Dear Mrs. Moses, Mr. Kumarsingh, Mr. Runge-Metzger,
I have received your call for input on the way forward in the ADP.
Through my involvement in the UNFCCC process I have come to the understanding that currently, as far as mitigation is concerned, we are not talking about the right issues.
As you know, our reaching or breaching of the 1.5° or 2°C targets will not depend on the amount of renewable energy capacity installed. It will depend directly on the extraction - or leaving in the ground - of fossil fuels. The absolute amount of this extraction must be on the negotiation table, else we are beating around the bush! No country has framed their national target as one of leaving their own fossil reserves in the ground. Mitigation pledges normally mean "we will burn less and export the rest". They don't translate into reduced extraction!
I would like to challenge your assumption that through the work - as it is currently framed - we would reach ANY less emissions in the future. If "mitigation" as it is currently framed is achieved anywhere, it simply leads to cheaper oil, gas and coal prices and more growth of fossil economies. Is there any mechanism that would transform ambitious mitigation pledges into fossil reserves left in the ground? Without such a mechanism, the atmosphere may never get to see any difference!
Thank you for your attention and best wishes with your efforts.
Kjell Kühne
Initiator
Leave it in the Ground Coalition (LINGO)