Barcelona climate talks hot up
The global climate talks are hotting up. This week, negotiators are meeting in Barcelona for the last week of discussions before the Copenhagen meeting in December.
There is a lot at stake. Arguably it is the future of the planet. Some countries are literally fighting for their survival while other countries are fighting to defend the status quo. The divisions between the rich countries that have largely caused global warming, and the poorer countries who in many cases will be the most affected, could not be more stark. So far the talks have been proceeding slowly but as the deadline for an agreement draws nearer, the tensions are starting to show.
Yesterday (last night Australian time), the talks were brought to a halt by the African group of countries who are demanding that rich countries commit to higher targets. They named the elephant in the room.
A ‘trust building’ lunch between the Umbrella group (chaired by Australia) and African nations ended with African nations walking out saying we’re dying and you’re not doing enough. Africans told them specifically that people were dying by the minute, ambitious reduction is not negotiable because the survival of millions of people depends on it, and if they
weren’t here to talk about numbers then it wasn’t the right place to be.
It must have a been a great lunch. You can imagine the head of the US and Australian delegations chowing down on big fat juicy steaks, while everybody else sat around waiting for their food to arrive. And the airconditioner was probably stuck on hot, with people gradually sticking to those awful plastic chairs you find in conference centers. And then, just as the Australian delegate was cackling hysterically at a US joke about starving children, the African delegates decided that the future was actually important, and got up and walked out.
Well, maybe it wasn’t quite like that, but the outcome was the same. At the G77 press conference, the Africa group put it bluntly: “When asked why they are not willing to put the number s on the table…they say its politically and economically difficult ….for us it is a questions of life and death, people are dying in Africa because of the actions of people in the west.”
And then they lanced the boil that has been plaguing negotiations for months. “ We are not ready to give annex 1 countries a blank check through LULUCF rules and the flexible mechanisms before they give us their aggregate numbers and individual numbers”.
Rich countries have put weak (or no) targets on the table and have been focusing on fixing the rules of the new treaty so that they can have as many loopholes as possible to allow them to continue with business as usual. They won’t put forward targets until they know how they’ll be able to squirm out of them.
Australia is a classic. First Kevin Rudd put out a target that was so low (5-15%) that it was only just enough to stop us being kicked out in disgrace, and then when it became clear that our low ambition had dealt us out of any influence, increased it to a highly conditional 5-25%. This is still far below what a rich country like Australia should be committing to and what African countries and the science demands :– 40% or more by 2020.
Australia is doing as much as anyone (apart from a couple of rogue states) to undermine prospects for a strong global climate treaty through our low ambition and relentless push for loopholes. It is remarkable that Kevin Rudd has somehow managed to position himself as a leader on climate change in spite of the reality of our negotiating position. Its not hard to look good on climate when you are compared to the US or to the Federal Coalition, but climate change can’t just be about spin or about public relations. There is far too much at stake, and we are rapidly running out of time
November 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
The first democratically elected developed world givernment … er I meant government … that signs up to unrealistic targets and global warming taxes will lose the next election …
Third world countries are grabbing an ideal chance to get bags of money out of developed countries made to feel guilty … which explains the hysterical claims of the African delegates.
It’s an ambit claim designed to make the guilt ridden west feel even more guilty … which is a logical tactic … but the electorates of democracies will punish governments that threaten to reduce their living standards to pay other governments (7 billion dollars in Australia’s case) with rampant corruption and dubious human rights records.
Given that the electorates of developed democracies are becoming even more doubtful over the doom and gloom predictions the probablity of the Africans getting their way becomes less and less … which explains them ramping up the hysteria.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Climate change is proving to be the best business opportunity in years … fallacious global warming/climate change causality claims not backed by a single piece of hard, scientific evidence are now attracting the biggest government funding packages since the second world war (or, in the case of the US, since Kennedy announced the race for the moon landing). If we all opened businesses guaranteeing to reduce global warming, we could all be millionaires tomorrow. Seriously, people, if we put as much effort into something which is proven to be true (like, say, world hunger - a little hard to disprove, for the price of a plane ticket you can go see the evidence for yourself) we’d all be inhabiting a much better planet anyway. Perhaps then we can have a crack at addressing the things we clearly don’t understand right now … like climate change.