The state of Texas has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. Texas has a population of 23 million whereas Africa has a population of 720 million.
Sub-Saharan Africans have an average per capita carbon footprint of 0.83 tons/CO2 whereas in the US this figure is 20 tons/CO2 and rising. This means that the average American is twenty times as responsible for emissions than the average African. And yet, the Bush Administration claimed that there must be binding target for developing countries before they would accept any target. This seems to be a carefully calculated ploy to avoid responsibility, as without looking at the figures you could assume that it is "fair" for all countries to have targets. Yet it is not morally feasible to expect countries who have not caused the problem to have to deal with it.
Moreover, the policy under Clinton, now taken up by the EU, was to encourage the use of "emissions trading" which would apparently reduce the cost of action on climate change. I may reduce the cost, but will also reduce the effectiveness. Especially since there is the prospect of "hot air" credits for Russian 'reduction' of emissions which happened in the early 1990's due to the collapse of Communism.
The institutions to deal with climate change have not resulted in any actual change in policy because despite the 'targets', global emissions have continued to rise. Science has called for rapid action which does not seem to be happening. Deforestation and fossil fuel use continues, driven by economic growth. Yet many 'developed' countries still insist upon 'growth'... Is this necessary? Does GDP really need to rise in countries that are already 'developed'? Is it really an accurate measure of well-being?
Einstein said ''no problem can be solved by the same thinking that created it''. Some have seen climate change as a commercial opportunity which needs technological fixes, and governments are trying to create a 'market' for carbon emissions. But by putting an economic value on a natural substance, are we just continuing the same ideology that got us into this mess?
Monday, 7 January 2008
Saturday, 15 December 2007
Bali Summit ends in Deal
A momentous event appears to have happened today as the UN Climate Change Convention at Bali ended as the draft know as the 'Road Map' was finally accepted by the United States. This is a great surprise for many who thought a deal would not be reached. However, the talks were still marked by the opposition of the US to the position of many other countries as they have not ratified Kyoto. The atmosphere became heated with particular resentment shown towards the US, and it seemed as though the US was actually embarrassed by the deep unpopularity of their position into changing their stance.
An interesting a damning comment was made by South Africa, who argued that the commitment and flexibility shown by developing countries was not being recognised. The South African delegate also said that the G77's new commitments were not being included or represented fully in the draft. The subtext of this was that the US was not recognising the flexibility they were showing. Prior to this the US delegation said that they would still not accept the draft because the commitments of developing countries were not included.
When the US said that the draft was still not acceptable to them, there was a chorus of booing. This was a show of an unprecendented level of resentment against the US, in the context of an international negotiation, and shows how isolated the US had become. Only the Saudi Arabian delegation appeared to show support for the US when they expressed caution about the document.
Ugauda made an begging appeal to the US "to agree with us" because they had listened to their strongest views in consultation, and "we feel that their interests have also been taken into consideration". Tanzania made an impassioned plea to their neighbour sitting to their right, the US, because they had the power to block progress and in their hands lies the "power to wreck the progress that has been made thus far".
The media hero of the Bali conference was Papua New Guinea, with the crucial comment; "There is an old saying, if you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way". He asked the US, "We asked for your leadership, we seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way." There was exuberant applause.
Minutes later, the US was back on the speakers list to say that they were "heartened" by the comments by developing countries, and "we believe we have a shared vision and we want a road map forward, we want a success here in Bali.. we want to be part of a road map, to do our part." They went on. They were "committed to giving the views of others very serious consideration, especially that of Japan, Canada, the European Union, to lead to a halving of global emissions by 2050, as well as those of our developing country partners as we enter this discussion."
On mitigation, "measurable, reportable, verifiable, nationally appropriate" are the new catch-phrases. The US reassured South Africa they were "very committed to this effort" and "just wants to really ensure that we all will act together". Finally they US delegate ended with their decision to the Chairman that "we will go forward and join consensus in this today". The applause was vigorous.
It appears that the US was finally convinced by the developing countries that there would be engagement. Or was it that in the heat of the negotiation, the US delegation went further than the Bush Administration would have liked? Perhaps the US delegates were thinking of the impact of their decisions and wanted to place a footprint in history, in the effort to address climate change. The negotiations reached a direct and dramatic conclusion.
I recommend you to look at the video footage of Bali on the news or the web, because even though it is slow-paced it is pleasing to see the international delegates finally agree and speaking with such blunt honesty, for example the comment by Papua New Guinea. Perhaps the problems of our planet can be solved if we all sit down together and talk. Of course, though, it does depend on the resulting action.
An interesting a damning comment was made by South Africa, who argued that the commitment and flexibility shown by developing countries was not being recognised. The South African delegate also said that the G77's new commitments were not being included or represented fully in the draft. The subtext of this was that the US was not recognising the flexibility they were showing. Prior to this the US delegation said that they would still not accept the draft because the commitments of developing countries were not included.
When the US said that the draft was still not acceptable to them, there was a chorus of booing. This was a show of an unprecendented level of resentment against the US, in the context of an international negotiation, and shows how isolated the US had become. Only the Saudi Arabian delegation appeared to show support for the US when they expressed caution about the document.
Ugauda made an begging appeal to the US "to agree with us" because they had listened to their strongest views in consultation, and "we feel that their interests have also been taken into consideration". Tanzania made an impassioned plea to their neighbour sitting to their right, the US, because they had the power to block progress and in their hands lies the "power to wreck the progress that has been made thus far".
The media hero of the Bali conference was Papua New Guinea, with the crucial comment; "There is an old saying, if you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way". He asked the US, "We asked for your leadership, we seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way." There was exuberant applause.
Minutes later, the US was back on the speakers list to say that they were "heartened" by the comments by developing countries, and "we believe we have a shared vision and we want a road map forward, we want a success here in Bali.. we want to be part of a road map, to do our part." They went on. They were "committed to giving the views of others very serious consideration, especially that of Japan, Canada, the European Union, to lead to a halving of global emissions by 2050, as well as those of our developing country partners as we enter this discussion."
On mitigation, "measurable, reportable, verifiable, nationally appropriate" are the new catch-phrases. The US reassured South Africa they were "very committed to this effort" and "just wants to really ensure that we all will act together". Finally they US delegate ended with their decision to the Chairman that "we will go forward and join consensus in this today". The applause was vigorous.
It appears that the US was finally convinced by the developing countries that there would be engagement. Or was it that in the heat of the negotiation, the US delegation went further than the Bush Administration would have liked? Perhaps the US delegates were thinking of the impact of their decisions and wanted to place a footprint in history, in the effort to address climate change. The negotiations reached a direct and dramatic conclusion.
I recommend you to look at the video footage of Bali on the news or the web, because even though it is slow-paced it is pleasing to see the international delegates finally agree and speaking with such blunt honesty, for example the comment by Papua New Guinea. Perhaps the problems of our planet can be solved if we all sit down together and talk. Of course, though, it does depend on the resulting action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
