Obama as Climate Change Villain

New York – Two years of climate change negotiations have now ended in a farce in Copenhagen. Rather than grappling with complex issues, President Barack Obama decided instead to declare victory with a vague statement of principles agreed with four other countries. The remaining 187 were handed a fait accompli , which some accepted and others denounced. After the fact, the United Nations has argued that the document was generally accepted, though for most on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Responsibility for this disaster reaches far and wide. Let us start with George W. Bush, who ignored climate change for the eight years of his presidency, wasting the world’s precious time. Then comes the UN, for managing the negotiating process so miserably during a two-year period. Then comes the European Union for pushing relentlessly for a single-minded vision of a global emissions-trading system, even when such a system would not fit the rest of the world.

Then comes the United States Senate, which has ignored climate change for 15 consecutive years since ratifying the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Finally, there is Obama, who effectively abandoned a systematic course of action under the UN framework, because it was proving nettlesome to US power and domestic politics.

Further on : http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs160

Climate Deal Highlights U.N. Flaws

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaks to the media during a news conference at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen December 19, 2009.

COPENHAGEN - A weak U.N. climate deal, agreed on Saturday after two weeks of talks pulled back from near collapse, underscored the vulnerability of a process depending on consensus and may mark a diminishing U.N. role.
The principal negotiations took place among about 30 countries and the biggest breakthrough involved just five -- the United States, China, Brazil, South Africa and India.

The final deal was not legally binding and left it for countries to choose to participate - all but four or five were expected to do so -- marking a departure from its umbrella U.N. climate convention.

Here are several interesting COP 15 Visualized, a part of the WWF COP 15 effort, facilitated by bigger picture.

http://www.cop15visualised.com/

COP 15 Closing Press Breafing

Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference, Yvo de Boer said an accord has been reached that has significant elements, but that is not legally binding. The key points of the accord include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.

The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from now.

Article on: http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_cop15_20091219.pdf

All.. or Nothing!

Yvo De Boer says the world is in an "all-or-nothing situation" and has urged major countries such as the United States to "act now". "We either get a deal at the end of this week on Friday or we get nothing,". "There are two key issues in current negotiations at the U.N. climate change conference here, one of which was ambitious targets and the other was ambitious financing. He hopes the U.S. can help participating parties to "get a solution on both".

De Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said during an exclusive interview with Xinhua .

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/16/content_12658345.htm

Deadlocked as clashes erupt outside!

The 10-day-old climate talks ran into disputes and paralysis as they entered a critical stage Wednesday, just two days before President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders hope to sign a historic agreement to fight global warming.

Outside the meeting site in Copenhagen's suburbs, police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of demonstrators sought to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand "climate justice" — firm steps to combat global warming.
Police said 260 protesters were detained.

Full article on : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_sc/climate

Survey Showed Fewer Americans Worried By Climate Change

Many Americans seem unworried, the Zogby Interactive survey showed that the percentage not at all concerned about global climate change rose to 37 percent from 27 percent in 2007, while only 20 percent said they were highly concerned, compared with 37 percent in 2007.

Stephen Harned, executive director for the National Weather Association, and a 36-year veteran of the National Weather Service, exlained further, "Well, I think people respond to what is going on around them. In the last couple of years, especially in the Eastern part of the United States, weather patterns have been quite normal,"

The survey also showed 68 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of political independents said they are not at all concerned about global climate change and global warming, compared to just 7 percent of Democrats.

The online interactive survey of 3,072 adults nationwide was conducted December 8-10.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

See more detail : http://www.planetark.org/enviro-news/item/55991

BAN still optimist and support financial aid..

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday (3 days away from final deal) in Copenhagen still optimist. He think that Kyoto Protocol should remain in force as long as we continue the negotiations. Ideally speaking, if we can agree a comprehensive deal which can cover all the elements, that is fine. Otherwise, He think the Kyoto Protocol should continue.

Financial support for developing countries is one of the keys in getting this deal agreed in Copenhagen,futher of his statement denying a media report that he had given up a drive to get the summit to set a figure for aid by 2020. In the last interview he said that this conrefence is the largest ever where more than 120 world leaders are going to attend.

Full article on :
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/12/16/2009-12-16T124443Z_01_LDE5BF181_RTRIDST_0_CLIMATE-COPENHAGEN-BAN-UPDATE-2.html

Copenhagen : Try to avoid 'Kyoto-style failure'

The formal opening of the annual climate change gathering is marked by political ministers taking over command from their top negotiators. They will then hand over the discussions to the 113 heads of state and government who are expected to conclude the talks with a political agreement, setting the stage for a new emissions-reduction treaty to 2020.

The Danish host of the 193-nation conference was forced to defend herself against sharp criticism Monday that the informal consultations she set up over the weekend to discuss the most contentious issues with some countries was in fact hijacking the talks and steering an expected agreement in the favour of the rich countries. Developing countries outnumber their rich-world cousins at this conference and often use the threat of a walkout to voice their concerns.

Their chief concerns here are securing hundreds of billions of dollars to help them adapt to the droughts, floods and other ravages of a hotter planet. They also want countries that signed the Kyoto deal in 1997 to take on additional pledges to cut their emissions after 2012.

Further, Hedegaard, the president of this conference and the former Danish environment minister said "We cannot dictate anything that the parties do not want ... That is why we have had to use the time needed for everybody to feel comfortable with this."

Even with a successful outcome here, there are no assurances that it won't result in – as one journalist described it here – "a Kyoto-style failure" where some countries live up to their commitments and others, like Canada did after signing Kyoto, continue growing their economy and emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The big difference this time, Hedegaard said, is that the Copenhagen pact will be a truly global treaty, including the United States and China, who are responsible for 40 per cent of the world's emissions, as well as major emerging economies like India, Brazil and South Africa.

Read more on : http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/article/738895--climate-talks-try-to-avoid-kyoto-style-failure?bn=1

Collaborative action on Climate Debt Demanded

Reparations for Climate Debt demanded from Highly-Industrialized Countries

Protesters from Asia, Latin America, Africa and other regions of the world staged a lively demonstration in front of the Bella Center today to demand reparations from highly-industrialized countries for their climate debt and for the World Bank and its sister institutions to stay out of climate finance.

The demonstrators demanded that on industrialized countries including the United States, Great Britain and Japan to give reparations for the climate debt they owe to the peoples of the South, developing countries and marginalized communities everywhere. The capitalist industrialization of these countries were said to have driven the excessive carbon emissions of the past two centuries, and were undertaken at a very high cost now being shouldered by developing countries who are most vulnerable to climate-induced disasters.

Jubilee South International Coordinator Beverly Keene, from Argentina, stressed that now is the time for the North to clean up and return to nature and the peoples of the South, the atmospheric space they have been contaminating through their model of development based on fossil-fuel consumption and the total disregard for the rights of peoples and of mother earth. Reparations are needed now, not aid or a new round of illegitimate debt, in order to restore our planet and enable equitable development, or buen vivir, for everyone.

Today's action is part of a global campaign to demand reparations and restitution for the climate debt owed by the rich industrialized countries. Since the campaign was first initiated, more groups have also come to support the concept of a climate debt and have come to actively participate in demonstrations calling for reparations.

The demonstration was organized by Jubilee South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Philippines, Koalisi Anti Utang (KAU) Indonesia, Grassroots Africa,and many more

Fight for Climate debt !

A transfer of wealth and power from the global North to South is essentials to averting climate catastrophe said by Tim Jones. East Africa is suffering from drought for the fifth year in a row, South east Asia has suffered from typhoons and the flooding, and India had its weakest summer monsoon for 40 years are several examples of the catastrope.

Fair fossil shares
Kenya, the Philippines and even India still make effectively no contribution to climate change. If their use of fossil fuels per person were reflected across the rest of the world, we would not have global warming. In contrast, this year the UK will emit more carbon dioxide than the inhabitants of what is now called Bangladesh have throughout history. The UK has already used far more than its fair share of fossil fuels.Campaigners across the global South argue that the UK and others in the global North owe a climate debt.

Two forms of climate debt :
Adaptation debt
For these organisations, the climate debt owed by the North is twofold. First, ‘for their disproportionate contribution to the effects of climate change – requiring developing countries to adapt to rising climate impacts and damage – they have run up an “adaptation debt” to developing countries.’

Emissions debt
The statement from southern campaigners says: ‘For their excessive historical and current per person emissions – denying developing countries their fair share of atmospheric space – [the global North has] run up an “emissions debt” to developing countries.’ As well as now drastically reducing emissions, countries of the global North have a responsibility to provide the finance and technology to help the South meet its energy needs, without using fossil fuels.

Financial debt and fossil fuels
The climate debt owed by wealthy countries can be contrasted with the unjust financial debt the North continues to claim from the South. These unjust debts have impoverished countries both by extracting vitally important revenue and by giving wealthy countries the leverage to force particular forms of development on the South.

"The Climate Debt Crisis: the report by the WDM and Jubilee Debt Campaign"

Detail article of the campaign, see on :

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Climate-indebted

Interview corner : Lies..damn lies of climate negotiation

Oscar Reyes say on climate change..
interviewed by : Nina Brenjo

What's at stake during the two weeks of climate negotiations in Copenhagen?

The Copenhagen conference is sold as the means to achieve a new climate treaty, but it is clear that if there is an agreement it will take the form of some kind of “political declaration,” which has little legal force.
The EU, Japan and other wealthy, industrialised countries want to see Kyoto dead because they want to see non-Annex I countries – mainly developing countries – commit to reduction targets too. Meanwhile, most developing countries want to defend Kyoto and see new emissions reduction targets agreed by industrialised countries under this framework.

Are the Kyoto emissions reduction targets legally binding?
Yes. The Kyoto sets the target of 5.2% of emissions reductions by 2012.

If the deal is legally binding, how was Canada allowed to ditch the Kyoto targets back in 2006?
Although the targets are binding, there's no international punitive sanction for states that don't fulfil their commitments.

More interview on : http://www.tni.org/print/69416

Poor nations stall talks in Copenhagen.

Global warming talks were suspended for hours Monday because of a walkout by developing countries, as rich and poor nations struggled to reconcile the divisions that have dominated international climate policy for decades.

In the meantime, developing country representatives such as Bernaditas de Castro Muller -- who comes from the Philippines but negotiates for the G-77 as a member of the Sudanese delegation -- questioned Monday whether rich nations are doing enough to compensate for their historical contribution to global warming.
"We are trying very hard to get the best equitable deal in this process," Muller said. "No matter how small the country, they are still a part of this planet. We have to be all consulted."

This article on :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121400762_pf.html

Carbon Fraud Causes Billions Euro Tax Loss

Fraudulent trading of carbon emissions credits in the past 18 months has led to more than 5 billion euros in tax revenue losses for several EU nations, statement by European police agency Europol. Authorities estimate that in some countries, up to 90 percent of the whole carbon market volume was caused by fraudulent activities and warned that the fraud scheme could soon migrate to the gas and electricity sectors.

"There are reasons to believe that fraudsters might soon migrate toward the gas and electricity branches of the energy sector," Europol further said.

The carbon credit fraud was first detected by authorities in late 2008.

Find more on: http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/55918

Klimaforum09 calls : System change – not climate change

Solutios tha people and the planet need to address with climate crisis is a just and sustainable transition of our societies to a form that will ensure the rights of life and dignity of all peoples and deliver a more fertile planet and more fulfilling lives to future generations.

Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, call upon every person, organization, government, and institution, including the United Nations (UN), to contribute to this necessary transition. It will be a challenging task. For this reason, we call for urgent climate action:
• A complete abandonment of fossil fuels within the next 30 years. We demand an immediate cut in GHG of industrialized countries of at least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Recognition, payment and compensation of climate debt for the overconsumption of
atmospheric space and adverse effects of climate change.

• A rejection of purely market-oriented and technology-centred false and dangerous solutions
• Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable, and sustainable use of natural
resources, as well as transitions to food, energy, land, and water sovereignty.

Therefore, we demand that COP15 reach an agreement that will initiate the restoration of the environmental, social, and economic balance of planet Earth by means that are environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable and equitable, and finally come up with a legally binding treaty.

Furthen on : http://www.klimaforum09.org/IMG/pdf/A_People_s_Declaration_from_Klimaforum09_-_ultimate_version.pdf

Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen

The African delegation is unhappy over moves by the Danish government
Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted "We stand with Africa - Kyoto targets now".

But talks between the parties were expected to resume in the afternoon and informal discussions continue.

The countries that have suspended co-operation are those which make up the G77-China bloc of 130 nations. These range from wealthy countries such as South Korea, to some of the poorest states in the world.

The G77-China bloc speaks for developing countries in the climate change negotiation process.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY

Glossary in full Blocs representing poor countries vulnerable to climate change have been adamant that rich nations must commit to emission cuts beyond 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the EU and the developed world in general has promoted the idea of an entirely new agreement, replacing the protocol.

Developing countries fear they would lose many of the gains they made when the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997.

They point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legally binding instrument that has curbed carbon emissions, and also that it contains functioning mechanisms for bringing development benefits to poor countries such as money for investment in clean energy projects.

Previously during this meeting - formally called the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 - developing countries have accused the Danish chairs of ignoring their concerns.

G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation.

"It has become clear that the Danish presidency - in the most undemocratic fashion - is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme.

"The mistake they are doing now has reached levels that cannot be acceptable from a president who is supposed to be acting and shepherding the process on behalf of all parties."

Last week, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu forced a suspension after insisting that proposals to amend the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol be debated in full.

'Losing time'

At a news conference earlier in the day, UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be "irresponsible for the climate".

Some developing nations are wary of the way negotiations are progressing

Developing countries split on CO2
He said it would leave some of the world's biggest emitters without targets for cutting emissions.

Many developing countries have been arguing for a "twin track" approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol.

Kim Carstensen, director of the global climate initiative with environment group WWF, said that much more movement was needed on the Kyoto Protocol negotiations here.

"The point is being made very loudly that African countries and the wider G77 bloc will not accept non-action on the Kyoto Protocol, and they're really afraid that a deal has been stitched up behind their backs," he told BBC News.

While understanding the G77 position, he said the suspension could affect progress towards a deal.

"We're losing time, and that's a serious matter; because for every minute we lose on one issue, the chances of getting to the bottom of the next issue diminish."

The Danish government has yet to make any formal response; but Australian Climate Minister Penny Wong described the suspension as "regrettable".

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, predicted that the negotiations would get back on track in the early afternoon.

"The vast majority of countries here want to see the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol," he said.

"I'm not aware that any countries are trying to block anything."

An African bloc walkout during prepatory talks in Barcelona in November proved unpopular with other developing countries, in particular some small island nations.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Coalition of Global Day of Action on Climate Change 2009 in US Embassy.

USA is CARBON MAFIA LEADER of The EARTH DESTRUCTION!

Jakarta, 12 December 2009.
Global Day of Action on Climate Change is part of global campaign during the Conference of Parties (COP) under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to call on climate justice. Held in Jakarta on December 12th 2009, coalition of environmental organizations such as WALHI, NTI, IESR, KIARA, RACA, KAU, SPI, Oxfam, CSF, and many more conducted an action in front of US Embassy; there were 100 people joined in the action.

Climate impacts have happened everywhere and it will worsen in the future. Yet, until COP 15 in Copenhagen, US as the world largest carbon emission country has low commitment and not ambitious traget to cut emission. US only set target to cut emission by 16% which is far away from That’s the background of the Global Day of Action in US Embassy this year that call the “USA is CARBON MAFIA LEADER of The EARTH DESTRUCTION”.

With only 5% of world population number, US has contributed to carbon emission of 36,1% from 1990 level. Developing countries asked developed countries, especially US, to cut their green house gases emission by 25-40% from 1990 emission level in 2020, preventing world’s temperature to rise by 2◦C; US only set a target only 16 % instead. The low commitment of US will influence other developed country in setting their target emission target and Climate Change Deal in Copenhagen will end up out with poor solution.

This action started with long march from the Indosat Building and ended in front of US Embassy. A theatrical performance showed that US Leader (Mr. Barack Obama) has not enough power to bind on a fair climate change commitment in COP 15 Copenhagen. Then, several activists (WALHI, Oxfam, RACA, KNTI, SPI, etc) spoke in front of other participants, warning US deeply to take their responsibility and sign the Kyoto Protocol. After that activist and other participants build a “climate change refugee camp 2009” in front of US Embassy built 30 tents. In this occasion also, IESR spread out flier entitled “Your IGNORANCE makes the whole world suffers!” to participants, policeman, and several cars which passing through the Medan Merdeka street.

Musicians also participated to this action. Popular Indonesian group band singer of PADI (Fadli) and Krusial Band have also participated this action. Before singing, Fadli, The PADI group band singer, spoke that he did not hate any country but he hate country that made destructions in the world. That’s why we have to fight climate change and the largest carbon emitter countries should take their responsibility.

SB (14/12/2009)

Ministers try to bridge rich-poor gap on climate

ENVIRONMENT ministers tried to overcome rifts between rich and developing nations in Copenhagen yesterday, just days before a deadline for reaching a global pact on tackling climate change.

Most analysts expect only a nonbinding, political agreement out of the two-week gathering.

Highlighting a spat between top greenhouse gas emitters China and the US, United Nations Climate Change Secretariat head Yvo de Boer said at the weekend he hoped all countries would seek to raise their offers in the talks.

“China is calling on the US to do more. The US is calling on China to do more. I hope in the coming days everyone will call on everyone to do more,” he said.

The ministers were holding informal talks during a one-day break in the December 7-18 meeting involving 192 countries, which will culminate in a summit of world leaders on Thursday and Friday, including US President Barack Obama.

“There are still many challenges. There are still many unsolved problems,” Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard said. “But as ministers start to arrive there is also the political will.”

At the Bella Centre in Copenhagen the European Union (EU), Japan and Australia joined the US in criticising a draft pact that says major developing nations must rein in greenhouse gases, but only if they have outside financing. Rich states want to require developing states to limit emissions, with or without financial help.

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, representing the 27-nation EU, said “there has been a growing understanding that there must be commitments to actions by emerging economies as well”. He said those commitments “must be binding, in the sense that states are standing behind their commitments”.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said his country — the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas polluter — would not offer more than its pledge to slow its growth rate of emissions. It has offered to cut greenhouse gases measured against production by 20%-25% by 2020.

“National interest trumps everything else,” Ramesh said. “Whatever I have to do, I’ve said in my Parliament. We’ll engage them (the US and China). I’m not here to make new offers.”

China has made voluntary commitments to rein in its carbon emissions but does not want to be bound by international law to do so. In China’s view, the US and other rich countries have a heavy historical responsibility to cut emissions and any deal in Copenhagen should take into account a country’s level of development.

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said rich nations were trying to renegotiate the deal they reached two years ago on the island of Bali, calling on developing nations to limit emissions with financial help.

“It’s going to blow up in their faces,” he said. “The rich countries are trying to move the goal posts. And developing countries are not going to agree to that, no matter how loudly the rich countries demand it.”

The tightly focused negotiating text was meant to lay out the crunch themes for environment ministers to wrestle with as they prepare for a summit of 110 heads of state and government at the end of next week. US delegate Jonathan Pershing said the draft failed to address the contentious issue of carbon emissions by emerging economies. “The current draft didn’t work in terms of where it is headed,” Pershing said in the plenary, supported by the EU, Japan and Norway.

The EU, however, also criticised the US, insisting it could make greater commitments to push the talks forward without stretching the legislation pending in Congress. Carlgren said both the US and China should be legally bound to keep whatever promises they make, Carlgren said.

Hugh Cole, climate change coordinator for Oxfam southern Africa, said: “There has been progress in some areas, but there is still deep division on key issues between the developed and the developing world. The rich countries are still not putting substance on the table in terms of finance and mitigation,” he said. He said that as pressure mounts to secure a deal, pressure tactics would be applied to get an agreement.

“It’s clear that Africa will take a firm line on mitigation and finance, and certainly the negotiators won’t accept a hollow deal,” he said.

President Jacob Zuma and Minister of Environment and Water Affairs Buyelwa Sonjica will play a key leadership role this week, said Cole, as SA is a member of the Africa Group, while also grouped with China, Brazil and India.

“It won’t be easy, as they have to balance their role, but I believe they will stick to Africa’s common negotiating position,” he said.

Global warming could cost Africa about 30bn a year by 2015 and between 50bn and 100bn annually by 2020, reports said. Reuters, Sapa-AP

Delegates working hard on draft deal

Saturday marks the 6th day of the United Nations climate summit. Delegates at the conference were working through the weekend to negotiate the text of a possible new global agreement to combat global warming. And still, many disagree about the possible new deal.

Inside the conference hall, where negotiations were taking place, organizers said there was progress at the half-way mark.

A draft climate pact unveiled on Friday revived hopes that U.N. talks might be able to work out an international deal to fight global warming.

Connie Hedegaard, President of Conferrece of Parties, said, "The whole atmosphere here has been very constructive. These two texts, that is a very good sign, that both groups can actually come up with texts, that they have civilized and very constructive debates on that and I also think that showed in the plenary today."

But the draft still left open whether the agreement will be a legal document or a political declaration.

Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of UN Framwoek Convention on Climate Change, said, "Given the state of play and given the amount of remaining time, we cannot cast that all in a legally binding agreement here in Copenhagen but as the minister has indicated, we do need to do that in the next six to 12 months in 2010."

The draft distributed to the 192-nations attending the conference also set no firm figures on financing or on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

There were still deep splits on raising funds for poor nations and sharing the burden of curbing greenhouse gases.

Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of UN Framwoek Convention on Climate Change, said, "The purpose of this gathering is to reach a result. It's very clear that the industrialized countries will not agree to an ending of the Kyoto protocol and it's also very clear that many rich nations will not agree to only continuing with the Kyoto protocol, so then it seems that there is only one way forward."

The draft continues the system for industrial countries set up in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by which they are legally bound to targets for emission reductions and face penalties if they fall short.

Outside the conference hall, tens of thousands of climate activists marched on Saturday as part of a worldwide "Day of Action," to urge negotiators to agree to a strong treaty, one that will tackle global warming.

Editor: Zhang Pengfei | Source: CCTV.com

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”

Published on Transnational Institute (http://www.tni.org)

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”
Author(s):Oscar Reyes [1]
Copenhagen Climate Talks (Credit: Department of Energy & Climate Change)[2]

So the rumours were true. For the past week, it was an open secret that the Danish government had already drafted a “political declaration” that could form the major outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference now that a full-blown international agreement is off the cards. The draft text has now been leaked, sparking outrage amongst Southern delegates and civil society organisations.

