A bad time for climate talks
POZNAN, POLAND: In politics, as in many other walks of life, timing is everything.
Arguably, the UN climate conference here has come about two months too early; and instead of a conference of decisions, it is turning into one of "what ifs".
What if European Union countries don't finalise, or weaken, their energy and climate package during their meeting in Brussels, which runs simultaneously with the two days of ministerial-level discussions here?
What if the EU had been able to say at this meeting how it would fund developing countries wanting to switch to a "green economy", instead of pledging to roll its proposals out in January?
What if Barack Obama's incoming US administration supplied the US delegates here, rather than the outgoing George Bush administration?
The goal agreed by 189 governments in Bali last year is to reach a new global accord on climate change by the end of next year, when Copenhagen plays host to the UN conference.
The Poznan meeting is supposed to mark the transition from a "year of ideas" to a "year of negotiation"; but how can people know what they're negotiating if all the ideas aren't in yet?
It's not often I bring out my laurels and burnish them; but I do remember predicting this timing problem two years ago, as I chatted with Phil Clapp of the Pew Environment Group, one of the most knowledgeable people on the politics of climate change I have ever met, under the awnings of the UN pavilion in Nairobi.
Phil's absence here - he died of pneumonia several months ago - leaves a big hole in the lives of journalists, activists and politicians who profited from his wisdom and enjoyed his company.
He's the kind of person the public hardly ever sees, but who helps those of us with less natural wisdom to make sense of it all - which in turn, I think, helps you by making our reporting more accurate and more insightful.
Listening to a succession of important delegates from presidents, prime ministers and UN dignitaries saying how much they were looking forward to working with Mr Obama's administration, I asked myself another "what if" question; what would Phil make of it all?
I think he would have pointed out the US realities; that even a president-elect who is pretty unequivocal about his aim of tackling climate change will have many other issues on his plate.
I think he would have emphasised that developing countries don't only want the US, the EU and the rest of the developed world to promise to cut their emissions; they want to know what money the West will put in, how that money will be raised and managed, what clean technologies will be transferred on what terms, how forests will be protected, and what restrictions they would be expected to place on their emissions; all this will need to be clear before they will sign any deal.
John Kerry, who is to chair the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations committee, told reporters here that the timescale would not slip - that there must be a deal in Copenhagen.
It is ambitious, to say the least; and the Pew Group is among those cautioning that if a deal is done in a year's time, it may not include firm numerical targets for cutting emissions.
To understand the political realities of something like that - an agreement on cutting emissions without targets on how much - Phil is exactly the sort of person I would have needed to approach.
If the Obama administration is serious about making significant reductions in its own greenhouse gas emissions and in leading the rest of the world to a low-carbon future, one senses it is going to have to get those questions asked, and answered, very quickly.
The fact that it couldn't do so before this year's UN conference, though, may turn out to be a significant factor when the show rolls on to Copenhagen - as may the fact that the EU arrived here with one hand tied and the other behind its back.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
........and on the same day as the religous gathering in Poznan, a Senate report published today lists 650 scientists who say global warming is rubbish !!!
Included in these 650 are former IPCC members who are appalled at the politicisation of science.
It's no surprise that the BBC have failed to cover this , as it does not fit in with their beliefs, but for those of an independent mind , and capable of reading , here is the link.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84
Complain about this comment
ToughNeilHyde
Thank you for that link. As you rightly say. this will not be reported by the BBC and I don't expect to see it in the Guardian in the near future either but they will find out its significance if the Obama Administration try to pass a bill that resembles anything like the UK's Climate Bill.
The Senate minority have the power to block any such bill as the Democrats have failed to secure the 60 Senate seats they would need to pass it.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC fail to report on that senate report then I think that it would be fair to say that the BBC has run out of all journalistic integrity!
Complain about this comment
Richard,
It is not fair that the environment is probably going to take a back seat in the downturn in the economy.
Complain about this comment
Or maybe the BBC won't report on it, because it is hogwash.
Aren't those the same arguments we've been hearing for 20 years?
Are renewable energy and improved energy efficiency so difficult, we are willing to risk billions of lives, to avoid them?
Complain about this comment
ToughNeilHyde
Really good link, although it is a minority report.
So, Richard, how about this report making the BBC's 10 o'clock news without casting doubt on Inhofe's motives? i.e. reporting it like it is.
Complain about this comment
DonRennie
Same arguments from both sides, but the growing consensus amongst scientists is AGW is rubbish - 400 last year, 650 this year "including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. "
The tide is turning.
Complain about this comment
At 08:12am on 12 Dec 2008, DonRennie wrote:
Or maybe the BBC won't report on it, because it is hogwash.
Aren't those the same arguments we've been hearing for 20 years?
Are renewable energy and improved energy efficiency so difficult, we are willing to risk billions of lives, to avoid them?
So, former IPCC members come out with "hogwash" do they ? I think not, they have seen how the IPCC has become politicised , only 52 scientists come up with the summary for policy makers, often in direct conflict with what the working groups report.
Take your head out of the sand
Complain about this comment
There was an an article in yesterday's Guardian by the very vocal George Monbiot who advocated that everyone who cast doubt on the whole anthropogenic climate change debate was in the pay of some right leaning plot. The response, as in this thread, shows that this is a far more complicated debate with the REAL goal being technology which takes the place of carbon based fuels in future decades. Unfortunately it has been dressed up by the "save the planet" brigade as a Canutian crusade. Richard Black gives balanced reports however this sentiment cannot be extended to his colleague Roger Harrabin who seems to have lost all journalistic objectivity ( see his cringing letter to his son). The facts are:
1. The credit crunch has put unseen brakes on the green march.
2. The EU has to all intents and purposes ditched much of its green agenda this morning.
3. India, China, Brasil and Russia have no intention of coming to the party and will blame the lately impoverished developed economies.
4. The public is becoming increasingly disillusioned by the tone of the political class and do not take the stance of highly privileged activists aka Stansted protest very well.
5. The earth has not warmed for a decade!!
Complain about this comment
DonRennie; Source or cure for flatulence??
So you are saying that members of a club are believeable only if they remain within? On that basis if I leave the golf club, then I nolonger know how to play? Sounds a little too bovine to me...
To believe Al Gore is no better than believeing in George Bush and T. Blair and their weapons of fantasy...
If you care to look at the Cryosphere site you can see we have practically all the Artic ice that we've ever had, or at least in the last 20 years.
If melting a little ice from the caps has resulted in global cooling for the last 10 years, and reinstated the winter ice cover, isn't that perpetual motion? I say stick a fan belt on it and get some of that free energy.
The only way we're damagng the planet, is by allowing deforestation. Plant more trees and stop insurance company's cutting them down in people's gardens. Heck; I'm even allowing a sycamore to mature into a specimen tree even though in better times it's no better than a weed.
For the scare mongerers to suggest that co2 is stable and doesn't break down are talking 'red herrings'. Plants recycle it. Water is stable too until something comes into contact with it, and that is everywhere and a greater influence on the environment...
Complain about this comment
Sorry, not too sure why I should be helping to pay for 'developing' countries to cut emissions at the same time as my economy will be crucified and my energy costs will rocket as a result of these envirophobic agreements.
Particularly if you are including the worlds largest and fastest growing polluter - China - as a 'developing' country.
Obviously as the last remnants of our industry has to close, the same goods will be made in countries such as China. They should use some of the massive income from this to pay for their own actions.
(...and well done Manchester for following the voters of Edinburgh and London. Is this the end of the road for road taxing?)
Complain about this comment
trefjon
Nice summary of where we are up to. I agree Richard Black is about the most balanced commentator on this subject. There are too many that have thrown all objectivity out f the window and just spout ever more shrill, alarmist, sensationalism. Their hot air alone will not reverse the cooling trend of the last decade.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS