The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary in order to jolt the intransigent European Union and other developed nations to move forward with serious discussions, rather than obstruct progress by bringing only lofty rhetoric and no numbers to the negotiating table. The plan seems to have worked, albeit temporarily, as negotiations resumed today about how to extend the Kyoto Protocol and forge binding agreements with the West to slash emissions and provide cash to developing nations to deal with climate shocks and facilitate clean economic development.
However, delegates from developing nations and climate campaign groups continue to report that progress has been too slow in Barcelona, setting the stage for inevitable failure in Copenhagen. Activist groups and developing world negotiators continue to press the West to pick up the pace immediately or risk failing to reach a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen next month.
Europe renewed its non-specific posturing today, at first suggesting that developed countries could still bring promises, if not numbers, to Copenhagen, but ultimately confirming that the Europe Union—and the U.S.—have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India, and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates.
Copenhagen is the pinnacle in a series of negotiations stretching back two years over how to create a legally binding agreement that brings the United States into the fold on the international response to climate change, and simultaneously craft the next round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Since the U.S. failed to join the 1997 global treaty, negotiations have proceeded under these two tracks to ensure that work can continue on emissions reductions among Kyoto signatories, while the world grapples with how to hold the U.S. accountable internationally both on greenhouse-gas reductions and financial commitments to assist developing nations.
Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China bloc, challenged Europe and the industrialized world to get serious again Wednesday in order to move the fragile talks forward.
Lumumba, whose ability to articulate the urgency and necessity of the developing world’s pleas for action on climate change is unrivaled by any other delegate present at the talks, made clear once again today that the West must bring science-based targets and an indelible ink pen to the Copenhagen negotiation table, or else Africa, low-lying island nations, and indigenous peoples—the populations most vulnerable to climate change—will rapidly face death and economic ruin as the atmosphere cooks and sea levels rise.
In the G-77 press conference this afternoon, I asked Lumumba whether he was concerned by the potential domino effect of additional developed countries adopting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s position, reported by Reuters on Monday, that a “politically binding agreement” is more likely to emerge in Copenhagen rather than a legally binding agreement. The “politically binding” sentiment seems poised to snowball among other major industrialized nations, in spirit if not yet in the same exact words.
Lumumba, in his typically graceful fashion, calmly but sternly replied to my question stating, “I do not know of anything called a politically binding agreement. If there is anything that you know about politics and political manifestos is that they are worth very little. Tell me of any politician who delivered on his political manifesto. Is it Gordon Brown [UK]? Is it Kevin Rudd [Australia]?”
False promises of politically binding commitment without legally binding teeth will not be worth a damn to Africa and the rest of the vulnerable developing countries. As soon as one world leader from the West who signs onto such a wishy-washy agreement loses power, and their successor refuses to comply with such a non-binding agreement—an entirely possible scenario since there is no legal basis to follow through on such a commitment—the whole process would fail. Climate change would continue to punish the developing world, which would face many more years of delay while the negotiators reconvened to start over.
So only a legally binding agreement is acceptable in Copenhagen, or Africa and other vulnerable populations are doomed to death and destruction, Lumumba told me.
“What can we achieve in Barcelona? This is what we are asking developed countries. You have to live up to the ambition that saves the world. In Africa’s words, it is 40 [percent emissions reductions by 2020] minimum. Anything south of 40 means that Africa’s population, Africa’s land mass is offered destruction as the only alternative to choose from. And I think you can logically understand why the African states are very angry about that,” he said.
Yes we can, Mr. Lumumba. Yes we can.
Watch the G-77 press conference here. (I ask my question at the 8:15-9 minute mark and Lumumba responds beginning at the 16 minute mark)
Curious to hear the European response to the G-77’s clear call for a legally binding agreement, later today I asked the E.U. delegation to explain specifically what time frame would be acceptable to set legally binding targets if Copenhagen fails to produce solid results and instead ends with such a politically binding (i.e. hollow) agreement, or worse still, no agreement.
It was the last question the E.U. delegation took from the press today, and provides all the clarity that Africa and the developing countries can expect from the industrialized world for now.
Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, sitting next to the nodding Swedish delegate (Sweden currently holds the E.U. presidency), responded simply, “It should be as quickly as possible after Copenhagen.” (Full stop, microphones cut, end of press conference.*)
In contrast to the developing world’s clear, specific position, the E.U. seems to act as if these negotiations just started, as if talks haven’t been going on for years since Kyoto. Europe seems to project the image that it is suddenly being asked to answer this fundamental question.
In reality, Europe and the rest of the developed world have had more than ample time over the past decade to develop a clear position. But when pressed on specifics now, just weeks before the world expects a concrete treaty, they are still flailing around like fish out of water.
Much work remains to be done, and 99 percent of the burden rests on the E.U. and U.S. to show the rest of the world they understand the severe implications of any further delay in responding to the climate crisis. The anger from Africa and the rest of the developing world will continue to grow, as will the carbon emissions responsible for climate change.
Europe and the U.S. must stand up and be counted.
*The E.U. press conference is not online yet, but will be here tomorrow.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
LandAnimal Posted 6:08 pm
04 Nov 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:08 am
06 Nov 2009
Obama needs to be made aware that if he fails to confront and expose the denialists' wild conspiracy theories,
and fails to override opposition and negotiate the requisite treaty,
he'll see his support vaporize at elections,
and the first blackish president will go down in history as a one-term dismal failure.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:22 am
05 Nov 2009
"Stern, in comments to the house foreign relations committee today, said his comments playing down prospects for a binding treaty at Copenhagen reflected the views of senior US politicians including Ed Markey, the author of a climate change bill passed in June. Stern insisted that negotiators were intent on producing a blueprint in Copenhagen that would lead to a binding legal agreement "perhaps next year or as soon as possible".
He said: "We want something beyond certainly a declaration that we are going to keep working on this. We want a real agreement." However, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said today that a delay of a year before a legally binding treaty was signed would be too long, given the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions. . . . . "
_______________________________________________
"perhaps next year or as soon as possible".
_______________________________________________
Given that the US govt. knows full well the growing climatic disruption of food production, Stern's attitude to getting a climate treaty evidences his govt.'s willingness to use genocide-by-famine as a negotiating tool.
The charge of a "crime against humanity" needs to be brought into play.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
dreamer Posted 2:09 pm
05 Nov 2009
If so, have they pledged to make birth control information, education, and products widely available and culturally accepted? They walk out of talks because the US has not committed -- to what exactly, spending yet another round of billions to help Africans?
Have African nations pledged to do whatever it takes to bring peace to their continent?
As to this, quote:
Europe renewed its non-specific posturing today, at first suggesting that developed countries could still bring promises, if not numbers, to Copenhagen, but ultimately confirming that the Europe Union—and the U.S.—have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India, and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates. /quote
what's wrong with that?! -- It's ok for USA to ask others to contribute as well.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:08 pm
05 Nov 2009
First, there is no African delegation. There are delegations of each of the many African nations that are signatories of the UN.FCCC. They have taken a common position of registering their disgust with the US refusal to match the UK offer of >40% cut by 2020 (off 1990 baseline) by withdrawing from certain sessions in Barcelona.
Second, among the BRIC nations India has made clear that they will peak and then cut their emissions to avoid exceeding the average of developed nations' declining per capita outputs once that point is reached - and their requirement for signing up to this is that developed nations shall sign up to cutting their GHG emissions by 40% by 2020, among other actions. India has also indicated that China shares this position.
Thus it is patently untrue to claim that they will not sign up to limits on their emissions.
Third, your claim that "It's ok for USA to ask others to contribute as well" expresses clearly the degree to which you've been misinformed. There is no "as well", since the US has adamantly refused to put any number on a cut that it is willing to make. That is, it has simply refused to negotiate.
The nearest it has got in public is to refer to the level of cut mooted in the Congress bill, which was 4% by 2020 off the 1990 baseline (to which the US has signed up).
The science (which the US has formally endorsed) calls for developed nations to make cuts of between 25% and 40% by 2020 (off 1990 baseline) just to have a less-than-even chance of avoiding catastrophic global climate destabilization.
For the US to refer vaguely to a notional 4% cut is thus brazenly destructive of negotiating momentum.
In short, the US is not yet offering to 'contribute' at all to the resolution of this horrific problem, which is largely of its making, despite 20 years of negotiations.
