Re : [franclimat] FW: TWN Climate Info: Experts take sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Michel Takam
Oct 23, 2014, 3:07:48 AM10/23/14
to réseau climat développement, MOUSSA NA ABOU Mamouda, Alliance Rio
Climate Finance Innovation Award Announced - Apply now!
16 Oct 2014
New award for innovative climate finance mechanism announced by UNDP MDG Carbon
UNDP MDG Carbon jointly with Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. have just announced the Climate Change Finance Innovation Award Contest on the on the World Bank/UNDP Climate Finance Options Platform. The winning proposal will be awarded with US$10,000 to seed their innovative concept.
The overall objective of the contest is to harness the collective intelligence of people globally to address the urgent need for innovative financing concepts for scaled-up mitigation actions. These innovative ideas should lead to increased private and public investments in developing countries and assist them in achieving sustainable, low carbon, green growth. There is no limit to the type of financing solutions and concepts to be offered, although participants are generally expected to present innovative ideas which are different from already existing and operational climate change mitigation funding mechanisms.
All proposals should be submitted by November 24, 2014 (17:00 New York time) to the following e-mail address: con...@undp.org
Please refer to the Terms and Conditions of Participation for more information.
We are looking forward to many innovative ideas!
-The Award Contest Team--------------------------------------------
En date de : Lun 20.10.14, MOUSSA NA ABOU Mamouda <mamo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Objet: [franclimat] FW: TWN Climate Info: Experts take sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
À: "réseau climat développement" <franc...@rac-f.org>
Date: Lundi 20 octobre 2014, 12h43
FYI:
a new U.S. position on Paris talks following a proposal
from New Zealand – This shows once again, that Paris
agreement will depend on a compromise between the US and
major developing countries i.e. China and India, on GHG
emissions
reductions.Best,Moussa—AfricaAdapt Knowledge Sharing Network
Coordinator
http://www.africa-adapt.net/AA/
ENDA Energy, Environment and Development
http://energie.enda.sn/ - http://www.enda.sn/
Dakar - Senegal - Tel: 00221 33 822 24 96
(office)Skype :
moussa.na.abou
From: TWN News <ne...@twnnews.net>
Date: Monday,
October 20, 2014 at 2:08 AM
To: TWN Mailing List
<ne...@twnnews.net>
Subject: TWN Climate
Info: Experts take sides on new U.S. position on Paris
talks
Title : TWN Climate Info: Experts take
sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
Date : 20 October 2014
Contents:
TWN Info Service on Climate Change
(Oct14/04)
20 October 2014
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Experts
take sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
<http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060007425>
Lisa
Friedman, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, October 16,
2014
The
United States' backing this week of a legally ambiguous
2015 global warming deal has exposed long-standing fissures
between the pragmatists and social justice activists in the
international climate movement.
At
issue is whether the agreement that nations pledged to forge
in Paris next year should be an international treaty, a
loose voluntary pact or something in between. The question
gets to the thorny issue of fairness, which has plagued
negotiations between rich and poor nations for
decades.
A
full-blown treaty will never fly in the United States, goes
the American thinking. For such a deal to even have a
long-shot chance of Senate approval, all countries --
including China and India -- would have to agree to be held
to the same legal standards. Yet those and other developing
nations are equally loath to sign up to globally mandated
carbon cuts. Moreover, those countries say they should not
have to do so, since industrialized nations caused climate
change to begin with.
The
Obama administration thinks it has found a way out of the
cycle of blame and evasion. The solution comes in the form
of a proposal <http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/10/16/document_cw_01.pdf>
from New Zealand that seems to take a softer legal approach
in the hopes of bringing more nations into the
emissions-cutting fold. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate
Change Todd Stern this week openly embraced the idea as the
"most interesting proposal on the
table."
Specifically, the plan calls for countries to set
domestic emissions targets of their choosing, then face
legal obligations to give the United Nations a schedule for
when those cuts will happen and to submit to binding review
measures. The big numbers, though -- the tons of climate
pollution each nation will slash -- would not be
internationally legally binding.
'Cute,' but
'unhelpful'
"That's cute. But it's completely
unhelpful," said Michael Dorsey, interim director of
the energy and environment program at the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D.
C.
"The reality is, when countries are given a
pass -- and a pass is voluntarism -- without being forced to
sign on the dotted line on a legally binding agreement, more
often than not, countries don't deliver on those
commitments," Dorsey said.
Meena
Raman, coordinator of the climate change program for the
Third World Network, a coalition focused on development
issues, agreed.
"The United States approach and the New Zealand
approach is actually a race to the bottom," Raman said.
"The time to say, 'I will do what I can based on my
national circumstance,' is over. It is really immoral.
What the United States is doing and New Zealand is doing is
to condemn everybody to
disaster."
At the
heart of those arguments lies the belief that the United
States and other wealthy nations should be held to stricter
standards -- legally and financially -- because they have
polluted the longest and have become wealthy on a fossil
fuel diet that is now causing poor countries to suffer.
Forcing poor countries to take on equal legal responsibility
to wealthy ones, Dorsey said, "fundamentally undermines
the idea that the polluter should pay. And the polluter, in
this case, is the United
States."
That's where the pragmatists come
in.
"This is the kind of 'perfect is the enemy
of the good' thinking that has stalemated the talks for
more than 15 years," Paul Bledsoe, a senior energy
fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
It's also a view the Obama administration
categorically rejects.
"That approach is not going to advance the
ball, because first of all, developed countries don't
accept that worldview," Stern said of the Kyoto
Protocol-era arguments in a Yale Law School speech this
week. Many developing countries, he argues, are now not only
top emitters but also major historic emitters with the
financial means to make emissions cuts, as well, that they
did not have when U. N. rules were designed in
1992.
Top-down vs. bottom-up
Nigel
Purvis, a former Clinton administration climate negotiator
who has written extensively about how a 2015 agreement might
take shape, recently described a potential path forward much
like the New Zealand proposal.
"Nations could make the procedural elements of
the new climate agreement -- such as the obligation to file
reports and participate in international consultations --
legally binding, while leaving the substantive elements --
including the all-important emissions-mitigation pledges --
nonbinding at the international level but with assurances
they would be binding under domestic law," Purvis wrote
in a Center for American Progress report<http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/10/16/document_cw_02.pdf>.
That
approach, he argued, might satisfy both European countries
that favor legally binding deals and major emerging
economies that want only rich nations to be legally
obligated. Meanwhile, he said, "The compromise might
also suit the Obama administration, which insists that the
United States will only accept internationally legally
binding obligations that apply to China and India too. This
plan would maintain the symmetry the United States insists
upon without necessarily causing major emerging economies to
balk." And, by the way, Congress need not get
involved.
Speaking with ClimateWire this week, Purvis said
India holds the key to deciding how legally binding the 2015
deal will be.
"What probably matters most are the views of
India, because virtually everyone agrees we should not
repeat the mistakes of Kyoto in having one set of rules for
developed countries and other set of rules for developing
countries," he said. "India is the most cautious
on legal form. The most India can live with is what the
Paris agreement will be."
Dorsey,
Raman and others said developing countries have no plans to
relinquish demands that wealthy nations take steep,
internationally legally binding cuts while also providing
legally binding financial support to developing countries.
But behind the scenes, others say, some chess pieces are in
fact moving.
Elliot
Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions think tank, which has been leading a
series of discussions with negotiators for big and small
countries, said that despite still-heated debate, nations do
seem to be converging around a "hybrid" 2015 deal.
Diplomats, he said, are seeking the sweet spot between
"top-down" elements sought by developing nations
and "bottom-up" approaches desired by the United
States.
"What you're trying to do is balance
national flexibility and international discipline to achieve
both broad participation and greater ambition. That's
the balancing act," Diringer said. "A strong
agreement accomplishes little if nobody joins in. But broad
participation accomplishes little if the ambition is low. So
you're trying to get
both."
Lisa
Friedman
Deputy Editor, ClimateWire
(202) 446-0467 office
(202) 251-2083 cell
lfri...@eenews.net
www.eenews.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Third World
Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved
To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE!
16 Oct 2014
New award for innovative climate finance mechanism announced by UNDP MDG Carbon
UNDP MDG Carbon jointly with Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. have just announced the Climate Change Finance Innovation Award Contest on the on the World Bank/UNDP Climate Finance Options Platform. The winning proposal will be awarded with US$10,000 to seed their innovative concept.
The overall objective of the contest is to harness the collective intelligence of people globally to address the urgent need for innovative financing concepts for scaled-up mitigation actions. These innovative ideas should lead to increased private and public investments in developing countries and assist them in achieving sustainable, low carbon, green growth. There is no limit to the type of financing solutions and concepts to be offered, although participants are generally expected to present innovative ideas which are different from already existing and operational climate change mitigation funding mechanisms.
All proposals should be submitted by November 24, 2014 (17:00 New York time) to the following e-mail address: con...@undp.org
Please refer to the Terms and Conditions of Participation for more information.
We are looking forward to many innovative ideas!
-The Award Contest Team--------------------------------------------
En date de : Lun 20.10.14, MOUSSA NA ABOU Mamouda <mamo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Objet: [franclimat] FW: TWN Climate Info: Experts take sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
À: "réseau climat développement" <franc...@rac-f.org>
Date: Lundi 20 octobre 2014, 12h43
FYI:
a new U.S. position on Paris talks following a proposal
from New Zealand – This shows once again, that Paris
agreement will depend on a compromise between the US and
major developing countries i.e. China and India, on GHG
emissions
reductions.Best,Moussa—AfricaAdapt Knowledge Sharing Network
Coordinator
http://www.africa-adapt.net/AA/
ENDA Energy, Environment and Development
http://energie.enda.sn/ - http://www.enda.sn/
Dakar - Senegal - Tel: 00221 33 822 24 96
(office)Skype :
moussa.na.abou
From: TWN News <ne...@twnnews.net>
Date: Monday,
October 20, 2014 at 2:08 AM
To: TWN Mailing List
<ne...@twnnews.net>
Subject: TWN Climate
Info: Experts take sides on new U.S. position on Paris
talks
Title : TWN Climate Info: Experts take
sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
Date : 20 October 2014
Contents:
TWN Info Service on Climate Change
(Oct14/04)
20 October 2014
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Experts
take sides on new U.S. position on Paris talks
<http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060007425>
Lisa
Friedman, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, October 16,
2014
The
United States' backing this week of a legally ambiguous
2015 global warming deal has exposed long-standing fissures
between the pragmatists and social justice activists in the
international climate movement.
At
issue is whether the agreement that nations pledged to forge
in Paris next year should be an international treaty, a
loose voluntary pact or something in between. The question
gets to the thorny issue of fairness, which has plagued
negotiations between rich and poor nations for
decades.
A
full-blown treaty will never fly in the United States, goes
the American thinking. For such a deal to even have a
long-shot chance of Senate approval, all countries --
including China and India -- would have to agree to be held
to the same legal standards. Yet those and other developing
nations are equally loath to sign up to globally mandated
carbon cuts. Moreover, those countries say they should not
have to do so, since industrialized nations caused climate
change to begin with.
The
Obama administration thinks it has found a way out of the
cycle of blame and evasion. The solution comes in the form
of a proposal <http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/10/16/document_cw_01.pdf>
from New Zealand that seems to take a softer legal approach
in the hopes of bringing more nations into the
emissions-cutting fold. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate
Change Todd Stern this week openly embraced the idea as the
"most interesting proposal on the
table."
Specifically, the plan calls for countries to set
domestic emissions targets of their choosing, then face
legal obligations to give the United Nations a schedule for
when those cuts will happen and to submit to binding review
measures. The big numbers, though -- the tons of climate
pollution each nation will slash -- would not be
internationally legally binding.
'Cute,' but
'unhelpful'
"That's cute. But it's completely
unhelpful," said Michael Dorsey, interim director of
the energy and environment program at the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D.
C.
"The reality is, when countries are given a
pass -- and a pass is voluntarism -- without being forced to
sign on the dotted line on a legally binding agreement, more
often than not, countries don't deliver on those
commitments," Dorsey said.
Meena
Raman, coordinator of the climate change program for the
Third World Network, a coalition focused on development
issues, agreed.
"The United States approach and the New Zealand
approach is actually a race to the bottom," Raman said.
"The time to say, 'I will do what I can based on my
national circumstance,' is over. It is really immoral.
What the United States is doing and New Zealand is doing is
to condemn everybody to
disaster."
At the
heart of those arguments lies the belief that the United
States and other wealthy nations should be held to stricter
standards -- legally and financially -- because they have
polluted the longest and have become wealthy on a fossil
fuel diet that is now causing poor countries to suffer.
Forcing poor countries to take on equal legal responsibility
to wealthy ones, Dorsey said, "fundamentally undermines
the idea that the polluter should pay. And the polluter, in
this case, is the United
States."
That's where the pragmatists come
in.
"This is the kind of 'perfect is the enemy
of the good' thinking that has stalemated the talks for
more than 15 years," Paul Bledsoe, a senior energy
fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
It's also a view the Obama administration
categorically rejects.
"That approach is not going to advance the
ball, because first of all, developed countries don't
accept that worldview," Stern said of the Kyoto
Protocol-era arguments in a Yale Law School speech this
week. Many developing countries, he argues, are now not only
top emitters but also major historic emitters with the
financial means to make emissions cuts, as well, that they
did not have when U. N. rules were designed in
1992.
Top-down vs. bottom-up
Nigel
Purvis, a former Clinton administration climate negotiator
who has written extensively about how a 2015 agreement might
take shape, recently described a potential path forward much
like the New Zealand proposal.
"Nations could make the procedural elements of
the new climate agreement -- such as the obligation to file
reports and participate in international consultations --
legally binding, while leaving the substantive elements --
including the all-important emissions-mitigation pledges --
nonbinding at the international level but with assurances
they would be binding under domestic law," Purvis wrote
in a Center for American Progress report<http://www.eenews.net/assets/2014/10/16/document_cw_02.pdf>.
That
approach, he argued, might satisfy both European countries
that favor legally binding deals and major emerging
economies that want only rich nations to be legally
obligated. Meanwhile, he said, "The compromise might
also suit the Obama administration, which insists that the
United States will only accept internationally legally
binding obligations that apply to China and India too. This
plan would maintain the symmetry the United States insists
upon without necessarily causing major emerging economies to
balk." And, by the way, Congress need not get
involved.
Speaking with ClimateWire this week, Purvis said
India holds the key to deciding how legally binding the 2015
deal will be.
"What probably matters most are the views of
India, because virtually everyone agrees we should not
repeat the mistakes of Kyoto in having one set of rules for
developed countries and other set of rules for developing
countries," he said. "India is the most cautious
on legal form. The most India can live with is what the
Paris agreement will be."
Dorsey,
Raman and others said developing countries have no plans to
relinquish demands that wealthy nations take steep,
internationally legally binding cuts while also providing
legally binding financial support to developing countries.
But behind the scenes, others say, some chess pieces are in
fact moving.
Elliot
Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions think tank, which has been leading a
series of discussions with negotiators for big and small
countries, said that despite still-heated debate, nations do
seem to be converging around a "hybrid" 2015 deal.
Diplomats, he said, are seeking the sweet spot between
"top-down" elements sought by developing nations
and "bottom-up" approaches desired by the United
States.
"What you're trying to do is balance
national flexibility and international discipline to achieve
both broad participation and greater ambition. That's
the balancing act," Diringer said. "A strong
agreement accomplishes little if nobody joins in. But broad
participation accomplishes little if the ambition is low. So
you're trying to get
both."
Lisa
Friedman
Deputy Editor, ClimateWire
(202) 446-0467 office
(202) 251-2083 cell
lfri...@eenews.net
www.eenews.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright Third World
Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved
To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages