What Next – Climate Watch

The inconvenient truth

2012-02-01T10:18:00.000+01:00

The inconvenient truth
Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment, February 1, 2012

Many years ago, in a desperately poor village in Rajasthan, people decided to plant trees on the land adjoining their pond so that its catchment would be protected. But this land belonged to the revenue department and people were fined for trespass. The issue hit national headlines. The stink made the local administration uncomfortable. They then came up with a brilliant game plan—they allotted the land to a group of equally poor people. In this way the poor ended up fighting the poor. The local government got away with the deliberate murder of a water body.

I recall this tragic episode as I watch recent developments on climate change.
At the recent Durban climate change conference small island nations—from Maldives to Granada—believed, rightly so, that the world has not delivered on its promise to cut emissions and is jeopardising their future. But they do not have the power to fight the powerful. So, this coalition of climate victims turned against its partner developing countries, targeting India, for instance, for inaction. These nations pushed for India to take legal commitments to reduce emissions, dismissing its concerns of equity as inconsequential.

The divide is complete. Bangladeshi climate change researcher and old friend Saleemul Huq has written arguing the same position. According to him, the issue of equity—the setting of emission targets based on the contribution of each country to the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is an old fashioned idea. He says it will not work in the new world where the dichotomy of the rich and poor countries has been replaced by equal and big polluters like China, India, South Africa and Brazil (BASIC). These countries, he says, are equally responsible and must take steps to cut emissions. He wants the notion of historical emissions junked. For him, countries like Maldives and Bangladesh are victims. India is a polluter, a rich country whose government is hiding behind the poor to avoid cutting emissions.

But the fact is that Maldives’ per capita emission is higher than India’s. So, should Maldives take mandatory emission reductions? Is it a victim or a polluter? India also has a longer coastline than vulnerable Bangladesh. Is it a polluter? Or an equal victim?
Sivan Kartha, a climate change researcher with the Stockholm Environment Institute, tears into this argument that is dividing the poor world and taking the focus away from countries that need to be told to take action fast. He compares India and Africa, countering the charge that Africa is being destroyed because of rich India’s (full with millionaires like Mukesh Ambani) reluctance to take emission reductions. “Actually, 1.1 per cent of Africans have made it to the top global wealth decile against 0.9 per cent Indians. As against this, 21 per cent Americans are in the top global wealth decile. Then, India’s total emissions are only two-thirds of what Africa emits.” As against this, US emissions are four times more than India’s. In this way, while the poor fight over crumbs, the cake is eaten by the rich.

My colleagues at the Centre for Science and Environment analysed income distribution and emissions data to see if rich Indians emitted more than their counterparts in rich countries. The study found that the per capita emission of the richest 10 per cent of India’s population was the same or slightly less than the per capita emission of America’s poorest 10 per cent and it was less than one-tenth the per capita emission of America’s richest 10 per cent. In other words, the rich in India emitted less than even the poorest Americans. This is not to deny that Mukesh Ambani’s enormous house and electricity consumption — reportedly some Rs 75 lakh a month—is distasteful. But it does not take away from the fact that we cannot accept energy and emission apartheid in the world.
Simple plot. Sinister design. The poor have been divided to fight over who is more vulnerable. But one must realise that this divide is a deliberate creation. In 2009 at the Copenhagen conference of parties, two new categories of countries were devised. One, vulnerable countries — that would get fast track funds to adapt to climate change and two, emerging polluters – grouped under the BASIC banner. The bribe and divide was blatant and successful. It was openly said in the conference plenary that polluting countries like India, who wanted an agreement based on equity, were blocking funds that would flow to Bangladesh and Maldives. That penultimate night of the conference the poor fought the poor. The rich looked on. Since then the divide has grown. Emissions of the already rich countries have increased in the past few years. But nobody talks about this.

Its time we stopped this kindergarten fight. Let us be clear the world has to cut emissions drastically and fast. There must be limits on each country based on its per capita emission and taking into account its historical contribution. China is the biggest current emitter. But in cumulative terms—taking into account the stock in the atmosphere accumulated over the years—it contributes 11 per cent against US share of 26 per cent. It must also be brought under limits, as must India. But these limits will have to be based on the principle of equity so that these countries will also have the right to development, but not at the cost of our common future.

This is the most inconvenient of truths. But it is the truth.

Saleemul Huq 2012, Politics of Climate Change, Equity and justice in the global climate change debate, in The Daily Star, January 24, www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-detail.php?nid=219567
Sivan Karth 2012, India in Durban, email sent on December 10, 2012
CSE 2009, Richest Indians Emit Less than Poorest Americans, Factsheet published by Centre for Science and Environment, mimeo

Tariq Banuri on Rio +20

2012-01-17T12:12:00.000+01:00

Message of Tariq Banuri posted on the Rio+20 page.

The Rio+20 Co-Chairs have circulated the zero draft of the negotiation text. It is faithful to the substance and the tone of the discussions at the 2nd Intersessional, whose minutes have also been released. Civil society will need to engage actively with governments and the Bureau in order to push them into raising the level of ambition, which currently seems to be scraping bottom.

The text is 19 pages in length, divided roughly evenly between general and sectoral issues. The latter give it a “populist” tone, in the sense that it now has a little something for everybody even if not consequential–water, energy, climate, biodiversity, access and information, oceans, SIDS, women, and many others–and othis will surely please and disarm single-agenda advocates. However, it may also disappoint many of them because they will find the text to be declaratory and non-operational in nature.

The text can be reduced a lot because there is much repetition and redundancy–probably because of the desire to quote directly from the original submissions–as well as empty rhetoric.

Ignoring rhetoric, repetition, and reiteration, there are a few innovative elements in the text. These include the provisions on access to information (WRI’s contribution), sustainable development goals (SDGs), voluntary initiatives and partnerships, green GDP, and some of the proposals on oceans. These provide an opening for their advocates to propose tighter and more operational language.

One major surprise is that the weakness of the text on the themes and objectives of the conference. The sections on the green economy sound like an unnecessarily long and defensive explanation that the green economy will not be harmful for developing countries. The text on IFSD provides a few paragraphs of concrete action and even options (strengthening UNEP and CSD versus creating a specialized agency and an SD council respectively), but these are presented in rather cursory manner, and much more work will be needed in the next few months to give the proposals some substance. The text on the international financial institutions is particularly egregious.

Looking at the casual nature of this language, it is difficult to see how much progress can be made between now and June. The good money is on a Durban-type solution in which countries will confine themselves to setting out a roadmap for further negotiations, most likely till 2015.

The text suffers from several major weaknesses. First, just like the climate process, it has abandoned all efforts to match rhetoric with intent. There is chapter and verse on the things that are going wrong, but then a bit of hand waving, some exhortation to everyone to do the right thing (voluntary initiatives), some faith in the miraculous powers of casually articulated new concepts. Indeed, there is no indication of a recognition of the complex inter linkages between the different challenges highlighted here and there.

