Let’s be honest, Copenhagen was not what we expected. What we had in mind was that an international treaty in which countries would accept to be legally bound to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions would be achieved. The main purpose of the summit was the establishment of a strong and binding agreement, and this was not achieved.
BUT, we Sustentators believe that in order to progress we need to find the positive side of things. While no binding agreement was reached, there were other accomplishments, possibly minor, but not irrelevant.
To start with, more than 110 world leaders gathered with a common goal: to discuss how to address climate change. We believe this is really remarkable. The Presidents of the USA, China, Germany, France and Brazil, among others, were in Copenhagen. That means the world and political leaders are giving increasing importance to global warming.
Secondly, the conference was covered by thousands of media reporting during the two weeks of Copenhagen on the progress and challenges that occurred there. This breadth in media coverage must have reached many people around the world, which were in contact with environmental problems. This is a virtuous circle, because if more people are aware, the social pressure increases for politicians, and this helps legitimate stronger actions.
Read Post
The UN-backed scheme to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has made significant progress during the climate talks in Copenhagen. The system aims to pay poorer nations for saving or replanting their forests. Taking into account that deforestation is responsible for nearly a fifth of man-emitted greenhouse gases this could prove a valuable contribution towards curbing the pace of global warming.
Tony La Vina, the chair of REDD negotiations, said that the scheme is “more or less agreed text except in a few places.”
REDD was adopted two years ago during UN climate talks in Bali, Indonesia. If fully adopted it could mark important progress regarding climate change issues, particularly because it could see billions of dollars flowing to developing countries. By paying forest communities and purchasing carbon offsets, richer nations would encourage greater participation, and interest, by some developing countries on these issues. This might also go a long way to resolving disputes between developed and developing nations on the shape of overall global climate change schemes.
Financing has not yet been decided but a US official recently said the US had pledged $1 billion as part of a $3.5 billion scheme of initial financing toward curbing deforestation.
Roman Czebiniak of Greenpeace warned, however, that REDD might become a loophole allowing big corporations to continue to pollute as long as they set up a small forestry project in developing countries. This is why broader targets on reducing deforestation must go hand in hand with schemes such as these. It is not enough to protect certain areas; we also need more sustainable forestry solutions and for that governments need to establish gradual reductions regarding deforestation levels.
La Vina did comment, unfortunately, that the dispute on REDD was unlikely to be resolved in Copenhagen but he thought it might be settled during 2010. This seems to be the case with many of the agreements that were expected during the COP15 summit but it should not be a reason to lose hope. Change rarely takes place overnight but the important thing is that change happens. Hopefully 2010 will, indeed, mark the end of the Copenhagen summit negotiations’ finishing touches. If it does not then I will be worried.
Source: REUTERS
Many say the first week of the COP15 (Fifteenth Conference of the Parties) to the UNFCCC was relatively slow in advancing towards the necessary deal to limit greenhouse gases. This week is the second and last. On Thursday and Friday, around 110 world leaders will be gathering to discuss and decide what joint strategy is to be enforced.
One of the main problems these past days in Copenhagen had to do with the differences between developed and developing countries. Developed countries want a deal that includes and, in a way, surpasses the Kyoto Protocol by making both the rich and the poor limit their greenhouse gas emissions; whereas developing nations (mainly African countries) want to extend the Kyoto Protocol (that only binds industrialized nations), and create a new deal for the poor.
Yesterday, African nations demanding more commitment toward Kyoto, boycotted the main session of climate talks, just before noon. But thanks to informal talks with the COP presidency, negotiations were resumed.
On the other hand, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon wisely suggested negotiators to get their job done, and not to leave “tough issues” to world leaders, because this might bring about a defective deal, or no deal at all.
Read Post
-
US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and in his acceptance speech he emphasized the need for fighting climate change. He mentioned that from scientists and environmental activists to military leaders, the knowledge that “our common security hangs in the balance” is widespread.
-
100 nations are demanding more ambitious targets in terms of combating climate change. Among these, the 43-member alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is particularly concerned about the effect rising sea levels can have on them. The least developed countries (LDCs) and
the AOSIS support the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees temperature rise. This would require at least a 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by rich nations, from 1990 levels by 2020. -
A new draft, the “Copenhagen Accord” has surfaced, prepared by China, India, South Africa and Brazil, the four major emerging economies. The draft suggests that rich countries should reduce their emissions by more than 40% compared to 1990 levels, and that the Kyoto Protocol should include a “binding” amendment. The draft was posted by French newspaper “Le Monde” in its website. The “Copenhagen Accord” aims at keeping temperatures from increasing more than two degrees compared to pre-industrial levels. An interesting proposal is that emissions reductions should be achieved “mainly through domestic measures” and not so much through paying for offsetting in other countries.