“The Copenhagen Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,” as the draft is titled, would introduce percentage-based emissions targets for all except the Least Developed Countries, fatally undermining the Kyoto Protocol, which draws a line between industrialised Annex 1 states and the Majority World. The text also suggests that financial and technological support measures in non-Annex 1 countries, an underlying principle of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should now be made conditional to their ability to meet complex emissions monitoring requirements.

The UNFCCC quickly attempted to limit the damage, putting out a statement from Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer that declared that the draft was a “decision paper put forward by Danish Prime Minister,” while maintaining that it was not a “formal text” of the UN negotiating process.

But the leaked text met with an angry response from many Southern delegates. Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairperson of the G77 plus China grouping of 132 developing countries, said that the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had failed in his role as a neutral host and had instead “chosen to protect the rich countries.” The emergence of the draft text was also met by an impromptu protest from members of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, who marched through the Bella Centre chanting “Two degrees is suicide, One Africa, one degree.”

Democratic deficit
Concern stems not simply from the contents of the draft text, but also the secretive and biased way in which it came about. The COP Presidency, which is held by host country Denmark, is mandated to craft compromises based on painstakingly negotiated drafts. In this case, the Presidency stands accused not only of overstepping the mark, but of hopping, stepping and then jumping over it, pre-empting UN decisions with proposals lifted in part from text discussed at the Major Economies Forum, an initiative closely tied to the G20 grouping and chaired by US President Barack Obama.

As Meena Raman, Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia, explains, “The leaked draft Copenhagen Agreement violates the democratic principles of the UN and threatens the Copenhagen negotiations. By discussing their text in secret back-room meetings with a few select countries, the Danes are doing the opposite of what the world expects the host country to do. The Danish government must stop colluding with other rich nations. Instead it must take as a starting point the positions of developing countries - which are the least responsible for climate change, but who are most affected by it.”

Raman Mehta from Action Aid India decried a “betrayal of trust” on the part of the Danish government.

More “hot air” on reductions
The draft text is weak and vague in its overall ambitions. In reiterating the goal of holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the text sets a global reduction target of 50 per cent by 2050, of which 80 per cent should come from the industrialised world. These figures look distinctly unimpressive when tracked back to existing per capita emissions, however, with one estimate suggesting that they would allow Northern industrialised countries to continue outpolluting the Majority World by a factor of 3:5.

The short-term proposals are ostensibly more ambitious, with a suggestion that global emissions should peak by 2020. But the same passage of the text misleadingly claims that this peak has already been reached in “developed countries collectively.” This is based on the latest UNFCCC figures, which show that Annex 1 countries are now on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments, but a closer look reveals that this is achieved on the basis of “hot air” emissions resulting from economic collapse in the former Soviet bloc in the early 1990s. Emissions elsewhere in the developed world have continued to rise. The projections for 2020 are further massaged by counting a large volume of “emissions savings” from carbon offsets made in the global South as part of Annex 1 emissions figures.

Strings attached
Whereas the Bali Action Plan emphasises that developing country actions will be “supported and enabled” by technology, financing and capacity building, the draft suggests that these measures would be “subject to robust measurement, reporting and verification.” This inversion implies that the support measures could be withheld unless monitoring is externally approved. Instead of placing an obligation on industrialised countries to repay and restitute their climate debt, this makes any support measures conditional to a series of complex technical asssessments.
Just as significant is what the text does not include. There are no numbers on long-term financing, and there is no suggestion that these will be forthcoming in Copenhagen. The only figure offered is a projection of $10 billion per year of “fast start finance”, a scaled-down version of a plan first presented by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in late November. But Lumamba Di-Aping was dismissive: “Ten billion dollars will not buy developing countries’ citizens enough coffins,” he said.

A growing market
The flip side of this lack of financial commitments is a commitment to scale up carbon markets as part of any agreement. The cap and trade proposals currently passing through the US would allow up to 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon offsets per year to displace the need for domestic emissions reductions, a demand that is over seven times larger than the existing supply of offsets through the UN's Clean Devopment Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation scheme.

Although the language on carbon markets remains vague, talk of “an effective and orderly transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches” signals a framework that would introduce a broad range of new offsets, from “sectoral crediting” through to measures aimed at Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

“With developed countries offering so little by way of public finance, developing countries are being sent a message that support for offsetting mechanisms is their only real choice to access funds” says Payal Parkeh, a climate scientist with International Rivers.

A coalition of the unwilling
What the “Copenhagen Agreement” leak signals, above all, is a lack of ambition on the part of industrialised countries to make emissions reductions at home or meet their financial and other obligations to the South. “Despite the hype, the talk of ´Hopenhagen´, the supposed political will to ´get it done´, this set of negotiations might be no different than anything that has come before” concludes Rhiya Trivedi, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen. “It could be just another round of the North-South divide and power struggle.” Business as usual, in other words.

www.carbontradewatch.org [3]

The article appears in the Climate Chronicle [4] newspaper published at the Copenhagen climate talks.

Click here [5] for TNI's latest on the climate talks in Copenhagen.

* Copenhagen COP15
* Climate Justice
* Climate Talks
* Environmental Justice

Site Map - Privacy Policy - Copyright/Creative Commons Licence - Contact TNI - Complaints procedure - Site powered by Drupal , and created by Koumbit.org.

This site is best viewed using the Firefox browser
Source URL: http://www.tni.org/node/69395

Links:
[1] http://www.tni.org/users/oscar-reyes
[2] http://www.tni.org/sites/tniclone.test.koumbit.net/files/COP15-energyclimatechange.jpg
[3] http://www.carbontradewatch.org
[4] http://www.tni.org/briefing/newspaper-climate-chronicle
[5] http://www.tni.org/article/climate-talks-copenhagen-resource-guide

Klimaforum09 demands a carbon-free society by 2040

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Klimaforum09 wrote:

The first climate draft to come out of COP15 is not very visionary, say the organisers of Klimaforum09, the alternative peoples’ global summit, which is taking place aside the official conference. Today the forum offers its own declaration calling for a 100% carbon-free economy by 2040.

Participants at the peoples’ climate summit have agreed on a declaration ready to be presented to the politicians at the Bella Center next week. The declaration has been influenced and agreed upon by many of the Klimaforum09’s participants from developing countries - those being affected by the climate changes in their everyday lives.

"We are pleased that in spite of the many different voices and views we have succeeded in our agreement on this important document. It has been created through an open and democratic dialogue between people and organisations from all over the world”, says declaration spokesperson Paul Quintos from the Philippines.

One of the first to sign the alternative declaration at Klimaforum09 was Indian environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva. “This is the declaration, which the Bella Center should be working on”, she said.

70 organisations and participants at Klimaforum09 from 92 different countries stand behind the declaration, which recommends the following demands:

- A complete abandoning of fossil fuels within the next 30 years.

- An immediate cut in greenhouse gases of industrialized countries of at least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.

- Compensation of the people who are already affected by the adverse effects of climate change.

- Rejection to purely market-oriented and technology-centred false solutions such as nuclear energy, agro-fuels, carbon capture and storage.

- Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable and sustainable use of natural resources.

- Fair and just exchange of technologies and ideas between North and South.

Indonesia activists demand US action at Copenhagen

Dec 12 (AFP) -- Indonesian activists rallied in front of the US
embassy Saturday to urge the superpower to support developing nations
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

About 150 activists from various local organisations chanted "US is
the biggest emitter" while unfurling banners that read "US is the
carbon mafia leader" and "Be a part of a legally binding agreement".

"We rally in front of the US embassy to urge the US in joining
developing nations in a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,"
Indonesia Forum for the Environment deputy director Ali Akbar told
AFP.

"If the US fails to act and commit further, then many of those nations
will also lag in the fight against cutting emissions," he said, adding
that the US should take action at the Copenhagen summit.

"We don't want the discussion in Copenhagen to remain raw," Akbar
said.

Indonesia is the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, after
China and the United States -- 80 percent of its emissions are the
result of deforestation.

"Conference of Parties (COP) 15 is kicked off in Copenhagen. This is the
biggest COP ever since, attended by around 30 thousands of country delegates
and observers from all around the world. The outcome is crucial for our
future. It's time when parties are gathered together to vote for the the
future of the people and planet earth."

Drought, flood, famine - it's hot and getting hotter

By Gerard Wynn
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

UN study shows the past 10 years have been the hottest decade since records
began

This decade is on track to be the hottest on record, according to the UN's
World Meteorological Organization, and 2009 is the fifth-warmest year on
record.

Speaking on the sidelines of the climate conference, WMO head Michel Jarraud
pointed to extreme hot spots this year - Australia had its third-warmest
year since records began in 1850, "with three exceptional heat waves."

"I could go on. There was the worst drought in five decades which affected
millions of people in China, a poor monsoon season in India causing severe
droughts, massive food shortages associated with a big drought in Kenya," he
said.

Mr. Jarraud also highlighted extreme floods, including one that broke a
90-year record in Burkina Faso. As well, 2009 marked the third-lowest summer
Arctic sea ice on record, after the two previous years.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at Britain's Met Office Hadley
Centre, which supplied some of the WMO data, agreed that 2009 is likely to
be the fifth-warmest year.

"Essentially what's happened is we've gone into an El Nino," she added,
referring to a natural weather pattern which drives abnormal warming in the
eastern Pacific Ocean and can unleash wider havoc in global weather.

If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace 2003. According to
the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been
1998, 2005, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these
years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

The hottest year on record, 1998, coincided with a powerful El Nino, and a
new El Nino developed this year.

"It's just a matter of years before we break the record," Mr. Jarraud said.
"It's getting warmer and warmer. The warming trend is increasing."

"It's difficult to say [when the record will be broken] because of the
variability. The first time there will be a strong El Nino the temperature
will be greater than before."

Mr. Jarraud rejected a "climategate" row over leaked e-mails from Britain's
University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that showed some
scientists' efforts to boost the credibility of climate change at the
expense of skeptics.

The WMO used British - including CRU - and two U.S. data sources for its
temperature analysis. "The three separately show almost identical results,"
Mr. Jarraud said.

The fact that the record for the hottest year has not been broken since 1998
has helped fuel arguments from a small minority of scientists that climate
change may not be as severe as feared.

But Ms. Pope said that temperatures had "climbed slightly" in the past
decade. "There hasn't been a cooling [since the 1998 spike]," she said.

The decade 2000-2009 was 0.44 Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, Ms. Pope
said, while the 1990s decade was 0.23C higher.

*Reuters News Agency with a report from AP*

Beyond Carbon Markets

Published on *Transnational Institute*

Author(s):Oscar Reyes
Author(s):Tamra Gilbertson

The headlines generated by the carbon trading mechanisms at the heart of the
Kyoto Protocol, most notably the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), tell a
story of a scheme in trouble. But why has it caused such controversy?

Carbon trading is a complex system which sets itself a simple goal: to make
it cheaper for companies and Governments to meet emissions reduction
targets. The Kyoto Protocol saw industrialized countries (described as
“Annex 1”) commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to levels 5.2
per cent lower than those of 1990. At the same time, a series of “flexible
mechanisms” were agreed to, which meant that these targets need not be met
domestically.

The CDM is the largest such mechanism, with almost 1,800 registered projects
as of September 2009 and over 2,600 further projects awaiting approval.
Based on current prices, the credits produced by approved schemes could
generate over $55 billion by 2012. The CDM takes the form of carbon
“offsetting,” which allows companies, international financial institutions
and Governments to finance “emissions-saving projects” outside the Annex 1
countries.

Although carbon offsets are often presented as emissions reductions, they do
not actually reduce emissions. At best, they move reductions to where it is
cheapest to make them, which normally means a shift from Northern to
Southern countries. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to be made at one
location on the assumption that an equivalent savings will happen elsewhere.
The projects that count as “emissions saving” range from building
hydro-electric dams to capturing methane from industrial livestock
facilities.

These “savings” are calculated according to how much less greenhouse gas is
presumed to be entering the atmosphere than would have been the case in the
absence of the project. But no ways exist to demonstrate that it is carbon
finance that makes the project possible. Researcher Dan Welch sums up the
difficulty: “Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what
you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.” Estimates vary,
but academic analysis of existing projects suggests that between one third
and three quarters of projects do not represent “emissions savings” by any
reckoning. The companies behind such projects are paid to do what they would
have done anyway, while the credits allowed companies in industrialized
countries to exceed their emissions cap.

*Easy pickings*
Beyond this, one of the most frequent justifications put forward for carbon
offsets is that they should ensure that the cheapest reductions are made
first. What is cheapest in the short term is not the same as what is most
environmentally effective or socially just, however. The cheapest abatements
tend to be generated by loopholes and generous subsidies for the deployment
of existing technologies, rather than stimulating shifts to more sustainable
development paths.

As of September 2009, three quarters of the offset credits issued were
manufactured by large firms making minor technical adjustments at a few
industrial installations to eliminate hydroflurocarbons (HFCS) (refrigerant
gases) and nitrous oxide (N2O)(a by-product of synthetic fibre production).
This picture is unlikely to change dramatically by the time the Kyoto
Protocol’s first commitment period expires. By the end of 2012, HFC and N2O
credits are still expected to account for the largest share of the CDM (28.5
per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively), followed by hydro-electricity
projects (10.8 per cent). By comparison, solar power is expected to account
for just 0.03 per cent of CDM credits by 2012.

As Michael Wara of Stanford University puts it, “The CDM market is not a
subsidy implemented by means of a market mechanism by which CO2 reductions
that would have taken place in the developed world take place in the
developing world. Rather, most CDM funds are paying for the substitution of
CO2 reductions in the developed world for emissions reductions in the
developing world of industrial gases and methane.” In fact, many of these
emissions do not even occur in the developed world—where production
facilities have voluntary opted to destroy HFCs without the use of emissions
trading. Wara estimates that a straightforward subsidy to regulate HFC-23
emissions would have cost less than €100 million, yet by 2012, up to €4.7
billion in carbon credits will have been generated by such projects.

*A fossil fuel subsidy*
Proponents of the CDM suggest that a new balance of future projects will
gradually move closer to incentivising cleaner energy and more sustainable
development. Yet the evidence does not support this conclusion. The most
obvious cases here are the plethora of fossil fuel projects that are
supported by the CDM. To apply for the scheme, a project simply needs to
prove that it is cleaner than the norm for existing power production in the
region or country where it is located. As new plants are generally more
efficient than old, this is rarely a difficult task.

A recent study of new gas-fired power stations in China, for example, found
that all twenty-four new Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants under
construction between 2005 and 2010 had applied for CDM subsidies. A second
example involves new “supercritical” coal-fired power plants, which have
been eligible for CDM credits since autumn 2007—despite the fact that coal
is amongst the most CO2 intensive sources of power. Fifteen projects had
sought validation under this methodology as of September 2009. This sets up
a perversely circular structure where, instead of envisaging a rapid
transition to clean energy, the CDM is subsidizing the lock-in of fossil
fuel dependence through providing incentives for new coal-fired power
stations in the South, rather than renewable energy infrastructure based on
local needs. With the credits that these new plants will generate, the CDM
is at the same time encouraging a continued reliance on coal-fired power
stations in the North, as well.

*A greener future?*
The growth of CDM investment in fossil fuel power generation is not the
whole story, however, as proponents of the scheme might still claim that it
will expand investments in “renewable” sources at a similar rate.

Typically, the calculations for hydroelectric projects assume that they will
replace energy that would otherwise have been sourced from fossil fuels. Yet
most hydropower projects submitted for CDM validation are expected to start
generating credits within 12 months of their validation. Since hydropower
plants normally take several years to build, the likelihood is that most
projects were under construction prior to their beginning the CDM validation
process. The local environmental and social impacts of such projects are
frequently severe. A similar assessment could be made of biomass power
projects, which simply tend to count the methane (CH4) emissions that are
avoided because it is burned rather than allowed to biodegrade—without
considering the huge emissions caused by cutting down forests or draining
carbon-rich peatlands to set up the plantations that provide biomass
feedstock.

The attempt by carbon offset promoters to distinguish between “good” and
“bad” projects misses the point, since even the most renewable projects are
inserted within a system that generates credits to carry on polluting
elsewhere. Such projects not only perpetuate the old problems of coal, oil
and gas; they often promote local conflict as well. Not designed to deal
with the real complexities and intricacies of communities and livelihoods,
they require enormous quantities of land, water and machinery, and are not
set up to benefit the local communities or ecology. The resulting conflicts
often come as a surprise to idealists convinced that carbon offset projects
will bankroll community-friendly renewable energy, with administrative costs
of $100,000 and upwards, the CDM does not fund such initiatives.

*Different paths*

The failings of the CDM are not simply problems in how the rules are
designed, or teething problems in its implementation, but are fundamental to
the scheme itself. It was designed to look for the cheapest cuts and found
that those involved cheap deployment of existing technologies by large-scale
industry and power producers. The proposals on the table at Copenhagen to
reform and expand the CDM do not address these fundamentals. New “sectoral
crediting” schemes, which change the nature of the Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Actions developing countries agreed to adopt as part of the 2007
Bali Road Map, would expand offsetting with even weaker checks and balances.

If a cleaner future is the goal, then the process should start elsewhere.
Clean infrastructure investment tends to require upfront public
funding—which should come largely from industrialized countries, since they
predominantly caused the problem. Such funding is no guarantee of success,
however, unless a decentralized governance structure is adopted that allows
for meaningful citizen participation and sensitivity to local contexts,
allowing for the adaptation and improvement of locally-adapted industrial
and agricultural techniques, and engaging in a bottom-up assessment of real
energy needs.

A further significant requirement is to break with the logic of offsetting
itself, which asks developing countries to clean up their act so that
companies in Annex 1 countries can carry on polluting as usual. Instead of
stimulating new commodity markets, the targets and obligations placed on
industrialized countries should be met domestically. A plethora of existing
regulations, performance standards and incentives exist to help guide this
path, ranging from “feed-in tariffs” for renewables, to emissions output
limits on power producers and heavy industry. With Annex 1 countries having
done the most to cause climate change, their rapid and binding adoption of
more meaningful domestic action remains the fundamental stumbling block on
the road to tackling climate change justly and effectively.

Originally published in UN Chronicle

Copenhagen Plan B: “protect the rich”

Author(s):Oscar Reyes

Copenhagen Climate Talks (Credit: Department of Energy & Climate
Change)

So the rumours were true. For the past week, it was an open secret that the
Danish government had already drafted a “political declaration” that could
form the major outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference now that a
full-blown international agreement is off the cards. The draft text has now
been leaked, sparking outrage amongst Southern delegates and civil society
organisations.

“The Copenhagen Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change,” as the draft is titled, would introduce percentage-based emissions
targets for all except the Least Developed Countries, fatally undermining
the Kyoto Protocol, which draws a line between industrialised Annex 1 states
and the Majority World. The text also suggests that financial and
technological support measures in non-Annex 1 countries, an underlying
principle of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should
now be made conditional to their ability to meet complex emissions
monitoring requirements.

The UNFCCC quickly attempted to limit the damage, putting out a statement
from Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer that declared that the draft was a
“decision paper put forward by Danish Prime Minister,” while maintaining
that it was not a “formal text” of the UN negotiating process.

But the leaked text met with an angry response from many Southern delegates.
Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairperson of the G77 plus China grouping of
132 developing countries, said that the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke
Rasmussen had failed in his role as a neutral host and had instead “chosen
to protect the rich countries.” The emergence of the draft text was also met
by an impromptu protest from members of the Pan African Climate Justice
Alliance, who marched through the Bella Centre chanting “Two degrees is
suicide, One Africa, one degree.”

*Democratic deficit *
Concern stems not simply from the contents of the draft text, but also the
secretive and biased way in which it came about. The COP Presidency, which
is held by host country Denmark, is mandated to craft compromises based on
painstakingly negotiated drafts. In this case, the Presidency stands accused
not only of overstepping the mark, but of hopping, stepping and then jumping
over it, pre-empting UN decisions with proposals lifted in part from text
discussed at the Major Economies Forum, an initiative closely tied to the
G20 grouping and chaired by US President Barack Obama.

As Meena Raman, Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia,
explains, “The leaked draft Copenhagen Agreement violates the democratic
principles of the UN and threatens the Copenhagen negotiations. By
discussing their text in secret back-room meetings with a few select
countries, the Danes are doing the opposite of what the world expects the
host country to do. The Danish government must stop colluding with other
rich nations. Instead it must take as a starting point the positions of
developing countries - which are the least responsible for climate change,
but who are most affected by it.”

Raman Mehta from Action Aid India decried a “betrayal of trust” on the part
of the Danish government.

*More “hot air” on reductions*
The draft text is weak and vague in its overall ambitions. In reiterating
the goal of holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels, the text sets a global reduction target of 50 per
cent by 2050, of which 80 per cent should come from the industrialised
world. These figures look distinctly unimpressive when tracked back to
existing per capita emissions, however, with one estimate suggesting that
they would allow Northern industrialised countries to continue outpolluting
the Majority World by a factor of 3:5.

The short-term proposals are ostensibly more ambitious, with a suggestion
that global emissions should peak by 2020. But the same passage of the text
misleadingly claims that this peak has already been reached in “developed
countries collectively.” This is based on the latest UNFCCC figures, which
show that Annex 1 countries are now on track to meet their Kyoto Protocol
commitments, but a closer look reveals that this is achieved on the basis of
“hot air” emissions resulting from economic collapse in the former Soviet
bloc in the early 1990s. Emissions elsewhere in the developed world have
continued to rise. The projections for 2020 are further massaged by counting
a large volume of “emissions savings” from carbon offsets made in the global
South as part of Annex 1 emissions figures.

*Strings attached*
Whereas the Bali Action Plan emphasises that developing country actions will
be “supported and enabled” by technology, financing and capacity building,
the draft suggests that these measures would be “subject to robust
measurement, reporting and verification.” This inversion implies that the
support measures could be withheld unless monitoring is externally approved.
Instead of placing an obligation on industrialised countries to repay and
restitute their climate debt, this makes any support measures conditional to
a series of complex technical asssessments.

Just as significant is what the text does not include. There are no numbers
on long-term financing, and there is no suggestion that these will be
forthcoming in Copenhagen. The only figure offered is a projection of $10
billion per year of “fast start finance”, a scaled-down version of a plan
first presented by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in late November. But
Lumamba Di-Aping was dismissive: “Ten billion dollars will not buy
developing countries’ citizens enough coffins,” he said.

*A growing market *
The flip side of this lack of financial commitments is a commitment to scale
up carbon markets as part of any agreement. The cap and trade proposals
currently passing through the US would allow up to 1.5 billion tonnes of
carbon offsets per year to displace the need for domestic emissions
reductions, a demand that is over seven times larger than the existing
supply of offsets through the UN's Clean Devopment Mechanism (CDM) and Joint
Implementation scheme.

Although the language on carbon markets remains vague, talk of “an effective
and orderly transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches”
signals a framework that would introduce a broad range of new offsets, from
“sectoral crediting” through to measures aimed at Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

“With developed countries offering so little by way of public finance,
developing countries are being sent a message that support for offsetting
mechanisms is their only real choice to access funds” says Payal Parkeh, a
climate scientist with International Rivers.

*A coalition of the unwilling*
What the “Copenhagen Agreement” leak signals, above all, is a lack of
ambition on the part of industrialised countries to make emissions
reductions at home or meet their financial and other obligations to the
South. “Despite the hype, the talk of ´Hopenhagen´, the supposed political
will to ´get it done´, this set of negotiations might be no different than
anything that has come before” concludes Rhiya Trivedi, a member of the
Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen. “It could be just another round of
the North-South divide and power struggle.” Business as usual, in other
words.

www.carbontradewatch.org

The article appears in the Climate Chronicle
*newspaper published at the Copenhagen climate talks.*

Klimaforum09 demands a carbon-free society by 2040

*The first climate draft to come out of COP15 is not very visionary, say the
organisers of Klimaforum09, the alternative peoples’ global summit, which is
taking place aside the official conference. Today the forum offers its own
declaration calling for a 100% carbon-free economy by 2040. *

Participants at the peoples’ climate summit have agreed on a declaration
ready to be presented to the politicians at the Bella Center next week. The
declaration has been influenced and agreed upon by many of the
Klimaforum09’s participants from developing countries - those being affected
by the climate changes in their everyday lives.

"We are pleased that in spite of the many different voices and views we have
succeeded in our agreement on this important document. It has been created
through an open and democratic dialogue between people and organisations
from all over the world”, says declaration spokesperson Paul Quintos from
the Philippines.

One of the first to sign the alternative declaration at Klimaforum09 was
Indian environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva. “This is the declaration, which
the Bella Center should be working on”, she said.

70 organisations and participants at Klimaforum09 from 92 different
countries stand behind the declaration, which recommends the following
demands:

- A complete abandoning of fossil fuels within the next 30 years.
- An immediate cut in greenhouse gases of industrialized countries of at
least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
- Compensation of the people who are already affected by the adverse
effects of climate change*.
- Rejection to purely market-oriented and technology-centred false
solutions such as nuclear energy, agro-fuels, carbon capture and storage.
- Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable and
sustainable use of natural resources.
- Fair and just exchange of technologies and ideas between North and South.

Seruan Aksi Forum Masyarkat Sipil Indonesia Indonesia & Climate Justice Now!

Dukung Petisi untuk COP 15
Masyarakat sipil harus mendesak Denmark bertindak adil dan tidak berpihak sebagai Presiden, sekaligus tuan rumah COP 15, juga menuntut seluruh proses negosiasi COP 15 UNFCCC berjalan adil, terbuka, dan transparan, menjamin partisipasi penuh seluruh negara.

Caranya? Cantumkan Nama anda, nama Organisasi, Alamat, Propinsi dibawah petisi. Kirim ke mai@jatam.org
Dukungan kami tunggu hingga 12 Desember 2009 waktu Indonesia. Petisi ini akan dikirim kepada Perdana Menteri Denmark dan Presiden COP 15 UNFCCC. Info terkait, buka www.csoforum.net atau www.jatam.org

=========================

Open letter to the Danish Presidency as host of the UN Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen, December 2009

We, the undersigned civil society groups, express our concern over the actions of the Danish government in its role as President of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties.

The historic Copenhagen Climate Conference has yet to begin and a lengthening list of concerns is being raised by governments and by members of civil society:

• We criticize the undemocratic practices adopted by the Danish Prime Minister of convening small and exclusive groups of countries before the Copenhagen meeting, excluding the vast majority of countries whose futures are at stake in the negotiations.

• We criticize the Danish Prime Minister’s decision to produce draft “Copenhagen Accords” before the meeting has even started. These have been circulated to a select few governments, excluding others. They have been produced in spite of on-going negotiations under the UNFCCC and prejudge the outcome of good-faith negotiations among all Parties.

• We further criticize the texts on the basis that they systematically ignore the demands of developing countries and overwhelmingly reflect the position of Denmark and other developed countries on key issues. They seek to shift the burden of addressing climate change from those who caused it to those who suffer its worst effects.

• We criticize the Danish Prime Minister’s consistent disregard for the concerns of developing countries by downgrading expectations for Copenhagen to a “political agreement” and by falsely stating that the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

These actions are inconsistent with the duty of the Danish Government in its neutral role as President of the Conference of Parties. They are an attack on the democratic processes of UN negotiations. And they are an affront to the interest of small and poor countries in the negotiations.

Further actions of this kind threaten the trust that is the very foundation of a fair and effective deal in Copenhagen. They undermine the capacity of the Danish Government to play a constructive role in the negotiations. Left unchecked, they threaten a Copenhagen collapse.

Copenhagen must mark an historic turning point. Parties have placed their trust in Denmark’s good reputation as a fair and impartial player. We therefore call for:

• The COP President to serve in an even-handed and unbiased manner;
• A fair, open and transparent process; and
• The full participation of all countries in an inclusive manner.

The imperative in Copenhagen is not to seal a deal at any costs – but to provide the opportunity for the nations of the world to work together to secure one that is fair and effective.

We call on Denmark to support such a process. The world is watching.

Best Regard,

1. Giorgio Budi I, Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law, Jakarta
2. Siti Maemunah, JATAM – Mining Advocacyy Network, Jakarta

Rich vs. poor clash at Copenhagen over money

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writers

COPENHAGEN (AP) -- Negotiators on Wednesday worked to bridge the chasm between rich and poor countries over how to share the burden of fighting climate change, and a top U.S. envoy was to highlight the Obama administration's efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, the head of the 135-nation bloc of developing countries, said the $10 billion a year that has been proposed to help poor nations fight climate change paled in comparison to the more than $1 trillion already spent to rescue financial institutions.

"If this is the greatest risk that humanity faces, then how do you explain $10 billion?" he said. "Ten billion will not buy developing countries' citizens enough coffins."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, whose agency just gave President Barack Obama a new way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, takes to the podium at the U.N. climate conference later Wednesday, headlining a U.S.-sponsored meeting entitled "Taking Action at Home."

The EPA determined Monday that scientific evidence clearly shows greenhouse gases are endangering Americans' health and must be regulated. That gave Obama a new way to regulate those gases without needing the approval of the U.S. Congress.

Obama will join more than 100 national leaders converging on Copenhagen for the final days of bargaining late next week.

China, which has recently overtaken the United States as the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, strongly protested Wednesday a blunder that prevented a top diplomat from entering the vast Bella Center where the 192-nation U.N. climate conference is being held.

Su Wei, the director general of China's climate change negotiation team, told the meeting he was "extremely unhappy" that a Chinese minister was barred from entry three days in a row.

Su called the incident "unacceptable" and expressed anger that U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer was not informed. De Boer pledged to investigate and "make sure it doesn't happen again."

Meanwhile, small island nations, poor countries and those seeking money from the developed world to preserve their tropical forests were among those upset over competing draft texts attributed to Denmark and China outlining proposed outcomes for the historic Dec. 7-18 summit.

Some of the poorest nations feared too much of the burden to curb greenhouse gases is being hoisted onto their shoulders. They are seeking billions of dollars in aid from the wealthy countries to deal with climate change, which melts glaciers that raise sea levels worldwide, turns some regions drier and threatens food production.

Diplomats from developing countries and climate activists complained the Danish hosts pre-empted the negotiations with their draft proposal, which would allow rich countries to cut fewer emissions while poorer nations would face tougher limits on greenhouse gases and more conditions on getting funds.

"When a process is flawed then the outcome is flawed," Raman Mehta, ActionAid's program manager in India, said of the Danish proposal. "If developing countries don't have a concrete indication of the scale of finances, then you don't get a deal - and even if you do, it's a bad deal."

It focuses "on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution," said Kim Carstensen of the environmental group WWF.

A sketchy counterproposal attributed to China would extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

The Chinese text would incorporate specific new, deeper targets for the industrialized world for a further five to eight years. However, developing countries including China would be covered by a separate agreement that encourages taking action to control emissions but not in the same legally binding way.

Poorer nations believe the two-track approach would best preserve the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto treaty.

In Rome, Greenpeace activists climbed halfway up the Colosseum at dawn Wednesday to press for a historic climate deal at the Copenhagen conference.

The U.N.'s weather agency unveiled data Tuesday showing that this decade is on track to become the hottest since records began in 1850, with 2009 the fifth-warmest year ever. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said, though Alaska had the second-warmest July on record.

2009 Set To Be Fifth Warmest Year On Record

2009 Set To Be Fifth Warmest Year On Record
Date: 09-Dec-09
Country: DENMARK
Author: REUTERS

A tourist (L) looks at a view of Mount Everest from the hills of Syangboche in Nepal December 3, 2009.
Photo: Gopal Chitrakar

COPENHAGEN - This year is likely to be the fifth warmest on record and the first decade of this century the hottest since records began, the World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday. Speaking on the sidelines of a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, WMO head Michel Jarraud pointed to extreme hotspots this year -- Australia had its third warmest year since record dating began in 1850, "with three exceptional heatwaves."

"I could go on. There was the worst drought in five decades which affected millions of people in China, a poor monsoon season in India causing severe droughts, massive food shortages associated with a big drought in Kenya," he told reporters. Jarraud also highlighted extreme floods, including one which broke a 90-year record in Burkina Faso. 2009 marked the third lowest summer Arctic sea ice on record, after the two previous years, he added.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at Britain's MetOffice Hadley Center, which supplied some of the WMO data, agreed that 2009 is likely to be the fifth warmest year.
"Essentially what's happened is we've gone into an El Nino," she added, referring to a natural weather pattern which drives abnormal warming in the eastern Pacific Ocean and can unleash wider havoc in global weather.
RECORD

The hottest year record, 1998, coincided with a powerful El Nino, and a new El Nino developed this year. "Its just a matter of years before we break the record," Jarraud told Reuters. "It's getting warmer and warmer. The warming trend is increasing."

"It's difficult to say (when the record will be broken) because of the variability. The first time there will be a strong El Nino the temperature will be greater than before."

Jarraud rejected a "climategate" row over leaked emails from Britain's University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which showed some scientists' efforts to boost the credibility of climate change at the expense of skeptics.

The WMO used British -- including CRU -- and two U.S. data sources for its temperature analysis. "The three separately show almost identical results," said Jarraud.

The fact that the record for the hottest year has not been broken since 1998 has helped fuel arguments from a small minority of scientists that climate change may not be as severe as feared.

But MetOffice Hadley Centre's Pope said that temperatures had "climbed slightly" in the past decade. "There hasn't been a cooling (since the 1998 spike)," she said.
The decade 2000-2009 was 0.4 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, while the 1990s decade was 0.23 degrees higher, said Pope.

Find on : http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/55878

COP 15 in Pictures - Day One more on:

UN Kyoto climate change fund still to help poor nations more on :

Developing countries split over climate measures

Future of humanity hinges on Copenhagen climate conference: UN chief more on:

Fossil Award for those countries who don't support the prevention of climate change impact more on:

The Show Must Go On

On climate change, the world needs a dramatic climax. Instead we're getting a lame dress rehearsal.By Bill McKibben Sat Dec. 5, 2009 3:59 AM PST
________________________________________
"Calm before the storm" is how my colleague Jamie Henn described Copenhagen [1] today. "'Hopenhagen [2]' advertising everywhere, people setting up an outdoor concert venue in downtown, a few anarchist posters wheat-pasted on signs, and I even saw a 350.dk [3] license plate on a bicycle!"

I’m still in the United States, but packing for the trip to Denmark. This by all rights should be a charged moment, the culmination of two decades of work by scientists, negotiators, and activists—the moment when we finally decide what we’re going to do about the biggest crisis we’ve ever faced. The curtain about to rise!

But.

The play will go on—the hall’s been rented, after all. It’s clear by now, though, that it’s likely to be not even a dress rehearsal. More like a read-through. And the script’s pretty weak—10 days ago the US made it clear that they’d lowball their offer. Obama will propose 4 percent reductions in its emissions by 2020, compared with 20 percent for the Europeans (a number the EU said they’d raise to 30 percent if the US would go along). Scientists, meanwhile, have made it clear that a serious offer would mean about 40 percent cuts by 2020. So—we’re exactly an order of magnitude shy of what the physics demands.

Meanwhile, the big emerging powers—Brazil [4], China [5], South Africa, India [6]—have reportedly agreed on a series of demands that seem perfectly designed to keep the Congress from acting. No carbon-related tariffs, they’re insisting, knowing full well that the crucial senators from the Midwest have set that as their price for going along. This afternoon the Indians made their bid—reducing the amount of energy used per dollar of goods produced by about 20 percent, or half the Chinese goal.

"The game seems to be that all countries pick a politically safe number," Navroz Dubash, an Indian analyst with the Center for Policy Research [7], told the Times. "India is now joining that game. And the game started with the United States."
And in the United States the leaders of the anti-anything-at-all bloc are pulling out every stop, insisting among other things that some shady emails from a couple of British climate researchers mean the entire science of global warming is now suspect. Maybe the glaciers are simply pretending to melt! Maybe they’ve been paid off!

It’s such a strange feeling. Civil society has largely come together. The number we’ve been talking about for two years—350 parts per million [8]—is now mainstream science. Last weekend the patriarch of the Orthodox Church called wrecking the climate a sin and said "350 is an act of repentance." The next day the leaders of all the world’s big zoos and aquariums demanded a 350 ppm target. The big NGOs—Oxfam, Avaaz, and so forth—will hold a giant vigil on December 12 in Copenhagen to demand, among other things, a 350 target, with figures like Desmond Tutu on the platform.

But so far it hasn’t penetrated the dense politics of the big nations. It’s as if they’ve gone to the doctor, and the doctor has said, You have cancer, and so you need six months of chemotherapy. And they’ve responded, We’ll do one week of chemotherapy. Anything more would be too hard.
We’ll keep doing our level best to educate them, with science, with art, with our bodies. What else really is there to do?
________________________________________
Source URL: http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/show-must-go
Links:
[1] http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/10/copenhagen-here-we-come
[2] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/hope-for-copenhagen
[3] http://350.dk/
[4] http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/gms-money-trees
[5] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/hope-china-us-climate-deal-despite-copenhagen-delay
[6] http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/10/india-stands-lose-most-copenhagen
[7] http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/
[8] http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/11/most-important-number-earth