Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts

Sunday, December 12, 2010

UN meeting OKs climate deal


A U.N. conference has approved a two-part climate deal that creates a Green Climate Fund and takes other small steps to deal with global warming.

Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, the conference president, gaveled the decisions early Saturday over the objections of Bolivia, which said the deal didn't go far enough in curbing climate change.

Decisions at the U.N. climate talks are typically taken by consensus, but Espinosa says consensus doesn't "mean that one country has the right to veto" decisions supported by everyone else.


View the original article here

Friday, December 10, 2010

India's climate position 'nuanced': Ramesh


Under attack from opposition parties and NGOs back home, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh today admitted to "nuancing" of the Indian position that it will not accept internationally legally binding emission cuts.

He said there has been no shifting of the goal post and that he stood by India's position that it will not accept internationally binding cuts "at this stage" because he does not know what are the conditions that accompany them.

He justified the nuancing of the Indian position in his speech yesterday in which he said that all countries must take on binding commitments under an appropriate legal form, saying it was done so that India is "not isolated".

"There is no shift in the position, only nuancing," he told PTI, pointing out that India was trying to find room for "maneuver" due to increasing pressure from developing nations. "We remain anchored in non-negotiable but we are expanding our options," he said.

The minister came under attack from opposition parties and NGOs in India which attacked him for taking unilateral stand, deviating from long held Indian position that it will not accept any internationally legally binding emission cuts. They also said he had exceeded the Parliamentary mandate.

"All I said was that all countries must take binding commitments in appropriate legal form. This does not mean that India is taking on a legally binding agreement at this stage. That's our position," Ramesh said.

"Negotiations is all about flexibility, negotiations is all about seeing what is happening and responding creatively. I think frankly, I have not changed the goal post, I have nuanced our position. Our positions remains let me say we will not accept a legally binding agreement at this stage," he told reporters.

"We are not the bad guys, that's very important for India not to be isolated in any of these international forums and we have larger stake in the world economy today that we had perhaps 25 years ago," the minister said.

The vague nature of his remarks has also divided NGOs and the media about whether he was referring to legally binding commitments or a legally binding agreement- although both are linked. "It is a matter of perception, they are entitled to their views but they are wrong," he said.

"I think India's national interest has been advanced and improved by coming across as proactive, which is important for a country as large as India," Ramesh said.

Pushing hardest for a legally binding treaty are small island nations, which are the most vulnerable to climate change. Countries in India's vicinity- Bangladesh, Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal- are also supporting a legally binding pact.

The United States, India and China are not in favor of accepting a legally binding agreement, which is supported by other developed countries, and several nations within the G77 including African nations and Least Developed Countries.

India's close allies on the climate change issue - Brazil and South Africa - are also in favor of a legally binding agreement, which is causing divisions within the BASIC group. Public opinion, however, remains divided on whether Ramesh "abandoned" India's position.

Raman Mehta from the Climate Action Network, South Asia, observed that Ramesh had not shifted from India's position. Facing pressure from other developing countries, Mehta noted that Ramesh had "tried to use language creatively but hadn't made a substantive shift."

The statement, he said, "is not such a bad thing" since it stems out of "pressure from developed countries but rather to accommodate developing countries." Chandra Bhushan from the Centre of Science and Environment, however, argued that Ramesh had indeed abandoned India's position.

"It removes the firewall between the developed and developing countries...it internationalizes India's domestic voluntary action," Bhushan said.


View the original article here

Negotiators cite progress at climate talks


Negotiators reported progress on Thursday at the UN climate conference, setting the stage for agreements on a support fund for poorer nations and other steps easing global warming's impact. But it appeared the complex talks might run overtime into the weekend.

Once again this year the annual negotiations under the UN climate treaty, scheduled to end Friday, won't produce an overarching, legally binding deal to slash emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases. From the start, the talks focused instead on secondary areas, including setting up the "green fund" for developing countries.

But in that and in a half-dozen other areas, world environment ministers and other delegates were still haggling late Thursday over the wording of texts.

Veteran Brazilian climate envoy Luiz Figueiredo, helping lead a key section of the talks, nonetheless sounded a positive note, echoing the sentiment of other delegates. "We are engaging heavily with other parties. It is a good signal," he told reporters on Thursday evening. "Parties are talking, parties are negotiating on the most difficult issues, so I am very hopeful that we will get to a good outcome tomorrow."

But Akira Yamada of Japan, whose government's resistance to committing to future emissions cuts has slowed the talks, predicted later the conference might have to extend into Saturday.

Yamada did say he believed parties could reach agreement. The talks were difficult, he said, but "we are engaging in how we can find good wording which can accommodate not only Japan but other countries."

As some 15,000 delegates, environmentalists, business leaders, journalists and others met at this Caribbean resort, carbon dioxide and other global warming gases, byproducts of industry, vehicles and agriculture, continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, barely abated by modest emission reductions undertaken thus far.

Scientists say temperatures could rise by up to 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) in this century without deeper cuts, leading to serious damage to coastlines, human health, agriculture and economies in general.

"We all will leave Cancun knowing very clearly that we have not very significantly changed the time window in which the world will be able to address climate change," Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Program, told reporters.

Bolivia's President Evo Morales, addressing the full conference, cited families already being deprived of water because of warming and drought, and islanders facing the loss of homes from seas rising from global warming.

If governments shun strong, mandatory emissions reductions, "then we will be responsible for `ecocide,' which is equivalent to genocide because this would be an affront to mankind as a whole," the Bolivian leader said.

Copenhagen Failure

Last year's climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, was supposed to have produced a global pact under which richer nations, and possibly some poorer ones, would be required to rein in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry, vehicles and agriculture.

That agreement would have succeeded the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which mandated modest emissions reductions by developed nations that expire in 2012. Alone in the industrial world, the US rejected Kyoto, complaining that emerging economies, such as China and India, should also have taken on obligations.

The 2009 summit produced instead a "Copenhagen Accord" under which the US, China and more than 80 other nations made voluntary pledges to reduce emissions, or at least to limit their growth.

In a sign of the sensitivity of even voluntary pledges, the US and China were squabbling in Cancun over an effort to "anchor" them in a fresh UN document. The Chinese want separate listings to maintain a distinction between developing and developed countries, and the Americans want a single integrated list.

Japan, meanwhile, has resisted language that would commit it to a second period of Kyoto-style emissions reductions beyond 2012.

Yamada said the 37 industrialized countries that ratified Kyoto now account for only 27 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. It's time for others — the US and China included — to join in mandatory cutbacks, he said. "For an ultimate goal, we are aiming for a single legally binding instrument, in which all major emitters participate," the Japanese negotiator told reporters.

The European Union, meanwhile, joined with small island states and Costa Rica in proposing that parties commit to taking up a "legally binding instrument" at next year's climate conference in Durban, South Africa.

The US delegation also seeks detailed provisions for monitoring, reporting and verification, called "MRV," of how China and other developing nations are fulfilling their voluntary Copenhagen pledges. A leading environmentalist here accused American negotiators of blocking a decision on the green fund in "the kind of brinkmanship that costs lives."

"The United States continues to hold these important decisions hostage in an effort to get what they want on transparency and MRV. This is unacceptable," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International.

The green fund would help developing nations buy advanced clean-energy technology to reduce their own emissions, and to adapt to climate change, by building seawalls against rising seas, for example, and upgrading farming practices to compensate for shifting rain patterns. Under the Copenhagen Accord, richer nations promised to provide $100 billion a year for the fund by 2020.


View the original article here