admin – Page 575

Author: admin

Vidtory for developing nations as rich countries abandon effort to kill off Kyoto

Negotiations have been deadlocked for a week as developing countries resisted efforts to replace or downgrade the 1997 protocol, which places legally binding commitments on rich – but not poor – nations.

Now, less than a day before more than 115 world leaders take over the reins, the chair of the talks gave up an attempt to ram through a “Danish text”, leaked to the Guardian last week, which would have ended Kyoto. In a victory for the developing world, negotiators will now move forward on a two-track basis, one part of which maintains the integrity of Kyoto.

Hillary Clinton gave a further boost to the flagging negotiations by pledging US involvement in the $100bn (£62bn) a year international fund to help poor nations adapt to climate change. The Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, also gave ground by saying his country would accept tighter international monitoring of greenhouse gases, following China’s indication yesterday that it had softened its opposition to an inspection regime.

But huge differences remain over levels of emissions cuts, financing and monitoring. The chaotic end game to the negotiations could mean that world leaders only have time to hastily paper over a face-saving agreement.

The Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said: “We have lost a day and a half. I don’t want to point fingers. We must get talks back on a substantive track by the time the world leaders meet tomorrow.”

Other countries were also working to resuscitate the talks. A UK official said: “We are not giving up. The irony is that on substance we have had considerable movement in the last few days. For the talks to be in this state simply over matters of procedure rather than substance is immensely disappointing.”

China – the world’s biggest emitter and an essential component to any deal – also said it was still committed to the negotiations. The Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters in Beijing: “China hopes the Copenhagen meeting is successful, and has always taken a constructive attitude.”

The impasse over the Kyoto protocol stems from its status as the only legally binding agreement on climate change, requiring industrialised nations – but not developing nations – to cut their emissions. Rich nations want a fresh treaty, arguing the world has changed and the major emerging economies such and China and India must commit to curbing their huge and fast growing national emissions. But the developing nations argue that rich nations grew wealthy by polluting the atmosphere and must take primary responsibility for it, which can only be guaranteed by Kyoto.

The Maldives president, Mohamed Nasheed, whose island country could be almost entirely submerged by rising seas, said he was staring at failure.

“We will not have a draft. There is no draft. We are facing a situation where it is possible that nothing comes out of [Copenhagen] unless the heads of state decide to come up with it themselves,” Nasheed told an NGO meeting last night.

“I am very nervous and very disappointed. During the course of the past two years, negotiators were supposed to have come up with a document for us to see and consider tomorrow, but they have failed.”

In a story headlined Denmark gives up, the influential Berlingske newspaper quoted a senior source in the host delegation, who said the failure to agree on a single text was a monumental disappointment to the Danes.

“During the whole process, the problem is that this is a huge puzzle where all the pieces had to fall in place at the same time. But to do that, the countries had to make a serious effort and they have been unwilling to do so,” the source was quoted as saying

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise

With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.

A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world’s biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow.

Another key obstacle – the fate of the Kyoto treaty – was solved, with China and the developing world seeing off attempts to kill the protocol. But the UN analysis suggests much deeper cuts will have to be agreed tomorrow to achieve the stated objective of limiting temperature rises to 2C.

The document was drafted by the UN secretariat running the Copenhagen summit and is dated 11pm on Tuesday night. It is marked “do not distribute” and “initial draft”. It shows a gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of carbon emissions between the present pledges and the required 2020 level of 44Gt, which is required to stay below a 2C rise. No higher offers have since been made.

“Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9-4.2Gt is closed and Annexe 1 parties [rich countries] commit themselves to strong action before and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550 parts per million, with the related temperature rise around 3C,” it says. It does not specify a time when 3C would be reached but it is likely to be 2050.

Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman said: “This is an explosive document that shows the numbers on the table at the moment would lead to nothing less than climate breakdown and an extraordinarily dangerous situation for humanity.

“The UN is admitting in private that the pledges made by world leaders would lead to a 3C rise in temperatures. The science shows that could lead to the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, crippling water shortages across South America and Australia and the near-extinction of tropical coral reefs, and that’s just the start of it.”

Bill McKibben, founder of the campaign 350.org, said: “In one sense this is no secret – we’ve been saying it for months. But it is powerful to have the UN confirming its own insincerity.” He did not know why his name was written on the top of the document.

However, Bob Ward, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics and colleague, said current ambitions could still be consistent with a 50% chance of meeting the 2C target. “But it would require steeper reductions after 2020, which are likely to be more costly, to be well below 35 billion tonnes in 2030 and well below 20 billion tonnes in 2050.”

The goal of keeping the increase in global average temperatures below 2C, relative to pre-industrial levels, has become the figure that all rich countries have committed to trying to achieve in Copenhagen. However, 102 of the world’s poorest countries are holding out for emission cuts resulting in a temperature increase of no more than 1.5C.

Anything below that, they say, would leave billions of people in the world homeless, unable to feed their people and open to catastrophic weather-related disasters. But such an ambitious target would mean carbon would have to be removed from the atmosphere.

The internal paper says: “Further steps are possible and necessary to fill the gap. This could be done by increasing the aggregated emission reductions [in rich countries] to at least 30% below the baseline levels, further stronger voluntary actions by developing countries [such as China and India] to reduce their emissions by at least 20% below business as usual and reducing further emissions from deforestation and international aviation and marine shipping.”

Oxfam International’s climate adviser, Hugh Cole, said: “At this stage, a deal that fails to keep temperature rises below two degrees is simply not good enough.”

Earlier this week Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that even with 1.5C rises, many communities would suffer. “Some of the most vulnerable regions in the world will be worst affected. These will be the largest countries in the developing world. They have little infrastructure that might protect them from climate change. The tragedy of the situation is that those countries that have not at all contributed to the problem of climate change will be the ones most affected,” he said.

“Some parts of the world, which even with a 1.5C rise, will suffer great hardship and lose their ability to lead a decent and stable form of existence. If we are going to be concerned about these communities, then maybe 1.5C is what we should be targeting. But if we can find means by which those communities can be helped to withstand the impact of climate change with substantial flow of finances, then maybe one can go to 2C.”

US bids to break Copenhagen deadlock with support for $100bn climate fund

“The US is prepared to work with other countries to jointly mobilise $100bn a year by 2020,” Clinton told a press conference on a day that began with reports that the summit’s Danish hosts had given up hope of reaching a deal.

However, she warned: “In the absence of an operational agreement that meets the requirement that I outlined there will not be the final commitment that I outlined – at least from the United States.”

The $100bn figure was formally put on the table at the conference last night by the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, who is head of the African group of nations. It is much lower than many developing nations say is necessary to help them adapt to climate change and develop green technologies.

Zenawi acknowledged that his proposal would disappoint some in Africa. But he said: “My proposal dramatically scales back our expectation of the level of funding in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table in the management of such fund.”

Standing with reporters when the news broke, the UK prime minister’s official spokesman was surprised by the timing of Clinton’s announcement, despite the fact that one of Gordon Brown’s chief negotiators, Jon Cunliffe, had been on the phone with his American counterpart overnight.

“Obama said he wanted to be as helpful as he could but was concerned about public opinion at home,” said one official. Another added: “This is a very serious move by the Americans. We were waiting for it”.

Clinton also made it clear that America would not budge on its demand for greater accountability from rapidly emerging economies like China and Brazil that they are living up to whatever pledges they make to cut emissions.

Without such transparency, she said, there would be no deal. And without a deal, there would be no money for African and low-lying countries that have the most to lose from rising sea-levels brought by climate change.

Even as 115 world leaders began arriving to put their personal imprint on a deal, the summit hosts were admitting they had failed to broker an agreement. Informal talks on finance and the overall format of the deal were continuing yesterday, but the spokesman for the bloc of African countries warned about the perils of pushing poor countries to a cosmetic deal at any cost.

“Any bad solution for the developing countries is worse than no deal at all in particular for Africa and for the developing countries,” said the spokesman for the African nations. “Those who are forcing the process who are trying to jeopardise what we are doing I am not sure humanity will forgive them at least for the next 50 years.”

