/COPENHAGEN ACCORD

Q. – You began the press conference by telling us: “right up to the last moment, I myself, the French delegation were pondering the right course of action”. Did you really contemplate not signing this accord, rejecting it? And, secondly, why do you think that this accord, which doesn’t fully satisfy you, will be more effective than the huge commotion which the European Union would have caused by not signing it?

THE PRESIDENT – So long as we weren’t certain that every country was committing itself on paper to specific emissions reduction targets, we couldn’t sign the accord. We could agree to giving up the 50% cut provided we had the 2º, plus the breakdown of the countries’ reductions. This was precisely the point at issue. Am I making myself understood? The 2º is the general target, with the 50% cut the specific objective required to limit the temperature increase to 2º. We can agree to giving up the 50% emissions reduction in 2050 if we’ve got every country’s goals for immediately cutting emissions; otherwise it isn’t possible – I hope my explanations aren’t too obscure – you see, we can swap a collective target of a 50% cut in 2050 for targets individually allocated, country by country, immediately; by “immediately” I mean between 2010-2015. So long as we weren’t sure of getting that, we couldn’t agree.

Secondly, so long as there was no agreement on innovative financing, I tell you, I wouldn’t have committed France. The ministers, Jean-Louis [Borloo] and I talked about this involving pretty substantial sums, even though it’s the whole international community which is committing itself to it. So the deadlock on these points was lifted only at the last moment, since the Chinese Prime Minister was no longer even at the conference centre.

Q. – And if Europe hadn’t signed?

THE PRESIDENT – Had Europe not signed, we would have found ourselves in the paradoxical situation of it being easier to explain that we wanted all or nothing, but the consequence of refusing to sign was that it would have allowed China and India to exempt themselves from any form of limitation. It might seem paradoxical to take the view that Copenhagen isn’t ambitious enough to constrain Chine and India, but with no Copenhagen accord, there’s nothing. (…)

POLITICAL/LEGALLY-BINDING ACCORD

Q. – This accord seems to be a political rather than legally-binding one since it didn’t prove possible to make a legal one. The countries are going to be left the task of translating the text and this accord into their legislative systems. When is there going to be an international legal text? In Mexico?

THE PRESIDENT – First of all, there was never a question of producing a legally- binding text in Copenhagen, because I don’t know how we’d have been able to prepare a treaty. I told Mr Ban Ki-moon back in September in New York: “Don’t start working on a document several hundred pages long, we’d never be able to get through it”. So it’s always been agreed that Copenhagen was a political accord. For the rest, we, Europe and the United States, are clearly calling for this political document to be transformed into a treaty. This is why France is supporting Germany’s organization of an intermediate summit in Bonn: this is why we have ensured that the terms of reference given to President Calderon for Mexico are as broad as possible; and this is why a lot of us will be asking in Mexico for the Copenhagen political accord to be transformed into a treaty. This is of course encountering opposition – today as I speak – from China and India. (…)

CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION

Q. - (…) You mentioned earlier some organizational problems at the conference, the Danish presidency has very probably, perhaps, something to do with the question you were pondering, but, despite everything, aren’t you drawing deeper lessons for the actual climate negotiating process? There’s something I’m wondering about: basically haven’t we got a sort of circular process: we give negotiators a brief, for example two years ago in Bali, then they crunch the data for two years and, at the end of the two years, the political leaders, you President Sarkozy, the other heads of State, arrive and in a way sanction a failure, the failure of the negotiators and the brief given to them at the outset.

THE PRESIDENT – (…) This obviously poses, you’re absolutely right, the problem of the way the international community is organized. Let’s not attribute more responsibility to the Danish presidency than it deserves. The Danish Prime Minister did everything he could, he did it pretty well in fact, but let’s say that the UN decision-making process…We’ve reached the limits of a system which I’ve consistently criticized – pardon, at any rate since the day I was elected. The role that a number of us have played wasn’t ours to play. We didn’t play it for pleasure, but because things weren’t moving forward. I have a high regard for Mr Ban Ki-moon; I support him; he’s a man who really deserves respect and consideration, but clearly the limitations of the UN process, which consists in never holding votes, in deciding by consensus and remaining the organization it was in the twentieth century, have become evident – yes, and your question is wholly pertinent – it consists in having the right to make progress on every issue only if everyone agrees. Can you imagine this with 192 countries? It’s a process which today is on its last legs.

