MOOD MIXED AS CLIMATE SUMMIT ENDS

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 14 Dec 2008

Richard Black - BBC News Environment Correspondent

    Poznan – The UN climate summit has ended with delegates taking very different views on how much it has achieved.
    
    Western delegates said progress here had been encouraging, but environment groups said rich countries had not shown enough ambition.

    Developing nations were angry that more money was not put forward to protect against climate impacts.

    The meeting is the halfway point on a two-year process aimed at reaching a deal in Copenhagen by the end of 2009.

    As envisaged at last year’s conference in Bali, that agreement is supposed to have two major elements – an expanded Kyoto Protocol-style deal committing industrialised countries to deeper emission cuts in the mid-term, perhaps by 2020, and a longer-term agreement encompassing all countries.

    "The conference enabled us to make real progress on every topic on the Bali roadmap," said Martin Bursik, Environment Minister of the Czech Republic, which assumes the EU presidency in January.

    "All the elements exist for us to reach an efficient and equitable agreement in Copenhagen."

    But the comments of Tim Jones of the World Development Movement summed up the feelings of many groups campaigning for environmental protection and poverty alleviation.

    "There has been disappointingly little progress on the agreement reached last year in Bali," he said.

    "Yet again the rich countries, who carry the historical responsibility for climate change, have failed to offer sufficient cuts."

    There was also disappointment that the energy and climate deal reached by EU heads of state in Brussels had been watered down at the last minute.

    Funding Gap

    The only concrete decision of any major significance concerned the management of the Adaptation Fund, which gathers money to help poorer countries protect their societies and economies against the impacts of climate change.

    Developing countries lobbied for easier access to the money, and they won the day.

    The money comes from a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, which aims to fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.

    The decision means that adaptation money can begin to flow at some point next year.

    But there is general acknowledgment that the current level of funds – about $60m – is far lower than will be needed.

    To bridge the gap, developing countries wanted greatly to expand the levy to cover other kinds of carbon trade. This would have multiplied the amount of money going into the fund by at least an order of magnitude.

    Industrialised nations could not support this, viewing a deal on this kind of financing as something that should form part of a more comprehensive Copenhagen package.

    But many developing countries expressed their anger.

    "It is not clear how a ‘strong political signal’ can be sent by not paying for pollution that you have caused," said Pakistan’s delegate Faruukh Khan.

    "We would have hoped that our partners would have taken this necessary step on the road to Copenhagen; but unfortunately the road to Copenhagen is being paved with good intentions."

    Step Change

    If the Copenhagen talks are to reach an agreement, most observers said the pace of discussions would have to increase markedly.

    "They’re going to have to enter full negotiating mode – full speed ahead," said Angela Ledford-Anderson, director of the international global warming programme with the Pew Environment Group.

    "But President-elect Barack Obama has said he’s going to engage vigorously, so that brings new hope; and we’ve seen a number of developing countries really stepping up to the plate."

    The next 12 months will bring a series of meetings at official level, and a draft negotiating text for Copenhagen should emerge by June.

    In the immediate future, eyes turn to Australia, which is due to announce its climate change policy on Monday.

GO TO ORIGINAL

 

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Comments are closed.