Second, there is no effort to link the proposals with progress made in other contexts, most notably the climate process. Financing, technology transfer, voluntary commitments (and their registry), and many other mundane issues have reached a degree of maturity in climate negotiations. The draft text is quite innocent of all this knowledge.

Third, the word equity does not appear in the text (though equitable does, but that is not the same thing). Enough said.

Finally, notwithstanding the high importance given to it by countries, energy has received very little attention–only 2 paragraphs, repeating the SG’s Advisory Group’s recommendation, with no indication of what precisely needs to be done.

We have a huge task in front of us to push our governments into converting this pap into something meaningful, consequential, and relevant.”

The politics of climate change and the global crisis

2012-01-15T23:00:00.000+01:00

Check out this new book by Praful Bidwai, who's been associated with the What Next initiative since the very beginning. The book came out just before the Durban meeting and discusses, among other things, climate change in both an international equity context as well as the Indian domestic equity context. Below a brief about the book from the Transnational Institute website.

"Irreversible, catastrophic climate change represents the greatest threat to human kind's survival today. Relentlessly rising greenhouse gas emissions are heating up the atmosphere. Planet Earth is hurtling towards disaster, with rapidly melting ice-caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, rainfall pattern changes, and a breakdown of fragile climate balances.

The earth can cope with maximum global warming of 1.5-2 degree C. But temperatures are set to rise way beyond this-unless greenhouse emissions are drastically reduced by 2020.Yet1 the world has failed to reach agreement on this. Industrialised countries, which are primarily responsible for climate change, balk at cutting their emissions. They continue to occupy climate space at the expense of the developing countries' climate-vulnerable poor people. Equally unfairly, their emissions-reduction pledges are lower than the poor countries’.

The climate crisis thus aggravates the global developmental crisis. It is also intimately linked through the prevalent iniquitous development model to grave economic, social and political crises in evidence globally.

This unique book has a dual focus: impacts of climate change, and the politics of the international climate negotiations; and second, lndia as an example of an 'emerging economy' major polluter, which can potentially both aid or obstruct the fight against climate change. It analyses the role of the new BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) grouping and the short-term calculations of other major players in the climate talks.

Yet, there are alternatives to this dismal situation, based on equity, resource conservation, curbs on luxury consumption, promotion of renewable energy and new patterns of production and consumption which sustain low-carbon development. What the global effort lacks is candid acknowledgement of the need for a qualitative change in the growth model and the will to bring it about through democratic popular participation.

Written lucidly, this volume is mandatory reading for social scientists, environmentalists, civil servants, social activists and environmentally conscious citizens."

Click here for direct link to order the book.

Post-Durban, India has its task cut out

2012-01-05T16:15:00.000+01:00

Interesting analysis and reflections on what happened in Durban and India's role.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2729539.ece

Major Clash of Paradigms in the Durban Climate Talks

2011-12-20T16:36:00.000+01:00

Here is a detailed account and analysis by Meena Raman of Third World Network of what happened in the dramatic end of the Durban COP17 negotiations, and implications for the future. The article was originally published in South Centre's South Bulletin (

Download a pdf-version of the whole issue here. Link to South Centre web page here.

Major Clash of Paradigms in the Durban Climate Talks
[South Bulletin 58 Article]

By Meena Raman

The main outcome of the two-week Durban climate change conference was the launching of a new round of negotiations known as the Durban Platform aimed at a new regime (whether a protocol or other legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and involving all countries.

The draft decision on this was provided at an informal plenary late on the night of Saturday 10 December long after the Conference was scheduled to end and when many Ministers and senior officials had already left Durban.

It was given to participants as part of a package of four decisions on a take-it-or-leave it basis with little time for the members to consider or discuss among themselves in an unusual and unprecedented set of procedures.

The decision on the Durban Platform and how it was reached will be debated for a long time to come. It was also unusual how a decision to launch such an important negotiation was made with very little terms of reference to frame the talks or the outcome that will come from it.

The details of the terms of reference are now scheduled to be worked out in the coming year. Given the circumstances in which the Durban Platform was launched, these talks on the framework to underpin the new regime can be expected to be tough and lengthy.

This is especially because different Parties have different paradigms on the substance and shape of a fair and effective climate change regime.

Many of the differences were papered over in the take-it-or-leave it decision-making mode of the final plenary meetings, and the objections of developing countries, especially to many parts of the report and decision from ad hoc working groups on long-term cooperative action under the Convention (AWGLCA) and Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP) were simply brushed aside by their Chairs (officials from the US and New Zealand respectively) and by the COP President herself.

However, the basic differences were most evident in the discussions on the reports of the working groups, and on the draft COP decision on Durban Platform during the plenary meetings on Saturday night and Sunday morning that preceded their adoption.

At the informal plenary discussion on the Durban Platform that launched the new round of talks, the highlight was a lengthy and eloquent plea by the Indian Environment Minister for equity to underpin any future regime, following a call by the European Union’s chief climate official to alter the draft decision to ensure that the outcome of the new talks would be legally binding.

It was a long, intense and dramatic ending at the Durban climate talks which concluded only around 7am on Sunday, 11 December, when it was scheduled to finish on the evening of Friday, 9 December.

Negotiations were particularly intense over the push mainly by developed countries, led by the European Union, for a launch of a new process to develop a legally binding instrument aimed at mitigation efforts by all Parties, but without the usual reference (so prominent in previous such resolutions) to the principles of equity or common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). According to diplomatic sources, the United States was especially adamant that there be no references to these principles in the decision.

The draft decision proposed to the plenary by the South African Foreign Minister Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, in her capacity as President of the 17th session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC was to “launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”.

This draft had been the outcome of a series of closed-door talks over the last few days and nights among 20 to 30 parties. The EU and other European countries and several developing countries including the Alliance of Small Island States were insistent on a legally binding regime (thus the terms protocol or other legal instrument) whereas India and China wanted to add the third option of “legal outcome”.

The third option was included in the final draft put by the COP17 Presidency to the plenary. Although an appeal was made to accept the texts of the four decisions as a whole, the EU’s chief climate official Ms. Connie Hedegaard asked for re-opening the Durban Platform decision to cancel the third option of “legal outcome.”

India’s Environment Minister, Ms. Jayanti Natarajan then made a strong plea for all options in terms of the legal form of the new process to remain on the table, including a “legal outcome” (instead of only a protocol or legal instrument as possible options) in the new process of talks, stressing the need for equity and the principle of CBDR to be the centre piece of the climate change debate.

In a strong and impassioned plea, the Indian Minister appealed to Parties not to push aside equity in the Durban outcome, as this would be the greatest tragedy. The Minister was not prepared to give a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods of the poor when she did not know what the document (from the new process) would contain.

India’s position was supported by several developing countries including China, Pakistan, Bolivia, Egypt, Philippines and El Salvador.

In the draft given to the final plenary, the new process of negotiations is to commence work in the first half of 2012 and is to be completed no later than 2015 in order for the adoption of a protocol, legal instrument or legal outcome under the Convention, applicable to all Parties, at the 21st session (in 2015) of the COP and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020. The option of "legal outcome" was the bone of contention. It was evantually changed to "agreed outcome with legal force" after a on-the-floor negotiation by key Parties during a half-hour break. This left many wondering what was the difference, if any, between "legal outcome" and "outcome with legal force."

What was most worrying for Ministers and senior officials from several developing countries, who were interviewed, was that the Durban climate talks were marked by an attempt by developed countries to push aside the principles of equity and CBDR, especially on the issue for launching the negotiations for a new regime. The US in particular was opposed to any reference in equity and CBDR in the decision to launch the new process.

At the plenary, following the plea by the Indian Minister to retain “legal outcome” option, the EU’s climate change Commissioner, Hedegaard proposed discussions with India on how to accommodate her concerns over the issue of equity.

The COP17 President Ms. Nkoana-Mashabane then proposed a suspension of the session (at around 3.30 am on Sunday morning) for an “informal huddle” between the EU and India to discuss this issue. This huddle soon saw many other Parties joining the discussions, including the United States, China, and Brazil.

According to one source who witnessed what took place, India was willing to take out the words "legal outcome" if the principles of "equity and CBDR" were incorporated in the document. According to the source, the EU was willing to accept this but US chief negotiator, Mr. Todd Stern opposed this and said that the equity and CBDR “will never fly” for the US and thus blocked an agreement between the EU and India.

Following further wrangling, in the final compromise, the words “legal outcome” was replaced with “agreed outcome with legal force”.

Despite the explicit absence of the words ‘equity’ and ‘CBDR’ in the text, several lawyers and senior negotiators were of the view that a protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention must be consistent with the existing principles and provisions of the Convention and therefore the principles of equity and CBDR can be implied to apply. However, this view can be expected to be challenged especially by the United States, when the negotiations start.

The EU’s strong push for a new mitigation treaty came as a quid pro quo for it to undertake a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol for emissions reductions. A decision was also adopted on the Kyoto Protocol on Sunday morning. It however fell short of confirming a second commitment period of the Protocol.

According to one expert observer, the language of the Kyoto Protocol decision was only of the nature of “taking note” of the "intention" of Parties to convert targets to real commitments “with a view” to adopting them at the next climate conference in December 2012. It thus remains to be seen if the commitments will be made, and if so what the numbers and substance will be.

In return, developed countries succeeded in securing a new process of climate talks on mitigation efforts by all Parties, without explicit reference to equity and CBDR.

The often heated exchange on the Durban Platform took place at a joint informal meeting of the COP17 and the 7th session of the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) which was convened by COP/CMP President Mashabane, late night on Saturday, 10 December, following the closing sessions of the AWGKP and AWGLCA.

Mashabane outlined the elements of what she called the “Durban package”, which were (i) the second commitment period (2CP) for emissions reductions by Annex 1 Parties under the KP; (ii) a decision on the work of the AWGLCA; (iii) a decision on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and (iv) an agreement on the Durban Platform for enhanced action.

Mashabane asked Parties to adopt each of the decisions without further debate and amendments when they are presented during the formal sessions of the COP and the CMP respectively, saying that Parties required “assurances from each other to agree to all the draft decisions”, clearly suggesting a “take-it or leave- it” approach. She said that this was needed to “make history and strengthen multilateralism”.

Several delegations expressed frustration that their concerns were not being heard when they were first raised during the closing sessions of the AWGKP and the AWGLCA prior to the joint-informal meeting of the COP and CMP.

The EU’s Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said the EU had a point of utmost concern on the Durban package. What was within reach was a legally binding deal or a prospect for such a deal. For the EU, there was need for a legally binding deal as voluntary means (in relation to emissions reductions) was not enough and international legislation was needed. She said the KP did manage to reduce emissions reductions. The EU wanted further progress through another protocol or legal instrument but was concerned about the words “legal outcome” ( in the Durban Platform which was suggested by India) as this puts in doubt whether Parties were ready to commit (to emission cuts). She said that the EU was ready to commit to a 2CP for another 5 years and was almost alone in the KP. It was not too much for it to ask that after the 2CP, all Parties (including the US and developing countries) would be legally bound to take emission cuts and called for a single legal instrument or protocol by 2018.

Colombia supported the call by the EU and wanted a legal instrument under the Convention by 2018. Switzerland also expressed similar views, saying that this was a new page in history.

India's Minister of Environment and Forests, Ms. Jayanti Natarajan in a passionate and strong response to the EU said equity was a centre piece in the debate on climate change not only for India but for the entire world. She said many Parties came to her in different tones and voices and told her that unless she dropped the option of a “legal outcome” (in relation to the Durban Platform) India would be blamed (for blocking the negotiations). She asked what the problem was in adding one more option.

The Indian Minister said that she will not be threatened by intimidation. Referring to calls for a legal instrument, she asked how she could give a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods of the poor (and not lifestyles of the rich), when she did not know what the document will contain. She asked where the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) was reflected and had no doubt that efforts were being made to shift the entire burden of climate change on countries that did not contribute to the problem.

Referring to the Durban Platform document, she said it was weak on CBDR as it refers to “launching a process to develop a protocol or another legal instrument or a legal outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties.” Natarajan emphasized that she represented 1.2 billion people and that India had a tiny per capita carbon footprint of 1.7 tons and its per capita GDP was also low.

She said that India must not be made a scapegoat of the multilateral process. Referring to the Durban Platform document, she said that it was a product of 6 days of talking and all ideas were put forward and what was captured in the document was the sense of the Chair.

She reminded Parties that India had placed the issue of ‘equity’ on the agenda of the COP but this was pushed somewhere else and was not in the main text (of the AWGLCA outcome document). She made a plea for the issue of equity not to be held hostage and said that it would be a grave tragedy if equity was put aside in Durban.

She appealed to Parties to allow the word “outcome” to remain in the Durban Platform document as a further option. She asked how this could be a crime or for India to be accused of collapsing the talks.

Mr. Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman/Vice-Minister of the National Development and Reform Commission of China in a very strong response, supported India. He said that the existing Convention and Protocol are legally binding but questioned if Parties were implementing them. The existing legal instruments spell out the principles of CBDR, respective capabilities and equity. To deal with climate change, all countries need to collaborate towards common goals, in accordance with respective capabilities, strengthen cooperation, and respond collectively. Till now, some countries have made promises, but have not fulfilled them. They have not taken real actions. We are developing countries. We need to develop. We need to protect the environment and to mitigate climate change and to eradicate poverty. Developed countries have to fulfill their promises, take concrete actions, and truly achieve the objectives in coping with climate change. We do not care what they are saying, but what we need is to see what is being done. Many developed countries have not fulfilled their promises. We have done what we are supposed to do, whereas, they have not done their part. What position are they in to judge us, he questioned.

Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States said that they wanted a 2CP with meaningful numbers under the KP but did not get that in Durban. Hence, the effort is to bring up the ambition level through the legal form. Referring to the options in the Durban Platform document, it said that it was difficult to accept the option of “legal outcome” as it appeared to be an option for climbing down the ladder in terms mitigation ambition by allowing countries to continue the track that brought climate change. If there was no legal instrument, Parties would be relegating vulnerable economies to death, with beautiful words such as access to development. It said that if “they develop we die”. It could not accept terms with no limits on emissions.

Bolivia in supporting India said there is need to think of commitments to emission reductions but also to address the right to development, right to food, right to eradicate poverty etc. The work of the new working group for the Durban Platform must address this. There is also the right to of countries to participate in the equitable access to the atmosphere which has been used by a small group of countries. In an apparent reference to the US, Bolivia said that it was a paradox that a country with a large share of the emissions is not in the KP. When a legal regime is being built, Parties must be careful as to how the atmospheric space is distributed as those who are rich do not want to cut emissions while they want others to do this. The notion of a legal instrument applying to all must take into account poverty and the right to development. Behind the issues of emissions, there is wealth, misery and poverty and vested interests.

The Philippines was concerned that the Convention and the KP were in danger of being a relic of the past. It expressed deep concern that after over 5 years of negotiations on the further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, Parties had again come short of arriving at a ratifiable amendment to KP’s Annex B that would have ultimately gotten the Kyoto Protocol out of intensive care and back into life. It was deeply concerned that Parties had come short of this and had once again procrastinated. Parties were expected to send a strong political signal to the world in the form of adopting fully ratifiable amendments for the establishment of the 2nd Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol. It was heart-broken to see Parties divided and made a plea for not pitting one against another. We are against one real cruel enemy – and that is climate change.

Philippines was for environmental integrity as well as for sustainable and equitable growth. It stressed that equity is a fundamental concept whose reflection in our processes will ensure that we obtain a fair just outcome that achieves the objective of the Convention. It was open to a legally binding instrument, as we agree that a legal regime is important. But it should have been with the view to save the Kyoto Protocol and not have gotten KP out of intensive care.

Pakistan also said that it stood behind equity and CBDR. No matter how much the world has changed, CBDR is still applicable. It said that it was strange that there was no reflection in the document on equity and CBDR. It said that real consensus was when everyone was on board and that no single view should force others to submit. True multilateralism should have everyone on board.

El Salvador stressed the need to raise the level of ambition and address the finance gap, the mitigation gap and the equity gap. It hoped that the process launched in Durban took Parties to where it was needed to go.

Brazil said that climate change is a huge challenge as is fighting poverty and said that no country has done more to reduce emissions than Brazil. On a legally binding deal, it said Parties were on the verge of approving potentially what was more than the Berlin mandate (where the process towards the KP was launched) and the adoption of the 2CP under the KP. It was open to a new era of cooperation.

Egypt, in response to the EU on the need for clarity (in relation to mitigation), said there was need also for clarity on the issue of financial support with predictability, additionality and transparency. It said that developed country Parties who were calling for a new legally binding instrument did not show the same passion for the KP. It also stressed the importance of equity and CBDR. It said that the form of the legal outcome should follow the function. There was need for flexibility in the Durban Platform to allow for the form of agreement needed according to what agreements are reached.

Senegal supported Egypt and the need for CBDR. It said that the Durban package was weak.

Gambia, speaking for the LDCs reiterated the need for a legally binding instrument that must provide strong and binding enforce to address all the pillars of the Bali Action Plan.

Bangladesh supported the Durban package and a legally binding deal, in addition to the 2CP. Although the texts (in relation to the decisions) have been watered down, it was prepared to accept them.

Norway shared the view of India that equity is important but wanted a legal instrument in 2015 and did not support a mere “legal outcome”.

The US said it embraced the full Durban package, including the need for a new legal instrument.

The Democratic Republic of Congo for the African Group said that in Durban, the KP did not die; there were outcomes on adaptation, financing, technology transfer and capacity building and the operationalising of the institutions of the Convention. It regretted the lack of ambition and balance but could support the move for further progress on increasing the mitigation ambition so that Africa was secure.

Malaysia said that it was not clear on how the outcome from the AWG-LCA was going to be addressed when several Parties had expressed a serious lack of balance and need for further work before it could be adopted. It was looking for a good package that allowed the AWG-LCA sufficient time to restore the balance needed next year.

The COP President did not address Malaysia’s concerns.

The formal sessions of the CMP and the COP were then convened one after another. At the CMP, several concerns were raised over the outcome of work from the AWG-KP but these concerns were not addressed by Mashabane, who proceed to gavel the adoption of the outcomes.

At the closing sessions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA held before the COP/CMP joint informal session on Saturday, many Parties raised several concerns they had on the respective reports by the Chairs of the two working groups which reflected the outcomes of the work. In the case of the AWG-KP session, several developing countries wanted amendments to be made to the outcome document but none were entertained by the Chair, Mr. Adrian Macey from New Zealand, except for an amendment suggested by the EU on the duration of the 2CP from a 5 year period (2013-2017) to a 8 year period (2013-2020). Both these options are now on the table. The report and the outcome of the work of the AWG-KP was presented “under the authority and responsibility of the Chair”, which was unprecedented.

Likewise, in the case of the outcome of the work of the AWG-LCA, the Chair of the working group Mr. Daniel Reifsynder from the US ignored calls by several developing countries not to adopt the report and to allow for further work to be done next year on the outcome document to rectify the existing imbalances, especially when the document was only presented to Parties late morning on Saturday. The Chair did not agree with the proposal and proceeded to transmit the document to the COP President under his own responsibility although it did not receive consensus, which was also an unusual move.

During and after the meeting, negotiators of many developing countries expressed deep concern about the procedures for adopting decisions at COP17. The conference had been extended for almost two days, and Ministers and officials of many countries had already left. The closed-door meeting of about 30 parties left many others that were not invited in the dark.

The documents for the decisions in the final plenary meetings were distributed late, and some Parties complained they did not have the papers. There was no time for the Parties to study the papers. The Chairs of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA did not take into account the disagreements that most Parties registered on the draft decisions but decided to transmit their reports almost unchanged (the only changes were to accommodate the EU on Kyoto Protocol) to the COP and CMP. When the COP and CMP meetings were convened, there was little opportunity to re-open the reports and some attempts made by developing countries were ignored, while the only opportunity to re-open was provided to the EU over the “legal outcome” issue.

While COP17 and the CMP7 did not fall apart as many had predicted in the last day of the conference, the manner in which the decisions were achieved may be debated including for what it means for the future of decision-making in a UN multilateral setting for years to come.

Meena Raman is a Senior Advisor of the Third World Network.

Time out: Analysis of Durban and its outcome by Centre for Science and Environment

2011-12-20T10:58:00.000+01:00

What really happened in Durban? Check out this extensive coverage by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India, in their magazine Down to Earth, 31 December issue.
-----

The 17th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Durban in December 2011. Negotiations were heated and acrimonious, as the world desperately searched for new ways to avoid the toughest of questions -- how to drastically reduce emissions to keep the world somewhat within safe levels and how to do this while ensuring equity. With uneasy answers, the easy solution was to push the world to another round of messy negotiations for a new treaty, protocol or legal instrument or something like that. But one move of the developed world was to change the nature of the original treaty that differentiates between past polluters, responsible for the first action, and the rest. The aim at Durban was to erase equity as the basis of any global agreement to cut emissions. Ironically, the world chose the land of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela to set the scene to build a new apartheid in climate talks. Down To Earth and the Centre for Science and Environment bring you an analysis…

To continute read, download the 17-page pdf-version of the thorough feature story with graphs, boxes and explanations. Or click here to find the original story at the CSE website.

You may also want to read this prophetic reflection by Sunita Narain of CSE, only a few hours before the COP finally ended.

And -- here's a link to a Guardian article by Sunita Narain "The EU's climate evangelism has got us nowhere: Europe must stop trying to bend developing countries to agree to a legal deal in the hope that this will bring the US on board", published 9 December.

Who Will Control the Green Economy?

2011-12-19T13:16:00.000+01:00

News Release

15 December 2011
www.etcgroup.org

Who Will Control the Green Economy?
New report on Corporate Concentration in the Life Industries

From the UN Rio+20 preparatory meetings in New York, ETC Group today launches Who Will Control the Green Economy? The 60-page report connects the dots between the climate and oil crises, new technologies and corporate power. The report warns that the world’s largest companies are riding the coattails of the “Green Economy” while gearing up for their boldest coup to-date – not just by making strategic acquisitions and tapping new markets, but also by penetrating new industrial sectors.

DuPont, for example, already the world’s second largest seed company and sixth largest company in both pesticides and chemicals, is now a powerhouse in plant-based materials, energy and food ingredients. DuPont’s business plan is not unique. Other major players in seeds, pesticides, chemicals and food – including Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Unilever – are also making strategic investments in risky technologies and forming R&D collaborations in hopes of turning plant biomass into all kinds of high value products – and profit.

Since the turn of the millennium, the vision of a bio-based economy has been taking shape; with its promise to solve the problems of Peak Oil and climate change and to usher in an era of sustainable development, it quickly acquired a patina of ‘green.’ New technologies, primarily synthetic biology or extreme genetic engineering, enabled by advanced bioinformatics and genomics, are the bioeconomy’s engine while agricultural feedstock is its fuel.

While seductive, the new green techno-fixes are dangerous because they will spur even greater convergence and concentration of corporate power and unleash privately owned technologies into communities that have not been consulted about – or prepared for – their impacts. If the “Green Economy” is imposed without full intergovernmental debate and extensive involvement from peoples’ organizations and civil society, the Earth Summit to take place in Rio de Janeiro 20-22 June 2012 risks becoming the biggest Earth Grab in more than 500 years.

ETC Group’s Kathy Jo Wetter explains: “The goal is not to reject the green economy or technologies, but these are tools that must be guided by strong social policies. Agenda 21 called for technology assessment back in 1992 and the need for such a precautionary tool, that includes strict oversight of corporate concentration, is now more urgent than ever before.”

Alberto Gomez, of La Via Campesina, adds: “Corporate control over our food system threatens peasant farmers around the world. We already produce 70% of the world’s food, but our ability to do so in an agro-ecological way is being undermined by the kind of corporate control this report documents.”

Who Will Control the Green Economy? will be launched at the Rio+20 Intersessional meeting taking place in New York on December 15-16. Kathy Jo Wetter, one of the report’s researchers, will present the findings on Thursday, 15 December 2012, at 7 pm at a side-event on Agriculture at Rio+20, in Conference Room 6, North Lawn Building at the UN Headquarters. Alberto Gomez will also speak at this event.

Who will control the Green Economy? is available in English
(http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5296),
Spanish (http://www.etcgroup.org/es/node/5298) and will soon be available in French.

For more information or for interviews:
In New York:
Diana Bronson: cell 514 629 9236 or Diana@etcgroup.org

In Montreal:
Jim Thomas: cell 514 516 5759 or jim@etcgroup.org

What you will find in the
'Who Will Control the Green Economy?' Report – Dec 2011

• Naming The Green Economy's “One Percent” 'Who Will Control the Green Economy?' provides hard data on the largest and most powerful corporate players controlling 25 sectors of the 'real economy'. This is the only freely available report to assemble top 10 listings of companies (by market share) from 18 major economic sectors relevant to the Green Economy. These lists include the top 10 players in Water, Energy, Seeds, Fishing and Aquaculture, Food Retail and Processing, Chemicals, Fertilizer, Pesticides, Mining, Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, the Grain Trade and more. The report also identifies the leading players in a handful of new and emerging industrial sectors including Synthetic Biology, Big Data, Seaweed and Algae production and Livestock Genetics (pp.1-2).

• Corporate Concentration Unchecked
ETC Group has been monitoring corporate ownership trends for 30 years and the trendline is remaining steady: more monopoly everywhere. For example the top 10 multinational seed companies now control 73% of the world's commercial seed market, up from 37% in 1995 (p. 22). The worlds 10 biggest pesticide firms now control a whopping 90% of the global 44 billion dollar pesticide market (p.25). 10 companies control 76% of animal pharmaceutical sales (p.34). 10 animal feed companies control 52% of the global animal feed market (p.33), 10 chemical firms account for 40% of the chemical market (p.11), 10 forestry companies control 40% of the forestry market (p. 31), 10 mining companies control a third of the mining market (p. 29) and the top ten energy companies control a quarter of the energy market (p.10).

• Forget Windmills, Think Grain Mills
The 'Green Economy' may evoke iconic images of solar panels and wind turbines but this is not actually where corporate activity is focusing. While non-hydro and non-nuclear 'renewable' energy is only a thin sliver (1.8%) of global energy consumption - almost all of this consists of harvesting and burning biomass for energy and fuels and now chemicals. This report shows how the major corporate realignments in the new 'Green Economy' are happening around plant biomass (p.8-12, 18-21).

• New ‘Green’ Oligopolies
This report uncovers new corporate convergences across diverse industry sectors as large players position themselves to dominate the Green Economy. A case in point is the DuPont company - the world's 2nd largest seed company, 6th largest chemical company and 6th largest pesticide company which is now emerging as a major player in biotech, biofuels and bioplastics, synthetic biology, seaweeds, ingredients and enzymes while partnering with the worlds third largest energy company BP (pp. ii-iii).

• Food Dollars Trump Energy Dollars
Conventional wisdom says the size of the global energy market weighs in at $7 trillion and dwarfs every other economic sector. According to our research, however, the global grocery market ekes out ahead of energy – even when government subsidies paid to producers for energy and agriculture are taken into account (p.37).

• Synthetic Biology's Meteoric Rise
In the early 1990's the early commercialization of genetic engineering technologies drove massive reorganization of the seed, agrochemicals and pharmaceutical sectors and the emergence of 'life science' giants such as Monsanto and Novartis. Today the new technologies of Synthetic Biology are spurring another frenzy of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures around the biomass economy drawing large energy and chemical players such as Dow, DuPont, BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron and Total into new alliances with grain, forestry and seed giants such as Monsanto, Cargill, Bunge, Weyerhaeuser and ADM. At the heart of these new alliances are surprisingly new Synthetic Biology companies such as Life Technologies Inc, Amyris, Solazyme and Evolva – all rapidly being promoted to significant roles in the global food, energy, pharma and chemicals sectors (pp.8-12).

• Controlling the Blue Economy too.
Biomass found in oceans and aquatic ecosystems accounts for 71% of the planet’s surface area. That’s why energy and chemical corporations such as Du Pont, Statoil , DSM, Exxon, Mitsubishi, Monsanto , Chevron and shipping giant Stolt Nielsen are looking to the wild, wet frontier for new sugars and oils to fuel the bio-based economy, proposing the large-scale exploitation of algae, seaweed, fish and all the aquatic biomass found in lakes, rivers and coastal estuaries. (Pp. 18-21)

Equity: The next frontier in climate talks

2011-12-19T09:44:00.001+01:00

Down to Earth Editorial:
Equity: The next frontier in climate talks
by Sunita Narain

In 1992, when the world met to discuss an agreement on climate change, equity was a simple concept: sharing the global commons -- the atmosphere in this case -- equally among all. It did not provoke much anxiety, for there were no real claimants. However, this does not mean the concept was readily accepted. A small group of industrialized countries had burnt fossil fuels for 100 years and built up enormous wealth. This club had to decide what to do to cut emissions, and it claimed all countries were equally responsible for the problem. In 1991, just as the climate convention was being finalised, a report, released by an influential Washington think tank, broke the news that its analysis showed India, China and other developing countries were equally responsible for greenhouse gases. Anil Agarwal and I rebutted this and brought in the issue of equitable access to the global commons. We also showed, beyond doubt, that the industrialised countries were singularly responsible for the increased greenhouse gases.
In 1992, it was accepted
that the occupied atmospheric space would need to be vacated to make room for the emerging world to grow because emissions are an outcome of economic growth. This acceptance recognised the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in reducing emissions. A firewall was built to separate those countries that had to reduce emissions to make space for the rest of the world to grow. That year in Rio de Janeiro, the world was talking about drastic cuts of 20 per cent below the 1990 levels to provide for growth as well as climate security. Even in that age of innocence, the negotiations were difficult and nasty. The US argued its lifestyle was non-negotiable and refused to accept any agreement specifying deep reductions. In 1998, the Kyoto Protocol set the first legal target for these countries much below what the world knew it needed to do.
Two decades later, the idea of equity has become an even more inconvenient truth. By now there are more claimants for atmospheric space. Emerging countries have emerged. China, which in 1990, with over a quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for only 10 per cent of annual emissions, contributed 27 per cent by 2010. So, the fight over atmospheric space is now real. While the rich countries have not reduced emissions, the new growth countries have started emitting more. In 1990, the industrialised countries accounted for 70 per cent of the global annual emissions. In 2010, they accounted for 43 per cent but this is not because they have vacated space. The new growth countries—China in particular—have only occupied what was available. Emission reductions proposed 20 years ago have still not been committed or adhered to. In fact, in most already industrialised countries emissions have either stabilised or increased. In coal and extractive economies, like Canada and Australia, emissions have risen by 20 per cent and 46 per cent respectively.
The world has run out of atmospheric space and certainly of time. Will the rich, who contributed to emissions in the past and still take up an unfair share of this space based on their populations, reduce emissions? Or will the emerging countries be told to take over the burden? This is the big question, and an inconvenient one at that.
And mind you climate change is not the problem of the present but past contributions. The stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a long life. This means that any discussion on how the carbon cake will be divided, must take into account those gases emitted in the past and still present. So while China accounts for 27 per cent of the annual emissions, in cumulative terms (since 1950) it still accounts for only 11 per cent. Similarly, India contributes 6 per cent to the annual global emissions, but is only responsible for 3 per cent of the stock. The rich countries, with less than a quarter of the world’s population, are responsible for some 70 per cent of this historical burden. This stock of gases is responsible for an average global temperature rise of 0.8°C and another 0.8°C in future, which is inevitable. To keep temperature rise below 2°C, the world needs to cut emissions by 50-80 per cent below the 2000 levels by 2050. Now equity is no longer a moral idea, but a tough challenge. It is for this reason that global climate negotiations reached their nadir in Durban. It is for this reason that the US and its coalition are hell bent on erasing any mention of historical emissions from all texts. It is for this reason that the rich world is pointing to the emission growth in China and India, and dismissing their need for development as their obdurate right to pollute.
It is also an idea that is difficult to sell in a world distrustful of idealism and any talk of distributive justice. Even climate change negotiators do not really believe this form of climate-socialism can happen. They will tell you that the world is never going to give up space, that the world is too mean to give money or technology to poor nations for transition to low-carbon growth.
But this is because they forget that climate change is the market’s biggest failure. We cannot use the market for its repair. To avoid catastrophic changes it is essential to reach a collaborative agreement, which will be effective. And cooperation is not possible without fairness and equity. This is the pre-requisite. Take it because we must.
Original article at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/equity-next-frontier-climate-talks

Third World Network: News Updates from COP17 Durban

2011-12-16T16:19:00.000+01:00

TWN DURBAN NEWS UPDATES, COP 17 Durban, South Africa (28 NOVEMBER-09 DECEMBER 2011)

For detailed coverage of all the key discussions sessions and negotiations at COP17, Durban, the 28 (!) Third World Network News Updates are indispensable. Links to pdf versions in reversed chronological order below. For Third World Networks homepage with News Updates and Briefing papers from other negotiations sessions, go to: http://www.twnside.org.sg

Update No. 29: Movement of Technology Mechanism in Durban Outcome
by Elpidio V. Peria (21 Dec 11)

Update No. 28: Kyoto Protocol "second commitment period" remains uncertain
by Chee Yoke Ling (16 Dec 11)

Update No. 27: Decision on Green Climate Fund adopted
by Meena Raman (15 Dec 11)

Update No. 26: AWGLCA Chair transmits report for adoption despite strong protests
by Meena Raman (14 Dec 11)

Update No. 25: Major clash of paradigms in launch of new climate talks

by Meena Raman (13 Dec 11)

Update No. 24: Negotiations intensify on Durban final outcomes
by Meena Raman (09 Dec 11)

Update No. 23: “Various Approaches” text to go to ministers
by Payal Parekh (09 Dec 11)

Update No. 22: Kyoto Protocol work still unresolved
by Lim Li Lin (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 21: New market mechanism debated in “Various Approaches” text
by Payal Parekh & Trudi Zundel (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 20: Ministers to address difficult issues
by Meena Raman (08 Dec 11)

Update No. 19: Leaders outline expectations for Durban
by Meena Raman (07 Dec 11)

Update No. 18: Deep divide over Russian proposal to amend UNFCCC Article 4.2(f)
by Chee Yoke Ling (07 Dec 11)

Update No. 17: African Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change
(06 Dec 11)

Update No. 16: Divergent Views on “Various Approaches”
by Payal Parekh (06 Dec 11)

Update No. 15: Reactions to “amalgamation draft texts”
by Meena Raman (06 Dec 11)

Update No. 14: Second commitment period remains elusive
by Chee Yoke Ling & Xu Chengcheng (05 Dec 11)

Update No. 13: Durban battle on climate regime’s future
by Martin Khor (05 Dec 11)

Update No. 12: Statement by China on behalf of Brazil, South Africa, India and China at COP17
(02 Dec 11)

Update No. 11: Deep divide over legal form
by Meena Raman (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 10: US-EU disagreement over addressing mitigation gap
by Meena Raman (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 9: COP discusses Green Climate Fund and other issues
by Marjorie Williams (02 Dec 11)

Update No. 8: Clash of views on need for Durban mandate
by Meena Raman (01 Dec 11)

Update No. 7: Deep disagreements as Kyoto Protocol talks begin
by Lim Li Lin (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 6: SBI resumes work with full agenda
by Chee Yoke Ling (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 5: G77 and China calls for fair and equal treatment of issues
by Meena Raman (30 Nov 11)

Update No. 4: CBDR must guide work on international transport emissions, say several developing countries
by Chee Yoke Ling (29 Nov 11)

Update No. 3: Durban should not be burial ground of Kyoto Protocol- say G77/China
by Meena Raman (29 Nov 11)

Update No. 2: Durban to decide fate of Green Climate Fund
by Meena Raman (28 Nov 11)

Update No. 1: Critical issues facing Durban Climate Conference
by Meena Raman (28 Nov 11)

Sivan Kartha on the Durban outcomes: "Deeply worrying"

2011-12-15T23:30:00.000+01:00

We have a glass, and time will tell whether it is half-full, half-empty, or purely decorative. We will see whether the yet-to-be-negotiated "protocol, legal instrument, or agreed outcome with legal force" is actually be capable of ramping up global ambition.

And on that score, I'm deeply worried. Yes, Durban gave us (something like) the "legally binding" language that we wanted. But, as far as I can see, Durban also took us several LARGE steps backward in terms of "trust-building", which many of us have believed for a long time is inexpendable if a real global solution to the crisis is to be found. And this further undermining of trust makes it less likely that the dearly sought language on "legally binding" will actually lead to something meaningful.

Specifically, here's how I fear trust has been undermined:

1. The KP was obviously hugely important for developing countries, and as far as I can see, it has been unceremoniously executed. First, because the language in the AWG-KP decision is nothing but a slippery legalistic evasion. The KP2 has obviously not been adopted. Rather, all that happened is that AWG-KP "takes note" of the "intention" of Parties to convert their targets to QELROs, and "invites" them to submit information on these QELROs for "consideration" by the AWG-KP "with a view" to adoption. I count no less than five levels of legalistic remove from an actual adoption?!

Second, because of the refusal of Canada, Russia, and Japan to join a KP2. This refusal, as far as I can see, is entirely gratuitous, since (a) the weakness of the language just described above, (b) there is nothing to stop KP Parties from just reiterating the Copenhagen pledges based on their existing domestic laws, and (c) with the legally binding DPEA, Annex B countries got the quid pro quo they demanded of the non-Annex 1 countries anyway.

Third, the nail in the coffin is Canada's withdrawal from KP1, . which simultaneously makes a mockery of the very notion of "legally binding" in any event.

2. The Annex 1 countries have shown extremely bad faith in their negotiations on the loopholes. New Zealand and Australia have been offensively recalcitrant when it comes to keeping their favourite loopholes open. Russia, despite pulling out of KP2, has the gall to insist on preserving its AAUs. The EU, which we think of as the relatively principled ones when it comes to the loopholes (because they want to keep the carbon markets alive) also continues to insist on the surplus AAUs of its new EU member states. On LULUCF accounting, the worst option seems to be the one accepted. The "decision" on AAUs was to punt to next year, with weak language that merely "requests" the AWG-KP to "assess" the implications of the surplus AAUs and "recommend" actions and for "consideration" by the CMP. (And, I'm already getting nervous that the technical process of converting 2020 targets to KP2 QELROs will become a massive loophole-generating exercise.)

3. The battle over the GCF governance was exceeding divisive. This too was gratuitous, especially in the context of the GCF being what even Zenawi called "not even an empty shell". And meanwhile, attempts to provide further assurances on where the long-term finance will actually come from were obstructed.

4. Probably most importantly, as many others have observed, equity was sidelined in a way that I believe will haunt the negotiations from Durban onward. It's a shock that the decision establishing the AWG-DPEA does not mention equity in any form. No "on the basis of equity", no CBDR, no "equitable access to sustainable development", no nothing. (I'm keen to know about what actually happened in the Indabas and the final plenary huddles, and which forces kept equity out of the text. I've heard it was non-negotiable for the US.) As others have pointed out, the DPEA is still established "under the Convention", so the UNFCCC equity provisions still legally apply. But the "hearts and minds" struggle to ensure equitable burden-sharing will be all the more challenging now. And in the absence of equitable burden-sharing, (and the finance and tech it implies), I have a hard time seeing major developing country emitters stepping up and engaging in the ambitious mitigation we urgently need.

5. Not only was the standard equity language excluded, but other key developing country concerns were sidelined also. The DPEA has a clear focus on mitigation specifically: it "decides to launch a workplan on enhancing mitigation ambition" without reference to finance, tech, or adaptation. Given that the workplan has already been decided to focus on mitigation ambition specifically, I am not sure what it means that finance, tech, adaptation are mentioned elsewhere in the DPEA decision, though I assume this is an opening that developing countries will try hard to use as the terms of reference of the DPEA are defined early next year.
Now, certainly there was some incremental progress, of course. And all these above problems can be overcome, ground can be regained, trust can be rebuilt, and Parties can yet establish the basis for the cooperative global response that's needed. But, I feel less optimistic after Durban than before.

Is this an overly bleak interpretation? Are there hopeful signs I've missed? I'd be grateful if anyone could offer something to be more cheery about.
Sivan Kartha

On the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action"

2011-12-13T11:55:00.000+01:00

The decision to establish an Ad Hoc Working Group on the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action" (DPEA), i.e. the controversial "Durban Mandate", was a remarkable show of bad process in the last hours of the conference -- already on 30 hours overtime with many Ministers (particularly from developing countries) already on their way home.

The implications will be felt for a long time to come…

We are likely to see an erosion of the science-based "top-down" (i.e. starting with emissions reductions as deemed required based on science) principled climate regime of the Kyoto Protocol -- with a further shift towards the US-championed voluntary, bottom-up "pledge" system where countries just notify what they intend to do: currently this amounts to only 13-18% cuts by the rich countries (which could in reality amount to zero cuts due to the extensive "loopholes" that the rich countries refuse to remove). It's naive to believe that pledges will be sufficient to ramp up commitments towards the 40-50% that is needed by 2020, and the the 90-100% needed by 2050!

The mandate for the new agreement is remarkable open, which paves the ground for endless negotiations with little prospect to reach anywhere near the regime -- the Bali Action Plan -- that was still the basis for negotiations when the Durban meeting started. There are also reasons to be very worried from an equity and climate justice perspective -- although the new platform is placed under the Climate Convention with its fundamental principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", USA and other Annex 1 countries will press hard to erode any equity related mechanisms.