Secondly, it’s a process which doesn’t give the major emerging countries their rightful place. Think about it: when India has to be asked to play her full part in protecting the planet, India who has hundreds of millions of inhabitants bordering on the most worrying poverty, it’s absolutely normal for Prime Minister Singh to say: “listen, we emit very little carbon, but we’ve got a lot of poverty, we’re afraid you will prevent us from developing”. If India were a member of the Security Council, it would be far easier to get her to shoulder a greater proportion of her responsibilities. Seeing a system like this makes it blindingly obvious.

So the difficulties of organizing this conference demonstrate the limitations of a UN system which is on its last legs. This doesn’t mean the UN is unnecessary, quite the contrary, you’ve clearly understood that we need the UN, but we very clearly need an organization where decisions can be taken, where the decision-making organs are far more representative. It was the same for the G8 which was on its last legs, whereas the G20 can take decisions.

I guarantee you that there won’t be any more conferences meeting under conditions where no one can take decisions and where we have to be in permanent crisis to have a chance of getting a decision worthy of the name. It’s totally clear. Do you realize that to get a night-time meeting, we had to get to crisis point? Several times, we were completely deadlocked. Because when every country has a say on minor as well as major issues, how do you take decisions? It means you give the country which wants to hold things up absolutely gigantic power, because it knows perfectly well that decisions are by consensus and so it can block things. But in fact the problem goes far beyond that: there was the issue of the various delegations’ representation. Here too, the UN system where a country can have itself represented by its ambassador or some other senior official, whilst others are represented by their countries’ highest elected authority isn’t possible! In the G20, heads of State and governments are there in an official capacity. In the new EU institutional system we’ve decided that we wouldn’t send representatives to the European Council. Heads of State and governments themselves attend European Council meetings. Here in the UN process, you can be represented by an ambassador. For example, we had here the ambassador of Sudan who addressed the meeting many times – as was in fact his right – alongside the President of the United States and Chancellor Merkel. We haven’t all got the same level of political responsibility and ability to take decisions.

The system is on its last legs! We want it changed. Moreover, under these conditions it’s a miracle that we’ve nevertheless managed to come up with an accord worthy of the name – we can regret that it isn’t more ambitious, but it’s an accord which indisputably moves things on. So the system has to change and will change.

Thank you for asking this question. I don’t know if my argument has convinced you; and this goes far beyond Mr Ramussen who did his level best, under extremely difficult conditions, you understand, but the problem lies in the process itself. The G20 was set up because the other fora weren’t working well enough. Here too, the issue goes beyond Mr Ban Ki-moon. It’s simply that the international community has changed and has to give itself modern rules to take decisions and responsibility for its choices. (…).

President Sarkozy and Mr Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia

France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, launch today an appeal to all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adopt an ambitious agreement on 18 December limiting the increase of temperatures to 2°C above preindustrial levels, as recommended by the IPCC, and ensuring that vulnerable countries will receive adequate financing to face the challenge.

This agreement will be applicable immediately. It will be translated into a legal international instrument as early as possible in 2010. The Copenhagen accord must seek efficiency, as well as fairness and equity.

Therefore, France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, call for:

- the halving of global CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This implies, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, that developed countries commit to reducing their emissions by 80% at least by 2050 and to adopting coherent and comparable mid-term objectives; and that the most advanced developing countries adopt ambitious low-carbon growth plans and actions aimed at yielding a significant deviation of CO2 emissions compared to “business as usual” scenarios and compatible with the recommendations made by the IPCC.

- the full transparency of commitments taken by developed countries and of the actions adopted by developing countries.

- the adoption of a “fast-start” fund of $10 billion per year covering the next three years, 2010, 2011 and 2012. It will be dedicated to adaptation and mitigation actions, including the fight against deforestation, in developing countries, mainly the poor and vulnerable ones. 40% of the fund should be dedicated to adaptation in Africa. 20% of it should be dedicated to early action on “REDD+”, in order to reach the objective of halving deforestation by 2020 and halting it by 2030. A high-level group, mandated by the UNFCCC, composed of developed and developing countries’ experts will work out details as soon as possible, with a view to launching the fund by the next G20 Summit in Canada after consideration and approval by the UNFCCC.

- a strong commitment on long-term public financing based on developing countries’ needs beyond 2012. Predictable and additional finance must be made available from 2013. France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, believe that various innovative financing mechanisms are key to ensuring the predictability and sustainability of international public efforts. They call, in particular, for the creation of a tax on international financial transactions and are considering other sources such as taxes on sea freight or air transport. Those mechanisms will mainly be dedicated to actions in poor and vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa, least developed countries, small island States and other developing countries with a low per-capita income, according to a plan for climate justice. A high-level group composed of developed and developing countries’ experts will bring forward recommendations, with a preliminary report to be presented no later than the next G20 summit in Canada, and its final report no later than the November 2010 G20 summit in Korea. The report will be submitted for consideration and approval by the UNFCCC.

Long-term financing needs for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries are estimated, at least, at €50 billion by 2015 and €100 billion by 2020. Beyond public financing, France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, encourage the development of carbon markets, which will be a major source of capital flows and investments between the North and the South.

- an ambitious reform of global governance. The Copenhagen Conference offers a historic opportunity to launch a process leading to the establishment of a World Environment Organization. It will ensure that the environment, sustainable development and the fight against climate change remain a top priority in the international agenda beyond COP 15. And it will be a step forward in adapting international governance to twenty-first century challenges and realities./.

Source of English text: Elysée website.

Brussels, 11 December 2009

France and UK are working closely together on climate change

We agreed:

To work for an ambitious deal in Copenhagen, consistent with a maximum global warming of two degrees, to which all parties contribute, and which enables the EU to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2020.

To enable immediate implementation of the Copenhagen agreement we support the establishment of a “fast start” launch fund for 2010-12 which achieves $10 billion annually in 2012. A large amount of this should go to adaptation, especially in Africa, small island states and other poor and vulnerable countries. France and the UK will each contribute their fair share among the advanced economies – around €400 million ($600 million) a year. The UK is prepared to go further and contribute up to $800 million a year in the light of offers from others.

To ensure predictable and additional finance in the medium term to 2020 and beyond, we should make use of innovative financing mechanisms, such as the use of revenues from a global financial transactions tax and the reduction of aviation and maritime emissions and the auctioning of national emissions permits. We will work together on this.

Rainforest countries need the security of finance now and for the coming years. We believe around 20% of early finance should be allocated to forest protection. We want the Copenhagen agreement to agree a reduction in deforestation of 25% by 2015, leading to a 50% reduction in 2020 and a halt in 2030. The developed world should pay for the majority of this, supporting developing countries’ own efforts.

To this end we will work with developed countries and rainforest nations over the next few days to deliver an equitable and effective agreement on forest finance and governance. We will jointly attend a conference of rainforest countries of the Congo basin next week in Paris.

That long term financial support is needed to assist developing countries meet the costs of mitigation and adaptation, estimated at around €100 billion, in 2020.

We are determined that Copenhagen agrees to put in place stronger global environmental governance.

There is much at stake at Copenhagen. We will be doing all in our power to reach the ambitious and comprehensive global agreement the world needs.

Source of English text: 10 Downing Street website

President Sarkozy meets with the non-governmental organizations

President Sarkozy had a meeting today at the Elysée to discuss the Copenhagen conference with the main French non-governmental organizations and leading figures engaged in the fight against climate change.

In the presence of M. Jean-Louis Borloo, Ministre d’Etat, Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Marine Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, and Mme Chantal Jouanno, Minister of State responsible for Ecology, the Head of State reaffirmed the need in Copenhagen to come up with a political agreement commensurate with the challenges of climate change and designed to take the form of an international binding agreement as swiftly as possible.

The President welcomed the international groundswell in support of climate action since the publication of the joint Franco-Brazilian position last month. The presence in Copenhagen of virtually all the world’s heads of State provides a historic opportunity to conclude the agreement enabling the average global temperature rise to be limited to 2ºC by 2050.

The Head of State renewed France’s commitment to reduce her CO2 emissions, to which the Grenelle Environment Forum and carbon tax will make a substantial contribution. France has undertaken to do the utmost to ensure that the conditions for a 30% reduction in European Union emissions are fulfilled as soon as possible.

President Sarkozy also reiterated his determination that the Copenhagen agreement provide for the creation of a World Environment Organization (WEO) with a remit to monitor the preparation of the future treaty and check that every country fulfils its commitments. Lastly, for the Head of State, the final Copenhagen agreement will have to include a major funding stream to finance the fight against climate change in the poor countries, with contributions based on an international levy on financial transactions.

President Sarkozy concluded by reiterating that he firmly believed in a regular frank dialogue with civil society. But any dialogue has of necessity to have rules. Consequently, he deemed the recent intrusion of an NGO in the National Assembly a wholly unacceptable initiative.