By Marita Noon
Sunday, December 01, 2013
“Rich countries are still not pledging enough money to
begin financing a shift to a cleaner global economy,” reports the Financial
Times (FT) in its coverage of the United Nations climate talks in Warsaw that
ended with little more than a “vague road map on how to prepare for a global
climate pact they’re supposed to adopt in two years.”
Leading into what has now been called an “unsatisfactory
summit,” predictions suggested the “talks could collapse because of a lack of
financial support from rich nations.” Delegates from developing countries, such
as Ecuador’s lead negotiator Daniel Ortega, believe “an effective 2015
emissions reduction agreement has to be based on a clear financial package.”
Ortega stated: “I’m not personally expecting any
commitment by Warsaw. What we need to have is a clear roadmap of how the
discussions of financing will allow us to have a clear idea of commitments by
2015.”
Even low expectations like Ortega’s were dashed when, on
the opening day of the climate talks, November 11, Australia’s Prime Minister
Tony Abbott’s government produced a document, outlining its position at the
Warsaw conference, which boldly stated: “Federal cabinet has ruled that
Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this
week’s global summit on climate change.” The Australian points out: “This rules
out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to
developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions.” But,
perhaps, the most dramatic line in the government document is: Australia “will
not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”
A few days later, November 15, Japan announced that “its
emissions would increase slightly rather than fall 25 per cent as promised in
2009.” Japan was struggling to meet its previous emissions promises—which were
the most aggressive of any big developed country—even before the Fukushima
accident prompted the shutdown of its 50 still-operable nuclear reactors and
its corresponding rise in the supplemental use of fossil fuels.
Then on November 20, news came out of England stating
that Prime Minister Cameron is telling everyone: “We’ve got to get rid of all
this green crap.”
All of this is on the foundation of Todd Stern, the Obama
Administration’s chief climate diplomat, dialing back expectations when, during
an October 22 speech in London, he addressed U.S. involvement: “an international
agreement is by no means the whole answer.” He pointed out “the need to be
creative and flexible” and acknowledged the “hard reality” that “no step change
in overall levels of public funding from developed countries is likely to come
anytime soon.” Stern added: “The fiscal reality of the United States and other
developed countries is not going to allow it.”
Toward the end of the conference, “six environment and
development groups walked out, saying the annual round of talks had delivered
little more than hot air.” A statement from Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund
(WWF), Oxfam, ActionAid, the International Trade Union Confederation and
Friends of the Earth said: “The Warsaw climate conference, which should have
been an important step in the just transition to a sustainable future, is on
track to deliver virtually nothing.” Samantha Smith, leader of the WWF’s
climate and energy initiative called the meeting a “farce.” She told the FT:
“Finance is one of the big reasons we walked out. Expectations were that
developed countries were going to put money on the table, but what happened
when we got here was exactly the opposite.”
In a statement, Smith blamed: “Japan's announcement that
it would not reduce emissions as promised, Australia’s decision to end its
carbon tax and Canada’s congratulating the latter on its new climate policy.”
Just as it looked like predictions of collapse would come
true, a last-minute compromise came through in overtime: the Warsaw
international mechanism for loss and damage (IMLD). Stern led the 36 straight
hours of “bad-tempered negotiations”—including a standoff between the US and
developing nations—in which “countries of the South … finally won.”
Addressing the IMLD, the Associated Press (AP) reports:
“agreements were watered down to a point where no country was promising
anything concrete.” While the IMLD was agreed upon, according to The Hindu,
“deciding how this mechanism would get the funds in future” remained
unresolved. And, BusinessGreen.com bemoans: “the vague wording fell short of
the kind of detailed commitments on additional funding and avoided a commitment
to compensation that many developing nations had been seeking.”
So, while a deal was reached that allows “just enough to
keep things moving,” little is really expected. The AP states: “In two-decades,
the U.N. talks have failed to provide a cure to the world’s fever.” Even Connie
Hedegaard, European climate commissioner, acknowledges: “the process needs to
provide a ‘substantive answer’ to global warming in two years to remain
relevant.”
Fortunately, Mother Nature can’t be bought. Despite the
billions the world’s wealthy nations have provided to poorer countries, global
CO2 emissions have continued to rise. As the Washington Post reports, from
2010-2012 only about $5 billion of the $35 billion actually went toward helping
poor countries prepare for actual climate change impacts. $100 billion per year
is expected by 2020 but “most developed countries are failing to demonstrate
promised increases.”
Britain was one of the “wealthier nations” to promise
billions in aid, but it is balking, too. Ed Davey, energy and climate
secretary, believes that paying additional compensation to poorer nations is
“not fair or sensible.” The Telegraph states: “Growing numbers of Tory
backbenchers are now calling for the government to withdraw from expensive
climate change and carbon commitments.”
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP, sums up the so-called climate
compensations: “We’re spending money that we don’t have to solve a problem that
doesn’t exist at the behest of people we didn’t elect.”
Canada, Australia, Britain, and even Japan—home of the
landmark Kyoto climate talks two decades ago—are coming to their senses. The US
held out until the very last minute—and then capitulated by agreeing to the
IMLD.
It really is all about the money. The Abbott
Administration has stated: Australia’s efforts on greenhouse gases will be
conditioned by “fiscal circumstances.” Japan, acknowledges its need for energy:
“Although Japan’s economy is one of the world’s most energy efficient, the
country is still the fifth-biggest CO2 emitter, owing to its large-scale
concentration of manufacturing industries.” Britain’s Carswell says: “The
rethinks that have happened in Japan and Australia and elsewhere desperately
need to happen here as well.” Ditto for America. After all, they’ve had their
way for twenty years—CO2 emissions have gone up, the economy has gone down, and
global warming has stalled.
No comments:
Post a Comment