Opinion -
News Analysis Climate deal unlikely for up to a year John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg | World's key industrialised nations say they have abandoned hope of a legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit in December. |
— PHOTO: AFP
GLOOMY DAY: Greenpeace activists hang a banner from the Cristobal Colon statue on Thursday in Barcelona. A global treaty to fight climate change will be postponed by at least six months and possibly a year or more, senior negotiators and politicians conceded on Thursday.
In a day of gloomy statements, the world's key industrialised nations said they had abandoned hope of a legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit next month and had begun to plan only for a meeting of world leaders. The stark statements follow weeks of pessimism and represent a significant downgrading of the summit's goal.
In London, Ed Miliband, the U.K. climate change secretary, became the first British politician to acknowledge publicly that Copenhagen would produce no legal climate change treaty.
Speaking in the House of Commons, he said: "The U.N. negotiations are moving too slowly and not going well." He went on to describe a "history of mistrust" between developed and developing nations with negotiators "stuck in entrenched positions," an impasse that prompted African nations to stage a walkout at the negotiations this week.
In Barcelona, where last-ditch negotiations are taking place, it became clear the best hope for Copenhagen is a "politically binding" agreement, which rich countries hope will have all the key elements of the final deal, including specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions cuts and money for poor countries to cope with climate change.
A British government official said: "It would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change."
Legal treaty in 2010 But, she said, a legally binding agreement "could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible." Sources said a meeting in Mexico in December 2010 would be more likely to see the legal treaty sealed.
The news of the delay was met with resignation by developing countries and NGOs. "Politically binding agreements are worth very little," said Lumumba Di-Aping, chair of the G77 group of developing countries. "Tell me of any politician who delivers a politically binding agreement."
The delay was said to be caused by a combination of time running out in the increasingly rancorous U.N. negotiations and the inability of the U.S. — the world's biggest cumulative emitter — to commit to specific targets and timetables by passing a domestic law.
The Obama administration made clear on Wednesday it thought a legal treaty was impossible in Copenhagen. On Thursday it further inflamed opposition to its Senate bill when Barbara Boxer, chairman of the environment committee, defied a Republican boycott to vote through a sweeping plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cemt over 2005 levels by 2020.
"Delay too long" The U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, said on Tuesday a delay of a year would be too long, while developing countries were dismayed that they had not been formally told of the delay. "We cannot afford delaying tactics in any way. It's a matter of life and death," said Makase Nyaphisi, the Lesothan ambassador speaking on behalf of the U.N.'s least developed group of 49 countries.
Speaking in Barcelona, Artur Runge-Metzger, the European commission's chief negotiator, said: "It is a Catch-22 situation. People are waiting for each other so it is difficult to blame anyone. [But] the U.S. position is significant. Clearly the U.S. has been slowing things down."
Both Mr. Miliband and the U.K. Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, are to attend Copenhagen, with Mr. Brown calling it the last chance to prevent "catastrophic" climate change.
Mr. Brown, President Lula of Brazil, President Sarkozy of France and other heads of state have already said they will go.
It is now more likely that President Obama will go because he will not be forced to sign a legally binding agreement which the US Senate could reject.
Mr. Miliband's comments were the first public reappraisal of the British position since officials began to shift the line following downbeat comments last week from the Copenhagen host, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.
Government sources said it had become increasingly obvious amid slow negotiations that a legally binding treaty in December was unlikely. But one insisted that political commitments would move to legal ones, pointing out that the Kyoto protocol followed the same course from political to legal agreement. "I don't think we are downbeat about this," said one. They also said pledges made at Copenhagen would be as difficult to escape as if they were legally binding, because nations would have made their commitments at the very public forum of a U.N. meeting.
— © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2009 © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment