Log in


News, opinion and analysis from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Next Entry

E3G supports the Tcktcktck campaign’s call for a fair, ambitious and binding climate agreement. A “greenwash” political declaration would undermine the positive momentum for climate action and would be rightly condemned by civil society. So beware attempts by governments to spin an “operational accord” as a success unless there is a clear plan for translating all this into a legally binding agreement.
The underlying dynamics of the Copenhagen end-game are straightforward:

- There is no credible alternative to a legally binding international agreement to limit global climate change below 2°C; any "bottom-up" system of country pledges will fail to drive the necessary scale and pace of reductions as it does not help countries win political battles with their domestic industry lobbies.

- The US will not accept a binding target unless China and India also agree to be bound to commitments that are internationally verifiable.

- But China will not commit to decarbonise its economy unless the US accepts a binding and ambitious emissions reduction target.

- The majority of developing countries will not agree to any new framework unless it binds developed nations and contains significant new medium term public finance for adaptation, forestry and clean energy.

- Europe and Japan – who have met their reduction commitments under the binding Kyoto Protocol - can only accept the weak US commitments which are on the table if a new agreement is at least as binding as Kyoto, and the US commits to comparable emission reductions by 2030 at the latest.

The Obama administration will struggle to convince the US Senate to pass a domestic Climate Bill if it cannot show that this is part of a wider international effort that commits China and India to real emission reductions. To achieve this, the US will have to agree to be bound itself and to put on the table its 2020/2030 mitigation targets and some commitment to climate finance for developing countries.

If political leaders are unable to reach a binding international agreement in Copenhagen in December they must come up with a credible plan for concluding that agreement no later than June 2010, before US Congressional mid-term elections. Allowing the process to drag on beyond June 2010 risks a repeat of the Doha WTO negotiations, which have limped along without resolution for over a decade.
Specifically, Copenhagen needs to do three things:

- Give a clear political mandate to negotiators to reach agreement on all key issues by at the latest June 2010 and to enshrine this agreement in a legal instrument or instruments.

- Set out in as much detail as possible the content of the eventual legal instrument(s), including emissions reduction targets for developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries, the long-term financing architecture, and the international framework for measurement, reporting and verification of commitments.

- Maintain momentum through commitments to immediate action before 2012, including quick-start funding for adaptation, tackling deforestation and low carbon growth plans.

There are no fundamental obstacles of interest to such an agreement, but it will require great diplomatic skill and significant trust between countries to deliver.

Nick Mabey is a Founding Director and the Chief Executive of E3G

Tcktcktck is the hub for mobilizing civil society and citizen support for a bold agreement on climate change in Copenhagen. Tcktcktck has brought together faith groups, unions, environmental and humanitarian organizations, civic leaders, and individuals from around the world in a global call to action.

E3G: www.e3g.org/index.php
Tcktcktck: http://tcktcktck.org/


Global Warming Fraud
bomber_the_cat wrote:
Saturday, 28 November 2009 at 03:41 pm (UTC)
This is an important subject, as trillions of pounds are about to be commited to something that may very well be futile – even worse than the millenium bug. It is important to get it right. The raw data on climate change must be available to anyone, the whole scientific community. Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. If a hypothesis can't withstand criticism, then it is not a sustainable one. If it is necessary to hide or delete data to support a theory, that is fraud not science.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) has one of the largest climate databases in the world and, up to now, has been the leading proponent of the man made global warming theory. However, the latest revelations show British climate change scientists in a most unedifying light. One thing that is clear above all others is that world will no longer have confidence in a CRU lead by Phil Jones or his co-conspirators because there is no way to know deception from fact. I want the truth, so why am I and millions of other taxpayers still funding the University of East Anglia and its Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones?
tinaferrer wrote:
Saturday, 28 November 2009 at 05:45 pm (UTC)
No Mr. Mabey,

I would think an investigation into this game changing breach of UEA material would be the priority. Serious journalists’ can do this or we can do this but make no mistake, this will be done. Our illustrious but lying leaders will now have to pull some other conduit out of their collective hats to realize those trillions of dollars Sir. But now, with every bona fide initiative the politicians offer that spends even a pound or dollar will be going under the microscope The climate initiative money grab is over until which point we the people see its benefits or the lack thereof. Wagers?

Tina Ferrer


RSS Atom

Report Comment

To report an offensive comment for review, please send a Personal Message and provide a link to the comment. The moderators will review it and take action if necessary.
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars