The first news to report doesn't come from Poznan, but rather from Washington. Today the US Department of Energy released its report [.pdf] on the US GHG emissions from 2007 which indicates that emissions grew by 1.4% over the last year. This has implications for Obama's commitment from last month to reduce emissions to 1990 levels. It would now require a 16.7% reduction--up from 15%.

I haven't read the entire report, but I was surprised by the increase. The report cited unfavorable weather conditions and a drop in hydropower capacity as factors leading to the increase. It is too early to tell, but I would assume that we would see the 2008 figures be lower than 2007 due to the intensity of the economic downturn and the high prices of fuel for most of the year which pushed vehicle miles traveled downward. On this note, there was an article from the Financial Times today noting electricity demand dropped in Italy over the last two months by 30%. Look for this to translate into GHG emissions reduction from a country that depends on fossil sources for the bulk of its electricity generation.

On to Poznan. The theme early on from a roundtable of activists convened by the Climate Action Network is that the situation is dire. Steven Singer of the World Wildlife Fund says "we have seen nothing" from most major emitters for mitigation. He would like to see unconditional statement that developing countries have the obligation to take the lead on mitigation.

Saleemul Huq of the International Institute for Environment and Development reminds us that the problem with global warming is not only because of current emissions, but due to cumulative emissions. This is a common argument set forth by many less developed nations and is one that is rarely emphasized in the US press. The legacy of Western prosperity is literally causing harm to innocent people in many parts of the world.

On this point of global equity, I want to point to an interesting report presented by Oxfam yesterday. "Turning Carbon Into Gold" offers a blueprint for linking greenhouse gas mitigation with a way to raise the funds needed by less developed countries to adapt to climate change.

Assuming that the post-Kyoto agreement will have some type of cap-and-trade system, they estimate that $50 billion dollars could be raised by auctioning 7.5% of the emissions allowances. Under Kyoto there are binding reduction targets, but only in the European Union is there a cap-and-trade scheme. That scheme began with free distribution of allowances and has been moving lately into auctioning proportions.

The Oxfam proposal makes perfect sense--but it will likely meet resistance from many quarters. I posted a couple of weeks ago about the problem of governments using these new revenues for general budgeting. If governments see the auctioning of permits as a cash cow, they may be reluctant to earmark money for adaptation in the Global South. Furthermore, plans like Obama's are counting on the money to fund domestic "green job" investments. Needless to say industry is generally unenthusiastic about having to buy emissions permits, preferring to argue that compliance with emissions requirements will be too big of an economic burden.

The details for funding adaptation in the post-Kyoto agreement will not likely be agreed upon in Poznan; but the issue will be one to watch as negotiations on specifics commence after the new year.