Read Post
The fifteenth meeting of the UNFCCC members in Copenhagen, Denmark, started this Monday. It will last two weeks, and will determine the future of our planet. The world leaders gathered there have humanity’s future in their hands. The transcendence of this conference cannot be undermined.
Below we present some of the selected main news of these past two days’ progress.
-
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has shown his optimism that a strong agreement
to fight climate change can be reached in Copenhagen. “From all corners of the globe we see unprecedented momentum for a deal… I’m encouraged and I’m optimistic.” -
An alleged Danish draft proposal for climate initiatives was published by British newspaper The Guardian. Apparently, developing nations are not exactly thrilled with the draft’s content.
-
A study released yesterday claims that between 25 million and one billion people might have to leave their homes in the next four decades, due to natural disasters. However, few of them might be able to do so, because of a lack of the necessary means to move to more secure places. The study is from the International Organization for Migration. It adds that in recent years, the “number of people affected by natural disasters has more than doubled”.
Read Post
Starting yesterday, December 7, and over the next two weeks delegates from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the long-awaited 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). Just how much can be achieved is debatable but the sense of urgency has never been greater.
The main areas for discussion include:
-
Targets curbing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in developing countries.
-
Financial support for developing countries trying to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
-
A carbon trading scheme which aims to end the destruction of the world’s forests by 2030.
Fortunately, Connie Hedegaard, the COP President, believes that failure in Copenhagen is “not an option”. She points out that if no agreement is concluded then “the failure is not just about climate” but rather of the whole global democratic system. She also argues that “it would be irresponsible not to use the momentum now.” Clearly, there has been a growth in awareness and interest regarding climate change issues. This is precisely why Copenhagen has been looked upon as such a great opportunity for progress. Nonetheless, some leaders, including President Obama, have suggested an agreement may not be possible during this summit which is a disheartening but very real possibility.
Read Post
We have already analyzed the tools being developed by the Sustainability Institute. This organization has created interactive simulation models that help people in charge of environmental decision-making.
Now the Sustainability Institute has released the Climate Scoreboard, which aims to keep citizens updated on the daily progress made in Copenhagen, and how negotiations will impact on our future.
The Climate Scoreboard is a widget that can be embedded to any webpage, blog or social media. It is updated regularly to include news from Copenhagen. It shows how proposals made in the conference will most likely affect the future climate.
Above is the embedded widget. The yellow “business-as-usual” line stands for the expected temperature increase that might take place by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.
Read Post
Today starts the fifteenth meeting of the members of the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). They meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss how the world will jointly address climate change. The challenges are numerous, and so are the opportunities.
COP15 stands for Conference of the Parties, and the number 15 is there because this is the fifteenth meeting. The parties are 192, and they meet once a year to discuss the convention’s actions and developments in terms of addressing climate change.
The first COP was in Berlin in 1995.
The Danish government, being in charge of the organization of the conference, wants this COP15 to result in an ambitious global agreement, to which all countries adhere.
Many argue that this our last chance to achieve an international agreement to fight climate change, that establishes mitigation and adaptation strategies. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the agreement hopefully approved and ratified these next two weeks will replace it and surpass it.
Yesterday, the UN chief on climate change Yvo de Boer said that: “Never in the 17 years of climate change negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together”. China, India, the US, Indonesia and others have announced their planned targets in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The amount of studies that prove that global warming is happening as a consequence of human actions keeps growing. Scientific evidence is more than enough. What we need is to show our concerns, let politicians know that we care. We need world leaders to realize the transcendence of the climate crisis, and act consequently. A legally binding treaty is possibly the only warrantee that countries will respect whatever pledges they make. Let’s hope one is achieved.
For many people, climate change is already a fact. Scientific studies are all around, showing us over and over again how we humans are so mistakenly managing natural resources that we are bringing on our own destruction. We are altering the Earth’s natural ways of keeping a balance.
Only after mid 1900s did we start to look for ways of solving our own mess. The famous Kyoto Protocol tried to make countries put into practice a set of mechanisms to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. One of these mechanisms is carbon trading, a market-based tool to limit GHG emissions.
The basic idea behind carbon trading is that emissions as a whole need to be limited. How to do that? Limit different players’ permission to emit greenhouse gases. Given that for certain industries it is harder to switch to a least emitting way of functioning, the trade factor comes along. If a certain company is having trouble reducing its GHG, it can buy some other company’s permission to emit.
Read Post
Loading...