Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Bangkok climate talks reach an impass

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

The Telegraph:
Emerging giants such as China and other developing countries say the new agreement should strengthen Kyoto, under which 37 highly industrialised nations took on hard commitments for cutting carbon dioxide pollution between 2008 and 2012.

The United States signed the treaty in 1992 but never ratified it, and thus was exempt from its provisions.

In Bangkok, several nations - notably the US, Australia and Japan - have floated proposals calling for an approach in which each country would make its own national commitments.

These would be measurable and verifiable, but outside any kind of internationally enforceable compliance regime.

Rich nations have suggested that poorer countries, which had no Kyoto obligations, could make efforts to curb carbon dioxide output in keeping with their level of development under such a scheme.

Instead, China called for beefing up Kyoto, which could exist along with whatever other measures might be adopted at the climate conference in Copenhagen.
Meanwhile:
Carol Browner, Barack Obama's energy adviser, admitted that the US senate would probably not vote on its global warming bill before the talks in Copenhagen, seriously limiting the US president's ability to commit to new plans at the summit.
That's a real let down.   More about the impass at The Nation, which reports on the China delegation's frustration:
"Two months to Copenhagen and we are not making any progress in Bangkok," Chinese ambassador Yu Qingtai, who is special representative to the UN's climate-change talks said yesterday.

"The fundamental reason is the lack of political will from the 36 Annex I countries to make progress," he added.  [Annex 1 countries include most OECD member states, central and eastern Europe countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States ]

0 comments: