Time running out for climate for climate talks

Rift between developed and developing nations might be to great.

With just five negotiating days left before the global-war,ing summit in Copenhagen this December, the international climate community has tenpered its expectations and begun to look for a graceful exit.

Pressure on global leaders has been building since negotiators signed the 'Bali Road Map' in December 2007, which set an aggressive time-table that was supposed to conclude in Denmark with a treaty to follow the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Rich and poor countries alike have spent two years crafting climate policies and proposals, but deep divisions remain.

When irate representatives of developing nations walked out of a meeting with European officials in Bangkok earlire this month, many realised that even technical questions obout how to structure a deal might be out of reach this year.

Only one interim negotiating meeting remains ― in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-6 NoVember.

Even staunch optimists are now erthinking their definition of success in Copenhagen.

(… to be continue…)

### DataBace ###
nature Vol.461 1019-1162 Issue no.7267 22 Octover 2009
Editorials p.1027 :"Climate of compromise"
Destination Copenhagen :「コペンハーゲン会議の行方

"I don't like the term 'global deal'," says Jennifer Morgan, who heads climate policy for the World Resources Institute in Washington DC.

"The question is whether we can reach an agreement that allows countries to move forward with confidence."

Many ideas have been floated on how to accomplish that goal.

Some argue for building a consensus around areas of agreement and holding off on contentious issues involving money or specific commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Othere focus on the architecture of a treaty and a broad, if symbolic, agreement among global leaders.

Some have suggested simply 'stopping the clock' on negotiations for a few months.

Such proposals are intended to build political confidence and maintain momentum while allowing the United States more time to work out its domestic policy.

Although the House of Representatives has passed climate legislation that would curb emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below by 2050, Senate Democrats are running out of time to pass a companion bill before Copenhagen.

With the United States in limbo, the Europeans are necessarily leading the talks for the developed world.

The European Union (EU) has commtted to reduce its Greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if there is a global deal, but even those numbers are not enough for most developing countries.

The Group of 77 (G77), which represents China, India and the majority of developing nations, is calling on rich countries to cut their emissions by 40% by 2020.

So Far, only Norway has stepped up to that challenge.

India's enviroment minister, Jairam Ranesh, says the negotiations are unlikely to go anywhere unless wealthy nations embrace more ambitious emissions reductioms and promise more money to help developing countries cope with climate change.

He says nagotiators should focus on a few key issues, including deforestation, adaptation money for the least developed nations, and the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows rich countries to offest their emissions by paying for clean-energy and other 'green' projects in the developing world.

"We need a more limited and more pragmatic approach if we are going to make Copenhagen a success," Ramesh says.

At the same time, wealthy nations are insisting on stronger commitments from developing countries ― many of whom have responded by introducing significant new policies.

Indonesia recently announced plans to reduce its emissions by 26% by 2020 compared with predicted levels if emissions were left uncurbed, pledging a 41% reduction if it receives international aid for measures such as stopping deforestation.

Even India, which has repeatedly said it won't commit to anything until its per-capita emissions reach those of the developed world (see graphic), has proposed the idea of 'volunary mitigation outcomes' that would allow the country to calculate specific emissions reductions based on expanding solar power and other existing climate policies.

China, the world's largest emitter, is moving forwards with aggressive energy-efficiency targets and renewable-energy mandates ― but has yet to pledge binding commitments or agree a date to level off its explosive emissions growth.

Meny were caught off guard in Bangkok when officials from the G77 and Europe fought over the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

The G77 wants to maintain Kyoto ― which is binding for develiped but not developing countries on greenhouse-gas emissions ― as the primary international framework.

EU officials want to create a single new treaty under the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and then inport the Kyoto Protocol.

The United States claims neutrality, but some fear that it could impede progress by cherry-picking which parts of kyoto it would be willing to subscribe to in a new treaty.

Some observers believe that the biggest challenge will be money, particularly in the midst of an economic crisis.

Costs for adaptation to climate change in the developing world alone have been estimated at US$100 billion annually, and some suggest the figure could be two or three times that amount.

The World Bank estimates that establishing a low-carbon economy in developing countries could cost several hundred billion dollars each year.

Money could enable progress on other fronts.

Some developing nations have proposed to allow rich countries that cannot sufficiently reduce their emissions to make up the shortfall with cash.

Indeed, after blasting the omadequacy of the US climate proposals, India's Ramesh smiles and acknowledges that a deal would be much more likely if the United States were to put, say, $200 billion on the table.

(… to be continue…)

posted by 0≠素子(由理政宗) at 01:48| Road to Copenhagen | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする