Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement- from another angle
Last week’s news about climate change summit in Copenhagen caused a lot of turbulence in the political scene. The primary goal of the meeting was to setting-up an action plan about greenhouse gas emission cuts up to 2020, with targets that would be given by each country that ratifies this agreement. At the meeting there were 40 Misters form all around. Most of them came with some projections and plans, only America and China, two biggest worlds polluters, came with empty briefcases. This unconscionable movement transfer the spotlight form the greenhouse gas emission cuts to America and China leaders. During the last month in many newspapers it could be read of a possible failure of Copenhagen meeting on behalf of China and India as the fastest growing nations but no body mention possible problem with the U.S. The fact that U.S. commitment became most questionable of all, because it is historically the world’s biggest polluter and it isn’t clear will the ratify convention or not put the speculation of China and India activity in background. But even so, Indian medias didn’t stay voiceless.
During my readings for the previous blog, called “Who cares about the Earth? - Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement“ I had found one interesting article from one of the leading Indian newspapers The Business Standard. In the article could be found the facts that all of articles I have previously read missed, what made me to do some more extra reading to get global overview of this topic. So, I have read several different articles from the other side of the globe, The Business Standard, The Times of India, The Hindustan Times and The China daily, as EEA reports about previous acting of 197 countries that had been ratify Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Indian The Business Standard did not save it cynic. At the first view from the headline “The wolf and the lamb” it can be seen that they are very sceptic about the future of Copenhagen summit. In the text they are noting that the reach countries have been trying for weeks to pin the blame on China and India. In addition they are pointing at the facts that rich countries have increased their emissions since reference of 1990, instead of reducing them. The facts can be seen in Climate Change Progress Report Europe climate progress. By Business Standard, Copenhagen was dead before it even started because the U.S. Senate said it would not consider a domestic law on emission control until the next meeting or on the other hand U.S. negotiators would be going to the meeting with “empty briefcase”, what will automatically caused the EU to not begin to negotiate. In addition to, toward to Business Standard, developed countries are pointing that the success of the deal depends are China and India willing to take on binding commitments on emission control and reduction. Gullible, Indian interlocutors have fallen for this diversionary line and argued that India should be a “deal maker” rather than “ deal breaker”, language that sidesteps the basic question what kind of deal is on offer. Therefore India moved on domestic agenda and promised to not cross the emission level of other countries. A little bit different statement could be red in The India Times which reminds the publicity that in bid to put and end to speculation Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has conveyed in writing to the senior members of the negotiation team that India remains committed to its long standing position on climate change. In addition he stated that India repeats its commitment to not accepting international binding emission cuts, no monitoring/verification/reporting of domestically driven measures. Dilution in the Indian position that began with L’Aquila declaration (“India is prepared to reflect in any agreement its commitment to keep its per capita emissions below that of the developed countries”) singed in July 2008 by Prime Minister Manomah Singh, Mr. Ramesh announced that domestic legalisation on emission and more frequent and detailed report to the UNFCCC only served to strength this impression. The Times of India and The Hindustan Times are also noting the fact that was missed by all European and American newspapers agencies that US has never singed the Kyoto Protocol. They are saying that proposing on single legal instrument for emission cuts was a ruse to lower obligation of the rich nations while piling on commitments on the poor countries. In addition Indian newspapers are noting that India’s per capita carbon emission is 1.2 tonne per year, what is less than seven times of what the U.S. emits.
So, its seams that India is in deal but on their own, how successful its actions will be and will they fit to Copenhagen frame in the terms of desirable level of cuts remains questionable.
Guardian is noting hat Indian Primer Minister Manmohan Singh, will visit the White House on 24 November. This partnership on energy could also help to persuade India to agree to specific targets for reducing its emission in the future. So it seams that non-Indian media agencies are sceptic about Mr. Ramesh statements.
Even Chinese president Hu Jinato committed that China will reduce future emissions he hasn’t been specific about the targets numbers. The Guardian is noting that possibly a roughly 50% cut in carbon intensity would be pivotal moment piling the pressure on the U.S. And it is very interesting that most of the Chinese’s medias that could be found in English barley speaks about this topic. Was that on purpose or just pretermission of Chinese’s journalistic? The China Daily in very soft and positive tone writes about next Copenhagen meeting. They are noting that China will take all possible measures to reduce emission by a “notable margin”. Mr Zhang Yesui the Chinese representative to the UN said that China, as always, would actively take a part on next meeting. He adds, “We are convinced that Copenhagen conference must adhere to established framework and principles”. After Obamas visit, President of China, Hu JInato published that the U.S. and China have singed documents including a memorandum of understanding on enhancing cooperation on climate change, energy and the environment and have officially launched an initiative on a joint research centre on clean energy, he added.
I have to note that China took an active role in climate change fight by establishing the China’s National Climate Change Programme. Since 2006, on basis of reports from this programme, China had closed many small-scale coal-fired power plants. In addition to, China is investing in promotion of wind, solar and hydropower and has achieved good progress in use of these resources, what justifies statements of Mr. Zhang and President Hu that China cares about the climate change problem.
In one African article that I have found in English Allafrica it is also notable the double-dealing of developed, rich nations. The article is mostly based on other issues that have direct impact on climate changes putting the focus on deforestation. The article is questioning who is behind Copenhagen deal, global majority or corporate interests?
Even if all parts sing their commitment supported with annexes, I have to remind that participants are from developed and fast developing nations, whose responsibility is deforestations in Africa and Amazon, which contributes 10% to 20% to global warming emissions?
In conclusion, it seams that the first Copenhagen summit, instead of greenhouse cut emission had resulted with emission of a large number of information that haven’t been represented to publicity, or had been forgotten. The real question is what is behind this multiply dealing?
After all the reading for the previous and this blog I have an impression that all countries, with exception of the U.S., are trying to present that they are caring about the planet, but this caring is much more theoretical than a practical. The problem with transferring this theory to a practice, in my opinion, is that action to go green cost a lot as in the terms of investment as in opportunity cost and none are willing to loose their economic position in this “Money and the Power Game”. But will these negligence moves cost us more than we ever imagined?
Sources:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/the-wolfthe-lamb/376782/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-5245133,prtpage-1.cms
http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/News-Feed/Apocalypse-not-now/Article1-477394.aspx
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11/20/content_9013658.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/obamavisitchina/2009-11/17/content_8987617.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-10/29/content_8864377.htm
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2009_9/ghg-trends-and-projections-2009-summary.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/gge_progress.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/gge/com_2009_630.pdf
http://allafrica.com/stories/200911170897.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9C1E8100
No comments:
Post a Comment