The chaotic end game to the negotiations could mean that world leaders only have time to hastily paper over a face-saving agreement.

In a story headlined Denmark gives up, the influential Berlingske newspaper quoted a senior source in the host delegation, saying the failure was a monumental disappointment to the Danes.

“During the whole process, the problem is that this is a huge puzzle where all the pieces had to fall in place at the same time. But to do that, the countries had to make a serious effort and they have been unwilling to do so,” the source was quoted as saying.

However, Denmark could try to revive the process by formally introducing a version of a negotiating draft from last week and imposing it on the summit. However, the draft – the Danish text leaked to the Guardian last week – has infuriated developing countries, and its re-entry could trigger chaos.

• Additional reporting by Allegra Stratton

Copenhagen : the sound of silence

For months the Danish government has been preparing to silence the critics – even approving new police powers to clamp down on protest. Last month we wrote to express our concern that these powers could easily be used to prevent those without a voice at the summit expressing themselves. The Danish government responded that “the new [police powers] will in no way affect peaceful demonstrators”.

The sight of 1,000 activists being held in freezing temperatures without basic rights for many hours clearly exposes the Danish authorities’ argument. So do reports of pepper spray being used on protesters held in cages, the constant raids on meetings and sleeping quarters, the arrest of a civil society spokesperson on the eve of yesterday’s demonstration and the many more stories of serious infringements of civil liberties.

Time and again, we have seen that those incarcerated in unacceptable conditions were actually peaceful protesters – or even bystanders, in some cases. A member of our own staff taking pictures of a demonstration inquired what law he was being challenged under and was told: “It doesn’t matter, you have no rights, you must do what I say or you will be arrested.” The purpose, it seems is not directed at the threat of vandalism or violence but at protest per se.

This reflects exactly what is happening inside the conference centre, where criticism or alternative voices have been ignored and are now being silenced. Developing countries have felt so marginalised by a process clearly under the control of rich countries that they staged a walk-out on Tuesday. The same day the Danish prime minister Rasmussen sought to impose an agreement from above, killing off the legitimate negotiations and the binding Kyoto agreements. Rich countries have been trying to wriggle out of their emission reduction commitments throughout Copenhagen, and developing countries are right to resist.

Today, many developing countries are leaving the centre again to join protesters outside. Also today, civil society organisations including Friends of the Earth, Avaaz and Tck Tck Tck have been thrown out of the conference. Incredibly, delegates and media have been told they will lose their accreditation if they talk to these banned NGOs. No credible justification has been given for this behaviour.

But the real reason is simple – civil society groups ensure that the interests of ordinary people and the planet are not trampled on; at least not in silence. They have few resources to offer in comparison with the power of the corporate lobbyists inside the summit, many of whom will make a fortune if the free market “solutions” to climate change that they are advocating are to go ahead. Together with developing governments and protesters on the streets, civil society organisations are standing up against such deals, and making clear that only a radical, just solution will get us out of this mess.

Attempts to stop the voices of the protesters do not only ride roughshod over Denmark’s reputation for upholding civil liberties, they also threaten to foist an unjust and ineffective climate deal on the world. The lives and livelihoods of millions of people across the world are at stake. They have a right to be heard. Silencing them is a crime of unimaginable proportions.

Copenhagen: World leaders ‘face public fury’ if agreement proves impossible

The row centres on the draft treaty texts the Danish presidency of the summit must produce for leaders to finalise and whether they end the existing Kyoto protocol, signed in 1997. Rich nations want a new treaty to reflect a much-changed world economic order, while poorer nations insist the legal demands Kyoto makes on industrialised polluters must be preserved.

Yesterday began badly, with Connie Hedegaard, Danish environment minister and chair of the summit, resigning to allow her prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen to take over. She called the move “appropriate” with so many heads of state and government attending, though it had not been signalled in advance. Some delegates speculated it was to smooth the way for the introduction of a draft treaty by the Danish presidency that would sideline Kyoto.

But if, as Miliband believes, it will be possible to reassure developing countries over Kyoto, there were some positive steps to build on in other areas.

The most significant of these was progress between the US and China, the world’s biggest polluters and whose actions will determine the fate of summit.

US senator John Kerry gave a packed conference hall a “100%” guarantee to get climate change laws passed through Congress if the countries at the summit managed an overall deal.

“With a successful deal, next year, the US Congress – house and Senate – will pass legislation,” Kerry said to applause. “I will tell you right now, 100%, we are going to pass major climate and energy legislation that is going to have an impact on emissions.”

A critical part of the Copenhagen deal the US wants is “transparency” from China on the curbs on carbon emissions Beijing has promised – an inspection regime. “To pass a bill, we must be able to assure a senator from Ohio that steelworkers in his state won’t lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measurable, reportable and verifiable,” said Kerry, who heads the Senate foreign relations committee and is guiding climate laws through the Senate.

After talks with Kerry, the chief Chinese negotiator, Su Wei, held out an olive branch. He said China would be more open and improve the quality of information about its measures to improve energy efficiency and curb emissions.

“I believe through these measures, we can see that China will only do better in terms of effectiveness, openness and transparency in implementing the goals we set,” Su said.

While stopping short of American demands for independent verification, Su said more data would be made available through existing mechanisms. He was confident this would be enough to end one of the disputes. “I don’t see any further necessity to worry about this,” he said. It is uncertain if other countries will be willing to accept China’s offer, but Su’s comments show China’s efforts to help the Obama administration pass a climate bill through the senate.

Such a bill is crucial if the US is to join a global treaty, while a global treaty would be crippled by the absence of the US. The uncertainty about whether America is prepared to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, and by how much, has dogged the negotiations. It has allowed developing countries, such as China and India, to stall on committing to action and has bred resentment from African and poor countries that will suffer the most from climate change.

India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, was unimpressed by Kerry’s rhetoric. He said India was already prepared to introduce some of the reporting mechanisms America was demanding. A strong offer on climate change finance would help ease the resentment of developing countries, he added.

“If the US comes up with a generous financial offer, the chemistry of Copenhagen would entirely change,” Ramesh told the Guardian. “But they can’t do it on Friday morning when Obama gets here. They must change the atmosphere now.”

Tackling deforestation, which contributes up to 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, took a step forward, with the UK, along with Japan, Norway, America, France and Australia, agreeing that by 2010 a total of $3.5bn would be spent on saving trees. The money comes from the so-called “fast start” fund worth $30bn to poorer countries over three years.

On the vexed issue of longer term finance, the Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi presented an offer to reduce developing country demands by 75% to $100bn a year from 2020, in return for guarantees of how the money would be distributed. But his offer was derided as a sellout by some nations.

Clean coal locked out of funding

Australia failed to get CCS included in the funding program, the Clean Development Mechanism, at talks in Poznan, Poland, last year, and Brazil has maintained its resistance to CCS funding. The mechanism gives lucrative carbon credits to firms that invest in clean technology projects in developing countries, and those credits were seen as a valuable way to subsidise the development of CCS.

John Howard was a staunch advocate of CCS technology, and Kevin Rudd has set up a global institute to promote it, winning praise from Barack Obama and other world leaders for championing the new technology, which has not yet been commercially applied in a full-size coal plant.

But Brazil, which wants to see the CDM used for other technologies, resisted the inclusion of CCS at Poznan last year, and a small number of opponents were again able to block it within the key Copenhagen working group at the climate summit.

Britain and the US have both vowed to become world leaders in capturing coal emissions and storing them underground.

The Canberra-based Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, set up by the Prime Minister to drive the development of CCS technology, was last night considering its position on the Copenhagen decision.

Peter Cook, chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, said the decision was not unexpected and was part of a debate he believed would result in CCS being included in the funding development mechanism.

“Whatever happens with CDM, as long as we continue to use fossil fuels we’re going to need CCS if we’re going to do something about the emissions,” Dr Cook said. “We dare not leave CCS out of the equation.”

The summit is expected to put up to $US10 billion ($11bn) a year for the next three years into projects to help developing countries respond to climate change.

Additional reporting: Matthew Franklin, Sean Parnell