Greenspace

Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

Draft climate proposal leaks out in Copenhagen

COPENHAGEN – After an opening day of pomp and hope-sowing, the largely behind-the-scenes negotiations for a new global climate treaty have begun in earnest here in the Danish capital.

That means it’s time for the bargaining-table leaks to begin, as veterans of past climate summits will tell you.

Sure enough, we have our first leak this afternoon: a copy of a proposal  floated by the Danish government for “The Copenhagen Agreement” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

And sure enough, it’s less notable for what it says than for what it conspicuously leaves out.

The draft text provides a basic framework for what climate negotiators call a “political agreement” – a sort of nuts-and-bolts declaration of actions to reduce the heat-trapping gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming. It's one of several proposals rumored to be on the table, including one from China.


The Danish proposal stipulates that nations agree they must limit global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. It sets emissions-reductions targets for both developed and developing countries, but with very different goals.  Richer nations would agree to cut their emissions from historical levels, while poorer nations agree to reduce emissions compared to projected levels.

Perhaps most notable in the eyes of many environmental groups, the draft commits richer nations to providing money and technology to help poorer ones reduce their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change – in the “immediate, medium and long-term.” The “long-term” is something that developing nations and green groups have insisted on.

The text also makes some key decisions, environmentalists say, on issues such as forest protection and how to verify nations' emissions reductions.

Much more important are the blanks the draft leaves unfilled.

It sets no targets for developed or developing countries' individual emissions reductions, though many countries have announced their plans in recent days. It sets a long-range emissions-reduction goal for the developed world – 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 – but not a short-range goal.

There are no dollar figures on the aid proposals and no deadline for nations to turn the “political agreement” into a legal treaty that, say, the U.S. Senate could vote to ratify.

Those blanks, of course, are the biggest issues of debate here in Copenhagen -- and negotiators hope to complete them in time for President Obama and other world leaders to sign an agreement at the end of next week.

Still, some environmental groups, particularly those working closely with developing countries, were unimpressed with the early proposal.

"The Danish proposal falls far short of emissions cuts needed, and remains vague on the climate cash,” Oxfam International, a group concerned with climate and global poverty issues, said in a press release after obtaining the draft text.

The World Wildlife Fund's Kim Carstensen said in a statement that the text is "weak and reflects a too elitist, selective and non-transparent approach by the Danish presidency."

-- Jim Tankersley

 
Comments () | Archives (8)

The comments to this entry are closed.

If the our planet was in such dire peril, I don't think any nation would leave this summit without something done. Hence, it's all about MONEY and nothing more. Remember when, about 20 years ago they said the same thing? Well, 20 years later we are all still here and will be the next 20.
This will all go away on Friday! Thank God


Political correctness amongst the 15,000 attendees and the attendant fawning media will ignore the irony of this self-serving and bloated spectacle.

That political correctness along with economic forces will prevent discussion on the root cause of stress on the earth’s oceans, air, forests, rivers, and lakes.

http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/12/not-overheard-in-copenhagen.html

Asking nations to cut down on carbon emission is not workable. I doubt any government can curb the energy consumption of the residents. Imposing a hefty penalty for energy consumption when the economy is still bad is political suicide.

That's a nice, positive, vanilla spin on things. In contrast, here's what the UK Guardian reported:

The UK Guardian is reporting that the second day of the UN Copenhagen climate summit erupted in even more controversy today after developing countries reacted angrily to documents that were leaked showing world leaders will be asked to sign an agreement next week that gives considerably more power to rich nations and curtails the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document, known as the Danish text, is a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment". It is believed to include the UK, US and Denmark, but has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalized.

The 'Danish text' was leaked to the Guardian, it differs from the Kyoto protocol primarily in that it doesn't call for rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, to agree to firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, but requires undeveloped nations to reduce emissions drastically before receiving financial aid from the richer nations. The draft gives control of climate change finance to the World Bank and would basically abandon the Kyoto protocol. The Kyotot protocol is the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions. The 'Danish text' shows the new agreement would require poor countries to take a multitude of actions before receiving any finincial aid to help them adapt to climate change.

According to the Guardian report, among the changes that world leaders will be asked to agree to are:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

The report goes on to say that:

"Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.


"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless."

The Guardian quotes Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, as saying: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

This is quite different from what we have been told would happen in Copenhagen. We have been led to believe that the summit would only produce a "statement of intent". This makes it appear as if the world leaders attending the summit hope to push a world-wide binding agreement.

Could it be that the "climategate" scandal has lit a fire under the global warming alarmists? maybe they see their house of cards collapsing quickly and are attempting to strike before it falls.

This should be of great concern to everyone who values personal freedom. The science is far from settled. The Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is designed to squash freedom and exert control. It will make a few elites extremely wealthy, and seriously affect the standard of living of everyone else. A binding agreement would mean that a world body will dictate the personal lifestyle of every individual on the planet.

Do a google search. Check any source you want. CO2 is .03% of the atmosphere. That's 3/10ths of one percent. What's the rest of the atmosphere contributing?

And while you're googling, look up the IPCC and its mission statement. It is not a scientific body. It says so in black and white. It collects papers from volunteer scientists from around the world and summarizes the findings. With only a mission to prove a predectiated conclusion of "human-induced" nothing scientific about it.

If man is not creating global warming then there is no reason for IPCC to even exist. These 2500 politicians and scientists would not have a job.

IF YOUR EARNING YOUR INCOME FROM THE IPCC ARE YOU GOING TO FIND ANYTHING BUT THAT MAN IS TO BLAME?

um, Jim? I think you better go back and reread what has been leaked> those nuts and bolts you are talking about are really the fleecing of anyone poorer than us and UK

Whatever about the need to reduce CO2 emissions,
largely from electricity and transport (80% of emissions)
that should in the case of electricity be done by acting on power supplies rather than consumers


There is no energy shortage:
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.


Since when do Light Bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales that helps pay for CO2 emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxation can be lifted when enough low emission energy is in place.
The taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.


Few seem to know about the industrial profit politics behind the
supposedly environmentally justified Light Bulb and other bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

Oh yeah, giving money to corrupt 3rd world dictators -- that's always worked, hasn't it? Remember when we were going to transform Haiti and gave them $ 2 billion to rebuild that country, plus a lot of money from other nations? The money simply disappeared, and Hatians still eat dirt. This Copenhagen extortion will fail.

The Naz Has Spoken


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »

Categories


Archives