*[Enwl-eng] FW: [NGOForum] Fwd: [cjn-durban] Blog: Durban Debacle
ENWL.Bellona
NGO Forum on ADB
web-site: <http://www.forum-adb.org/> www.forum-adb.org
From: forum...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:forum...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Hemantha Wiithanage
Sent: 12 декабря 2011 г. 18:06
To: forum...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NGOForum] Fwd: [cjn-durban] Blog: Durban Debacle
http://www.climate-consulting.org/2011/12/12/durban-package-lacks-ambition-and-equity/
Durban Debacle
Over thirty-six hours after the climate change conference countries agreed
to a weak agreement that is lacking in ambition, equity and justice. While
a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been agreed to, three
major polluters Japan, Canada and Russia (and of course the United States)
are not participating, the targets are much lower than what science
demands, and there are a number of loopholes that essentially negate the
targets. Forestry management rules are akin to cooking the books, and
dealing with surplus AAUs has been punted to next year. It is not yet clear
whether the commitment period is 5 years or 8 years long.
The meaningful and visionary components of the Bali Action Plan (BAP), a
roadmap that aimed at getting the United States to take action against
climate change and expand the focus of the climate change agreement to
include mitigation in developing countries, technology transfer, finance
and adaptation, have been lost. Negotiations on the BAP will end next year.
While decisions have been taken on some issues, there are a number of
pending issues that are not likely to be dealt with.
Instead of finishing work on all items related to BAP, a new process called
the Durban Platform is being launched to develop a protocol or another
legal instrument or outcome applicable to all countries. The work should be
completed by 2015 so that it can come into effect by 2020. While there is a
list of issues that this Durban Platform should work on, it is not as
comprehensive as the BAP as the essential concept of common but
differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) is missing from the text.
What needs to be done is clear: global emissions need to be reduced and
quickly. If humanity wants to have a three in four chance of limiting
global temperature rise to 2 C, emissions cannot exceed 1000 Gt between
2000 and 2050. Yet, we have already used up approximately one-third of this
budget in the first decade of this century. If we know how much we can
spend in the next forty years, why is it proving so difficult to find an
equitable and just distribution of the remaining budget while taking into
account historic emissions?
Rather than decide today to save our future tomorrow, new working groups
and negotiating blocks are constructed to continuing chatting so that it
appears as if the countries are trying to reign in climate change. But with
each passing day, the problem becomes more dire and urgent. The longer we
wait to detox from fossil fuels, the harder it gets to kick our habit. It
also doesn't make sense economically. According to Faith Biriol, the chief
economist of the International Energy Agency, "delaying action is a false
economy" for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided
in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent
to compensate for the increased emissions."
On the carbon markets front there is not much positive news to report.
Modalities and procedures for including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as
an eligible project type under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has
been approved. CCS is neither a safe nor a proven technology. In fact no
large scale project exists yet and such projects are so expensive that the
additional finance from the sale of carbon credits (especially at the
current price of less Euro 5 per tonne) would hardly make a difference to
the profitability of such projects. This is yet another example of the CDM
supporting false solutions; unproven techno fixes that don't shift
economies away from fossil fuels.
While there was no agreement to a new market-based mechanism, it has been
defined and a work programme has been agreed to in order to develop
procedures and modalities for a mechanism. Furthermore, countries such as
New Zealand, US, Japan and Australia want to be able to use credits from
market-based mechanisms that they create outside of the UNFCCC to comply
with emission reduction pledges. A work programme was also established to
consider how to evaluate such approaches. This is dangerous, as it will
require close monitoring of a different number of mechanisms and the
ability to ensure that they are compatible with one another. This is akin
to a blanque check for use of markets.
Now it is essential that civil society and social movements regroup to
reconsider strategies to curb global warming. It is up to us to shift
outcomes from those that preserve the status quo (polluters) to those that
are good for the people and the environment.
From: "Maya Eralieva" <ma...@forum-adb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:30 PM
Subject: [п≤п²п╓п·п≤п ] FW: [NGOForum] Fwd: [cjn-durban] Blog: Durban
Debacle
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru (Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng