PDA

View Full Version : Environment Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak


KC Dan
12-08-2009, 03:05 PM
hahahahahahahaha, the hits just keep coming...

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change) negotiations.


The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions) for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.


The so-called Danish text (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change), a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.


The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/kyoto-protocol)'s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.


The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".


A confidential analysis of the text
by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:


Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.


Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.


"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.


Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (http://www.gefweb.org/) [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."


The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.


Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

kcfanXIII
12-08-2009, 03:54 PM
The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank;



alex jones called this months ago on his radio show. the carbon tax would be used to fund the banksters in their hostile take over of the world governments.

Mr. Kotter
12-08-2009, 04:03 PM
Heh...it just keeps getting better, and better. Heh.

It would almost be sad, were it not for the arrogance of these folks. LMAO

ChiefaRoo
12-08-2009, 04:03 PM
F8Ck Copenhagen and TipTap

Bwana
12-08-2009, 11:10 PM
heh

Taco John
12-09-2009, 12:55 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2009/12/8/1260279533533/COP15-A-Haitian-delegatio-001.jpg
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents. Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:00 AM
Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster

The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters the US, China, EU and India have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.

Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes in which permits to pollute are bought and sold which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.

In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

He added: "We don't have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual."

The understated Iowan's journey from climate scientist to activist accelerated in the last years of the Bush administration. Hansen, a reluctant public speaker, says he was forced into the public realm by the increasingly clear looming spectre of droughts, floods, famines and drowned cities indicated by the science.

That enormous body of scientific evidence has been put under a microscope by climate sceptics after last month's release online of hacked emails sent by respected researchers at the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia. Hansen admitted the controversy could shake public's trust, and called for an investigation. "All that stuff they are arguing about the data doesn't really change the analysis at all, but it does leave a very bad impression," he said.

The row reached Congress today, with Republicans accusing the researchers of engaging in "scientific fascism" and pressing the Obama administration's top science adviser, John Holdren, to condemn the email. Holdren, a climate scientist who wrote one of the emails in the UEA trove, said he was prepared to denounce any misuse of data by the scientists if one is proved.

Hansen has emerged as a leading campaigner against the coal industry, which produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other fuel source.

He has become a fixture at campus demonstrations and last summer was arrested at a protest against mountaintop mining in West Virginia, where he called the Obama government's policies "half-assed".

He has irked some environmentalists by espousing a direct carbon tax on fuel use. Some see that as a distraction from rallying support in Congress for cap-and-trade legislation that is on the table.

He is scathing of that approach. "This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening," he said. "We've got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets]."

For all Hansen's pessimism, he insists there is still hope. "It may be that we have already committed to a future sea level rise of a metre or even more but that doesn't mean that you give up.

"Because if you give up you could be talking about tens of metres. So I find it screwy that people say you passed a tipping point so it's too late. In that case what are you thinking: that we are going to abandon the planet? You want to minimise the damage."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:12 AM
This is one hell of an ambitious power play:. They essentially are turning Kyoto on its head, as well as the UN, and giving the finger to developing nations. It's like the climate treaty that you'd expect George W. Bush to write.

-----------------------


The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.


The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".


A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:


• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.


Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. [B]It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:16 AM
Didn't Lord Monckton say something about this in October? I don't even know who the guy is (some British lord), but I remember him sounding some alarms that this kind of treaty was on the way.

PhillyChiefFan
12-09-2009, 05:25 AM
nevermind the man behind the curtain...

InChiefsHell
12-09-2009, 06:02 AM
You mean to say that this shit is really all about politics and power, and NOT about saving the fucking planet?? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I say!

Royal Fanatic
12-09-2009, 07:08 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Gf8NK1WAOc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Gf8NK1WAOc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Dissecting the "leaked" Danish documents at Copenhagen
I was reading a summary of the leaked supposed proposed Danish climate treaty when it hit me: This is what climate treaty porn looks like. There, in flagrant display, you can see all the shameful elements of the rich developed country fantasy of treaties: Lock poorer countries into half the per capita emissions of developed countries, move control of credits out of the willy nilly TJ Maxx of the UN and into the hushed boutique halls of the World Bank, and throw out Kyoto's enforcement mechanisms. As with porn porn, climate treaty porn is primarily an escape from reality, interesting as an anthropological phenomenon as well as an anchor for gossip, and destined to get a lot of attention briefly and then be discarded. (See Dave Robert's excellent take-down of the non-story in Grist.) And while there are reports that Copenhagen is in "disarray" and "all hell has broken loose" it's likely that developing countries are not suprised by the material in the supposed document, and may have suspected worse, including the tired contention that the only meaningful action on climate change is population control, which would obviously be implemented "over there" in "other countries" where couples are not plunking down the equivalent of an Escalade for in vitro fertilization.

But this does point up the fact that whatever comes out of the climate talks Copenhagen is the end of the political world as we've known it since World War Two, because China's emerging as a leader, not only of developing countries, but as an idea factory for the world. China's offer to reduce the energy and greenhouse gas intensity of its economy by 45 percent by 2020 is not only a real and large commitment, it's a radical idea that combines economic growth and climate protection--the kind of idea that has not been put forward by developed countries. (And it is the very opposite of the "small shoes will make your footprint smaller" climate porn mentioned above.) In a hair-by-hair analysis of the significance of China's offer, Carnegie Endowment's William Chandler dispatches the naysayers: "Criticism of China's 2020 target is neither productive nor justified, and, if not a cynical ploy to avoid U.S. action, can be explained only by lazy scholarship or reflexive "China bashing."

But China's offer is even more radical in its long-term implications for the world order. As Chandler points out, some parts of China's economy are very inefficient and will not be able to make the average gains of 45 percent. That means that some parts of the economy--particularly the strategic industries--will make much larger gains. And that means that China's industries will start to compete with the West on more than just cheap labor. This is a complete re-ordering of the post-post colonial world in economy and hegemony. Last week Skip Laitner, a senior economist with ACEEE.org, mused in a letter to colleagues, "China clearly sees energy efficiency as a huge productivity tool in ways that I don't believe we fully appreciate within the United States." He noted that China's new economic orientation suggests that China's efficiency gains will outstrip those of the US, adding, "They may also become the world's innovation leaders and that does not necessarily bode well for the U.S."

And all of that explains why some climate negotiators might prefer a fantasy version of a climate treaty.

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/lisa_margonelli/2009/12/dissecting_the_leaked_danish_documents_at_copenhagen.php

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:03 PM
This Copenhagen thing is amusing to me.

HonestChieffan
12-09-2009, 02:09 PM
It would almost be humorous if it wasnt true. The entire ClimateChange bunch is showing what they and "it" are all about. Money. Sad that they have taken so many people down the primrose path only to show the followers they were led by frauds.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/Sx_OYfcmVLI/AAAAAAAAuRE/Ve64SEw5um0/s400/Artic_Tale.png

Taco John
12-10-2009, 12:58 AM
Strange that all the warmies are silent on this laughable proposal being advanced in their names.