|
|
|
|
You are here: Home » Kyoto Protocol .1» Kyoto Protocol .2» US & Protocol» CDM» » CDM China » CDM Africa Opportunities» CDM Africa Challenges» Carbon Credit» Carbon Trading » Carbon Offset » Bali Roadmap » Copenhagen » Copenhagen sea-saw » Copenhagen Accord » Sustainability » High Speed Rail » Tribute to Chairman Chow.
Whilst the industrialized countries responsible for historic greenhouse gas emissions agrees to be bound by the Kyoto Protocol; they seek to include some rising developing countries which are substantially responsible for present emissions in the Copenhagen conference. This inclusion was seen by developing countries as an attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. The rising developing nations bloc of China, India, Brazil and South Africa (the Basic Countries ) was poised to block any legal binding of emissions reduction imposed on them for fear of slowing down their momentum of economic growth. The Copenhagen conference spent more time arguing about process that it was
Salient Points in The Copenhagen Accord :
The three-page nonbinding agreement was not fully accepted by all of the nations in attendance, dismissing it as a weak political agreement that was hastily drawn up to give credence to an apparently failed conference, brushing aside efforts from years of climate negotiations. Obama of US said: "This progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much further to go." The European Union commented the conference and accord a "disaster" and President Barroso said "I will not hide my disappointment regarding the non-binding nature of the agreement here." France commented "The text we have is not perfect...If we had no deal, that would mean that India and China would be freed from any type of contract." China said that the weak agreement was because of distrust between nations: "To meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation." India was pleased but regretted that the accord "did not constitute a mandate for future commitment". The G77 explained that it will only secure the economic security of a few nations. Australia was happy overall but "wanted more".
Brazil called the agreement "disappointing". UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon commented “Everyone didn’t get everything. But this Accord is an essential beginning. We will try to turn it into a legally binding agreement as soon as possible.” The U.S. was criticized for an offer of just 4% emissions reduction on 1990 levels. E.U. governments only agreed in principle to cut their carbon emissions unilaterally by 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and produce 20% of their energy from renewable sources ( so called the 20-20-20 goals). They pledged to make deeper cuts of 30% if other major economies committed to equivalent measures. China firmly adhered to her principal of common but differentiated responsibilities, would not compromise any constraints on its economic growth. She has announced that she would be taking a voluntary action based on her own national conditions to go for energy efficiency, to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by up to 45% by 2020 from 2005 base regardless of the Copenhagen outcome. China stressed that the developed countries should be willing to transfer their green technology to make possible the quest for energy efficiency and carbon reduction. Major developed and developing countries agreed to submit their quantified, economy wide emissions targets for 2020 by January 31. The developing countries agreed to list their voluntary pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years. They need to submit plans outlining appropriate mitigation actions for them to qualify for funding. It is only through finance and technology transfer from the industrialized countries, that developing countries will be able to carry out projects to militate climate change.
The Environment Ministers from BASIC countries will meet to discuss to reach a coordinated approach to climate change related issues early 2010 in the run up to Mexico (Dec. 2010).
Footnote: The Climate Gate scandal made headlines when thousands of emails were hacked at a climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich and publicized. They indicated misconducts by climate scientists such as withholding scientific information, interfering with the peer-review process of scientific papers, deleting information to prevent disclosure under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, and selecting data to support the case for global warming. The incident has prompted general discussion about increasing the openness of scientific data. The IPCC and others view the incident as a sabotage to undermine the Copenhagen conference. Scientists, scientific organizations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change. (Wikipedia) The Danish
Text
An analysis of the document as interpreted by developing countries listed the following strategies to be used by developed countries that:
This not only aroused outcry of anger amongst the developing nations against the developed nations for working behind closed doors in the latter's favor, but also created greater distrusts of the developing countries on the industrialized nations. Failure of the Copenhagen conference would mean discontinuation to the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been hailed as a lifeline to the Earth from disastrous effects of climate change. Discontinuation would translate to the carbon market not having further legal ground. Trading in carbon credits as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol offers a very viable incentive of encouraging emissions reduction. The problems facing the carbon markets as a result of the Copenhagen failure thus spell bad news for low-carbon businesses and technologies, and ultimately for the Earth!
References and related news:
UNITED NATIONS Draft decision
-/CP.15 Copenhagen
Accord
|
|
