THE Copenhagen climate conference is supposed to be making a fresh start, as ministers and heads of government prepare to arrive in the Danish capital in the coming days. Instead, it has endured a fresh stall. The meeting was to focus on two sparkling new texts that are notable at least for their concision. The draft statement for one of the two main “tracks” of discussion (on long term co-operation) has shrunk from 179 pages at the beginning of last week to six.
But on Monday December 14th progress on the substantial discussions stuttered, more or less, to a halt as poorer countries, grouped as G77 and China, walked out temporarily. By the time things had started again some of the sessions were facing their first late-night negotiations. There will be a lot more.
Click here to find out more!
The problem was not specifically over the strength of the measures being called for, though that is a point of difference between the most vulnerable countries and the more developed ones. Last week the Alliance of Small Island States called for global warming to be limited to 1.5ºC over pre-industrial levels, something which many other poor countries support. Most richer countries, by contrast, are working on the basis of a limit of 2ºC. This seems one of the easier issues to resolve as many studies relating emissions to temperature agree that limiting a rise to 1.5ºC is in all practical ways impossible.
Some of the poorer countries appear to be using the 1.5ºC figure as a useful bargaining position from which to press for bigger emissions cuts from the rich world. The cuts proposed so far, although larger than might have been expected a year ago, are unlikely to limit global warming even to 2ºC. In addition, many poorer countries are seeking to extract more money from rich ones. A “fast start” package of $10 billion a year, over the next few years, which is being put together by rich countries is seen as grossly insufficient by poor-country negotiators, who talk of transfers of “5% of GDP”. On all this the new slimline text which is supposed to frame an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol is magnificently reticent: “To be elaborated: a long-term goal for financing.”
The overall shape of the Copenhagen agreement is proving to be the main bone of contention. One proposal is that rich countries should remain subject to Kyoto-level emission cuts, which are due to expire in 2012, until 2020. Poor countries are adamant that richer countries should be held responsible with a binding protocol. But the rich countries that signed up to Kyoto (mostly European ones) are refusing to agree to do this unilaterally because they would get nothing in return from America, which is not party to Kyoto, or from any developing countries, on which Kyoto makes no demands.
A compromise that is contained in the draft text, suggesting that richer countries would cut emissions, but without the binding nature of Kyoto, may offer some way to get beyond this impasse. But there are plenty of other ways for things to go wrong once the heads of government turn up. One concern is the question of what, if anything, poorer countries will be bound to do themselves. The current text requires that developing countries act only when rich countries pay them to do so. It seems highly unlikely that an agreement will be reached without further requirements of some sort. It is up to the conference to work out what they might be.:SugarwareZ-246::SugarwareZ-246:
But on Monday December 14th progress on the substantial discussions stuttered, more or less, to a halt as poorer countries, grouped as G77 and China, walked out temporarily. By the time things had started again some of the sessions were facing their first late-night negotiations. There will be a lot more.
Click here to find out more!
The problem was not specifically over the strength of the measures being called for, though that is a point of difference between the most vulnerable countries and the more developed ones. Last week the Alliance of Small Island States called for global warming to be limited to 1.5ºC over pre-industrial levels, something which many other poor countries support. Most richer countries, by contrast, are working on the basis of a limit of 2ºC. This seems one of the easier issues to resolve as many studies relating emissions to temperature agree that limiting a rise to 1.5ºC is in all practical ways impossible.
Some of the poorer countries appear to be using the 1.5ºC figure as a useful bargaining position from which to press for bigger emissions cuts from the rich world. The cuts proposed so far, although larger than might have been expected a year ago, are unlikely to limit global warming even to 2ºC. In addition, many poorer countries are seeking to extract more money from rich ones. A “fast start” package of $10 billion a year, over the next few years, which is being put together by rich countries is seen as grossly insufficient by poor-country negotiators, who talk of transfers of “5% of GDP”. On all this the new slimline text which is supposed to frame an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol is magnificently reticent: “To be elaborated: a long-term goal for financing.”
The overall shape of the Copenhagen agreement is proving to be the main bone of contention. One proposal is that rich countries should remain subject to Kyoto-level emission cuts, which are due to expire in 2012, until 2020. Poor countries are adamant that richer countries should be held responsible with a binding protocol. But the rich countries that signed up to Kyoto (mostly European ones) are refusing to agree to do this unilaterally because they would get nothing in return from America, which is not party to Kyoto, or from any developing countries, on which Kyoto makes no demands.
A compromise that is contained in the draft text, suggesting that richer countries would cut emissions, but without the binding nature of Kyoto, may offer some way to get beyond this impasse. But there are plenty of other ways for things to go wrong once the heads of government turn up. One concern is the question of what, if anything, poorer countries will be bound to do themselves. The current text requires that developing countries act only when rich countries pay them to do so. It seems highly unlikely that an agreement will be reached without further requirements of some sort. It is up to the conference to work out what they might be.:SugarwareZ-246::SugarwareZ-246: