One thing is certain about Copenhagen: We will certainly end up with a watered down weak framework agreement on emissions, without strict compliance mechanisms, and it will be no good for the chances of hitting well above the 2 Celsius in atmospheric temperature rises… Straight talk from the Environmental Parliament in New York.
The divisive split between the US and the EU comes amid mounting concern that the Copenhagen talks will not make the necessary progress and a dismal outcome is to be expected.. Even the soft spoken Ban Ki Moon, the UN gen-sec said that negotiations had stalled and need to get moving again if anything is to come out of it.
The UN climate change summit of almost 100 heads of government in New York this week represents the future of humanity. The Environmental Parliament is here ‘en masse’ to address the change. We are all deeply concerned that the negotiation is not making any headway. However it is absolutely and crucially important for the global leaders to demonstrate their political will and leadership and to address this crisis.
Mainly the dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems set up under Kyoto, the existing global treaty on climate change. All the US negotiators have told European counterparts is that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design. Trust the Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other options…
But here the issue is highly sensitive and European officials are reluctant to openly criticise the Obama administration, which they acknowledge has been a sea change. But they admittedly fear that the US moves would sink all efforts to agree a robust Climate Change deal in Copenhagen.
We all remember as the US distanced itself from Kyoto under the Bushies because it supposedly made no demands on China, and the developing world. The Europeans knew all along that the US would be reluctant to embrace Kyoto, but they hoped they would be able to use it as a foundation for a new agreement. But the US interests tell another story. They want Kyoto scraped. OK?
Now let’s think reasonably…If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change in the immediate term. It is a real ploy of politicians who don’t want to deal with the issues to pass them o to others to deal with in the next term. But the rest of the world and especially in Europe we want to build on Kyoto, except that the US proposal would in effect kill it all off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes more time than we have. It could be 2020 before something is in place, and nobody knows what that is. Still we expect the peak to be at 2015 for emissions if we are to redress and avoid 3C -5C rises. Maybe divine intervention will appear in some exceptionalist God fearing American form.
If the EU actually heads for a showdown that may be what the US plan is likely to be. The anger that many feel in the developing world, who are keen to retain Kyoto because of the obligations it makes on rich countries, is already felt by the people gathered in NYC this week.
A global system is what Kyoto simply is. Under the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse gas reductions are subject to an international system that regulates the calculation of emissions, the purchase of carbon credits and contribution of sectors such as forestry. The US is pushing instead for a new and delayed agreement where each country is to set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target of emissions cuts. US hasn’t offered full details on how its scheme might work, but the Obama team in May said it’s draft contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to “conformity with domestic law”.
Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with. The move reflects a “prehistoric” level of debate on climate change in the wider US, and anxiety in the Obama administration about its ability to get a new global treaty ratified in the US Senate, where it would require a two-thirds majority vote. The US has not ratified a major international environment treaty since 1992 and President Clinton and Al Gore in a show of political expediency or lack of back bone, never even offered the Kyoto protocol to Congress. They were fearful, after a Senate vote indicated it could be rejected on economic grounds…
The US proposal for unilateral rule-setting is all about getting some kind of environmental legislation through the Senate. But I have the feeling that the US has thought through what this means for the Copenhagen agreements and they are ready for the US torpedoed COP15 summit to fail in December so they can come back with a US led version of SAVE THE WORLD.
This move could open Pandora’s box and all the loopholes for all the countries to meet arbitrary targets without genuine carbon cuts and to be passing off climate campaigns of just rhetoric and flash without any climate impact. It is a bit like when the media and film advertising posh people hijack earnest campaigns like the 10×10 and turn them into an advertising platform for a film. Pretty daft and pretty useless. Now though all of Europe is not so concerned that the US would just crave the limelight or that would just design and exploit such loopholes, but it fears that all other countries might just get the right ticket to do just that. Just think of the nightly emissions targets of Silvio and you get the idea.
Naturally the US State Department, which handles climate change, of course as a matter of policy does not comment. Although there has been a sea change in the US attitudes on climate and the new president Obama is interested on the issue of a global agreement, there are more serious concerns with the administration. It is here that the EU needs to understand the limitations within the US political executive bodies. The reality is that is it impossible for anyone to negotiate something in Copenhagen beyond whatever Congress is willing to give the White House administration in it’s domestic cap-and-trade legislation now facing the Senate.
Although this is not welcome news in Europe. the Kyoto protocol isn’t sacrosanct. Many decisions were taken when the US was not at the negotiating table and they fear that they are slowly being sidelined. Importing the Kyoto architecture into a new agreement isn’t an option either. The reason Clinton – Gore didn’t bring it to vote, is now the same for the Obama – Bidden team. Except that John Holdren and all the scientists of this administration understand the urgency. It is vitally important for the US to negotiate an agreement it can fulfil, because any other agreement that did not involve the United States leadership would be unacceptable to the Saviours of the World.
