This dispatch by Sea Change Radio Executive Producer Bill Baue and Climate Correspondent Cimbria Badenhausen first appeared on CSRwire.
The Guardian leak of the so-called “Danish text” threw the UN Climate Conference (COP15) into “disarray,” with developing countries “furious” at developed countries such as the US, UK, and Denmark for secretly drafting a framework agreement dated November 27. Among other affronts, the draft document would allow developed countries to emit almost twice as much carbon per person (2.67 tonnes) than developing countries (1.44 tonnes). Sudan’s Lumumba Stanislas Dia Ping, head of the G77 group of developing countries, said the Danish text is a “serious violation that threatens the success of the Copenhagen negotiating process.
“The G77 members will not walk out of this negotiation at this late hour because we can’t afford a failure in Copenhagen,” he added, referring to the Barcelona Climate Conference in early November when over 50 African nations walked out of negotiations over low carbon cut commitments from developing nations. “However, we will not sign an unequitable deal. We can’t accept a deal that condemns 80 percent of the world population to further suffering and injustice.”
This news amplifies a long-standing tension in climate negotiations between the richer nations of the global north and the poorer southern nations that predates the Kyoto Protocol fixing on market mechanisms such as carbon trading to solve climate change. This divide is palpable at COP15, according to Sea Change Radio Climate Correspondent Cimbria Badenhausen, who is on the ground there.
On Monday’s opening session of the Klimatforum, the alternative to COP15 (akin to the World Social Forum alternative to the World Economic Forum), Via Campesina (International Peasant Movement) General Coordinator Henry Saragih said that its members are angry at agribusiness, increasing poverty, and destroying forests.
The fate of forests is a significant focus at COP15, where “reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries” (REDD) was on the day two agenda. Delegates from Bangladesh, Brazil, the Philippines, and Sierra Leone stressed the importance of indigenous peoples’ voices informing the development of REDD policies, according to Badenhausen. Forests store more than carbon; they also hold historical, cultural, and biological value, as well as ownership and tenure rights. “Now is a crucial moment – we must put in a political framework to enable full participation of indigenous peoples, ensuring traditional knowledge is integrated into monitoring and reporting on REDD,” stated a representative from the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change at COP15.
The Brazilian delegate stressed the need to generate significant financial support for REDD to protect the Amazonian environmental system, which is very sensitive and vulnerable. And there’s the rub: funding. It’s also a sticking point in the Danish text, which floats the amount of $10 billion a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2010 to 2012 – a pittance compared to calls from civil society.
“The Danish proposal falls far short of emissions cuts needed, and remains vague on the climate cash. We need a strong deal that delivers the $200 billion in new money every year that poor countries need to adapt to a changing climate and reduce their emissions and sharp emissions reductions from rich countries,” said Oxfam Climate Advisor Antonio Hill. He also pointed to an alternative draft on the table. “The proposal from China and other emerging economies offers a more balanced vision of a deal – but also needs significant work if it is going to serve the needs of the world’s poorest people and prevent a climate catastrophe.”
Thanks to our COP15 Series Sponsor The Cloud Institute, as well as financial support from The ManKind Project and the Institute for Nature and Leadership, as well as other individuals.
If you found this post interesting, you might want to explore these topics also:
carbon trading, Climate Change, COP15, danish text, kyoto protocol
The ‘draft-document’ the Guardian reported as ‘leaked’ to them yesterday spoke of anger from Developing Countries. The story said this was because, “The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita 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 . . . ” – ["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"].
If that were true, Developing Countries with justification would be outraged.
But this ‘interpretation’ is wrong and probably the result of [1] poor presentation by these authors and [2] a tendency for Developing Countries to remain blinded by anger as a result of the last twenty years of ‘poor performance’ all round . . .
In fact, the words in the draft document * – when converted to numbers – mean that Developed Countries are offering Developing Countries a global-deal based on parity of emissions-limits/entitlements per capita globally by 2050. That is what a global cut of 50% by 2050 inside which an 80% cut by Developed Countries adds up to be. [Relevant text from draft below - relevant GCI material about C&C here: http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf ].
It has for years gone by the name of contraction and convergence [C&C] [contraction of emissions globally to stabilize the atmosphere concentration of ghg and convergence to the equal per capita sharing of that 'contraction-event' globally by a date to be agreed].
The UK Government’s ‘Climate-Act’ is based on C&C and Chair of the Government’s Climate Change Committee [Lord Adair Turner] told Parliament in Februrary that C&C is the “only basis that is doable and fair.” He also agreed that, “if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that.” [Global C&C examples at faster rates - scan-and-zoom pdf with numbers - can be sent on request].
This situation is a potential repeat-failure that can and must be avoided. We have repeatedly advised the UK Government to make their presentation strategy and advocacy of C&C more transparent and UNFCCC-friendly [democratic?] and to invite all Parties in by being less prescriptive of a chosen set of C&C rates. They have not yet – as this latest affair demonstrates – learned how to do this.
two current links for our own networked news on this: –
http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=1722112256&sort=d&start=778
http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1722112332&start=779
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action
3 bullet point two: –
“Support the goal of a reduction of global annual emissions in 2050 by at least 50 percent versus 1990 annual emissions, equivalent to at least 58 percent versus 2005 annual emissions. The Parties contributions towards the goal should take into account common but different responsibility and respective capabilities and a long term convergence of per capita emissions.”
Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action
7 bullet point one: –
“The developed country Parties support a goal to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 versus 1990.”
The 2050 disparity in per capita emissions cited in the Guardian simply isn’t true, unless you believe that the population of the developing world will more than double by then. Using a more plausible population projection, the Danish text nearly achieves per capita emissions convergence. http://bit.ly/6xWk1l