No abstract

No abstract

The complexities inherent in land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities have led to contentious and prolonged debates about the merits of their inclusion in the 2008-2012 first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet the inclusion of these activities played a key role in agreement on the general framework of the Kyoto Protocol, and LULUCF will likely continue to play a substantial part in negotiations on national commitments post-2012. The Marrakech Accords dictate which LULUCF activities are to be included under the Kyoto Protocol and provide rules on how they are to be accounted in the first commitment period. However, these rules have limitations and drawbacks that may be avoided in the structure of future commitments beyond 2012. Through adherence to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. Change (UNFCCC), and the incorporation of several critical features, a future framework can more effectively address the mitigation challenges and opportunities of this sector. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. [References: 22

This analysis of the Copenhagen Accord evaluates emission reduction pledges by individual countries against the Accord's climate-related objectives. Probabilistic estimates of the climatic consequences for a set of resulting multi-gas scenarios over the 21st century are calculated with a reduced complexity climate model, yielding global temperature increase and atmospheric CO 2 and CO 2 -equivalent concentrations. Provisions for banked surplus emission allowances and credits from land use, land-use change and forestry are assessed and are shown to have the potential to lead to significant deterioration of the ambition levels implied by the pledges in 2020. This analysis demonstrates that the Copenhagen Accord and the pledges made under it represent a set of dissonant ambitions. The ambition level of the current pledges for 2020 and the lack of commonly agreed goals for 2050 place in peril the Accord's own ambition: to limit global warming to below 2 • C, and even more so for 1.5 • C, which is referenced in the Accord in association with potentially strengthening the long-term temperature goal in 2015. Due to the limited level of ambition by 2020, the ability to limit emissions afterwards to pathways consistent with either the 2 or 1.5 • C goal is likely to become less feasible.