Given that African nations will probably be earliest hit by the genocide-by-famine that climate destabilization is starting to impose, I think you'd be a fool to continue criticizing African delegations' disgust at US intransigence.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
dreamer Posted 2:24 pm
06 Nov 2009
You write:
quote Billhook: "First, there is no African delegation. There are delegations of each of the many African nations that are signatories of the UN.FCCC."
from the article:
quote: "The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary .."
I think you are correct, and the article uses "African" as a writing shortcut. But that's why I used "African" to cover a diverse delegation.
You write: "They [ African nations] have taken a common position of registering their disgust with the US refusal to match the UK offer of >40% cut by 2020 (off 1990 baseline) by withdrawing from certain sessions in Barcelona. "
It's a fact that under Bush, the US has refused to lead or cooperate on environmental matters. In my personal observations I see very little -- certainly not enough -- efforts to consider the environment in everyday decisions, or future decisions. I see excessive and gross overconsumption. It's difficult to see if or how Americans would be willing to make personal reductions, spend more on green tech, live more modestly -- and insist that our elected politicians make unpopular decision like raising taxes to support a more sustainable lifestyle all around.
you write: "Thus it is patently untrue to claim that they will not sign up to limits on their emissions."
Are you saying the article is wrong?
quote" but ultimately confirming that the Europe Union—and the U.S.—have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India, and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates."
Are you saying that China, India and Brazil all are eager to sign and that US/Europe do not?
What about that bit "funding to help poor nations" .. We in US do fund China. We PAYED for their newly found prosperity. We should have been more mindful of keeping the "Made in US" brand and live within our means .. but we didn't, we gave our money, jobs, and know-how away to China to buy unnecesary throw-away products.
We already gave, and gave, and gave , all kinds of aid to Africa. We are actually partially responsible for the well-being that brought increased survival and exploding population growth (giving medical aid, food aid for decades.)
Are we now expected to PAY for them taking responsibility to reduce their emmissions as well ?!
quote article:
"So only a legally binding agreement is acceptable in Copenhagen, or Africa and other vulnerable populations are doomed to death and destruction, Lumumba told me. "
Excuse me?! Blaming everyone else .. so what are African nations doing to take responsibility? (Like, providing birth control, reining in corruption, promoting peace ?!)
quote article:
"The anger from Africa and the rest of the developing world will continue to grow"
What ?! Anger at US? Where is "Thank you, US for all the billions in help you've given us over the years?!" Clean up your own houses / countries first, take responsibility for feeding, clothing, your populations, take responsibilty for preserving your own natural resources, take responsibilty for extinguishing stupid religious customs severely impeding human right.
Of course, we still in the US need to clean up our own act as well. Still, the modern environmental movement has started in the US. I grew up in a 3rd world country, and I wish the world at large would be way more thankful and appreciative of all the contributions by USA and all Americans.
Unfortunately, while humans blame each other and act like 3-year olds (I'm not cleaning my room 'till Johnny cleans his) and expect handouts from USA because we've helped before .. all animal species are disapearing in droves, the garbage patch in the ocean grows, clean water, air, space are rapidly poluted, used up, paved over.
And all our environmental problems would be much easier to solve if the human population was stable and much smaller than it is now.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:13 pm
06 Nov 2009
well that's up to you.
regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Billhook Posted 6:06 am
06 Nov 2009
"Pachauri still sees a chance for success in Copenhagen conference"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/05/pachauri-copenhagen-conference
Pachauri takes a pragmatic and creative approach to the present impasse, making an highly constructive proposal.
He also lays out the exreme hazard and urgency of mitigation of the present position. For instance, he said :
"And you see so much happening all around. Look at the melting of the glaciers all over the world. What are the implications of that? Look at the impacts on agriculture. We ourselves in the IPCC have projected that as early as 2020, we would see certain African countries suffering a decline of 50 percent in agriculture, and these are countries that have massive malnutrition, hunger all around. And if they have a decline of 50 percent, what does that mean? We are asking for disaster."
To put that 50% loss of farm output in context, the great famines of medaeval Europe resulted from a mere 10% to 15% cut in output. So while some African nations will lose 50%, how many other nations around the world are likely to lose that critical 10% to 15% ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
gaiapunk Posted 7:21 pm
06 Nov 2009
Permalink