In short, by opening up for the Durban mandate, the world has given a blank check to the US and others to effectively stall and weaken the future climate regime -- while squandering the relative firm basis that already existed: the Bali Action Plan. Considering the effectiveness of the US negotiations since Copenhagen (they have likely attained most of their stated goals), and the dismal domestic political situation (with climate change denying Republicans dominating Congress, and Obama acting more destructive than George W Bush as he actively steers the world onto the wrong path rather than just standing aside), it is naive to believe there could be anything meaningful coming out of open-ended negotiations on the DPEA over the next few years.

Just like in Cancun, the process was far from transparent and neutral. The South African Presidency pressed hard for a package very much in line with the EU agenda (with the "Durban Mandate" to establish a new treaty), conduced closed room consultations and presented the final documents on a take it or leave it basis in the very last hours of the conference -- arguing there were no time to negotiate (and prevented the more sensible approach to extend the meeting by deciding on a COP17 "bis" that could have been held within a few months time).

Despite a large number of countries rejecting the documents in both the Kyoto Protocol track and the "LCA" final plenaries, the chairs and the Presidency pushed through and took them all the way for final approval in the COP plenary --with implicit threats of scapegoating of any country that would dare to block a decision. While some argue that the "Durban agreements" saved the UN, the precedents of Copenhagen, Cancún and Durban do not bode well in terms of process and manipulation by the Presidencies. We risk see a replay in Rio half a year from now.

Here a link to the original document which was amended after intense "huddle" negotiations in the middle of the plenary hall, where "legal outcome" was substituted to "agreed outcome with legal force" in paragraph 2. Despite insistence from in particular India that "equity" be explicitly included as a principle, this amendment never made it to the final version -- it was vetoed by USA. Link to final decision here.

Friends of the Earth International: Diastrous “Durban Package” accelerates onset of climate catastrophe.

2011-12-13T00:05:00.000+01:00

MEDIA ADVISORY

13 December 2011
CLIMATE: DISASTROUS “DURBAN PACKAGE” ACCELERATES ONSET OF CLIMATE CATASTROPHE

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA, 13 DECEMBER 2011 – The UN climate talks in Durban were a failure and take the world a significant step back by further undermining an already flawed, inadequate multilateral system that is supposed to address the climate crisis, according to Friends of the Earth International.

Developed countries engaged in a smoke and mirrors trick of delivering rhetoric but no action, failed to commit to urgently needed deep emissions cuts, and even backtracked on past commitments to address the climate crisis, said Friends of the Earth International.

The outcome of the Durban talks, heralded by some as a step forward, in fact amounts to:
No progress on fair and binding action on reducing emissions
No progress on urgently needed climate finance
Increased likelihood of further expansion of false solutions like carbon trading
The further locking in of economies based on polluting fossil fuels
The further unravelling of the legally-binding international framework to deliver climate action on the basis of science and equity.

While there was resistance from developing countries to the destructive proposals on the table in Durban, the final Durban outcome amounts to:

1. A new “Durban Platform” which will delay climate action for a decade. Instead of implementing the existing, ambitious and equitable negotiating roadmap that was agreed in Bali four years ago, a new process to launch negotiations for a new treaty was agreed in Durban. The “Durban Platform” will delay much needed climate action for a decade.

2. A substantial weakening of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing international framework for legally-binding emissions reductions by rich industrialised countries. These countries are responsible for three quarters of the emissions in the atmosphere despite only hosting 15% of the world’s population. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has still not been formally agreed and would only cover the European Union and a handful of other developed countries.

3. Drastically insufficient targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Taken alongside the expansive loopholes agreed to in Durban that serve to help countries avoid emissions cuts, these paltry pledges actually mean a likely net increase in emissions between now and 2020.

4. A shift of the burden for climate action to developing countries, which have done the least to cause global warming, have the least resources to combat it, and face the additional burden of having to address pressing poverty alleviation and development needs.

5. Absolutely no progress on urgently-needed, new and additional public finance for developing country climate action and adaptation measures to protect vulnerable communities from climate impacts. The Green Climate Fund was approved but with no means by which to fill the coffers and a provision agreed to that could allow multinational corporations and private financial actors to directly access the fund.

6. The increased likelihood of new opportunities for carbon trading, a destructive false solution to the climate crisis which locks in climate inaction, drives land grabbing and displacement of communities, and could contribute to another global financial collapse.

“Developed countries, led by the United States, accelerated the demolition of the world’s international framework for fair and urgent climate action. And developing countries have been bullied and forced into accepting an agreement that could be a suicide pill for the world,” said Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

For full media advisory with additional background and quotes, click here.

Christian Aid Press release: "Durban Climate Talks: A disastrous outcome for poor people"

2011-12-12T23:56:00.000+01:00

Sunday 12th December 2011

DURBAN CLIMATE TALKS: A DISASTROUS OUTCOME FOR POOR PEOPLE, WARNS CHRISTIAN AID

'This Durban outcome is a compromise which saves the climate talks but endangers people living in poverty,' said Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid's expert on the UN negotiations held this year in Durban, South Africa.

'It is a disastrous, profoundly distressing outcome - the worst I have ever seen from such a process. At a time when scientists are queuing up to warn about terrifying consequences if emissions keep rising, what we have here in Durban is a betrayal of people across the world.

'By giving themselves until 2015 to agree a new deal which only takes effect in 2020, governments are delaying desperately needed action and condeming us all to dangerous warming of much more than 2 degrees.

'Action against climate change in 2020 will come a decade too late for poor people on the frontline - they urgently need it now. Their lives are already ravaged by floods, droughts, failed rains, deadly storms, hunger and disease and we know that these disasters will get worse and more frequent as climate change bites.

'This Durban failure also perpetuates the hideous injustice of climate change, in which the poor people who bear least blame for it are the worst affected.

'In these two tortuous weeks of negotiations, many of the poor, relatively powerless states - the Africa Group, AOSIS and the Least Developed Countries - have showed leadership and flexibility in the seach for a solution.

'But they have been blocked by the governments of some traditional polluters - America, Canada, Russia, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, which seem to want to forget their historical responsibility for climate change and to retain their power.

'These governments are protecting their own political interests and the financial interests of big corporate polluters. But ordinary people will pay the price - in money, suffering and lives.
'We will not see the full consequences of this appaling outcome until next year, when governments will have to take many of the decisions they have dodged here in South Africa.'

KYOTO
'This deal rips out the most important part of the Kyoto Protocol - its requirement for emissions cuts to be informed by science, rather than Governments' political convenience. It is this which makes it such a powerful law to prevent climate disaster.

'But in Durban, Governments have turned their backs on science, at a time when we need more than ever to heed its warning - act now or pay a terrible price later.

'They are also turning away from the justice which the Convention itself enshrines, with its recognition of rich countries' special responsibility for climate change and their greater financial ability to fight it.

'What is left is Kyoto in name only. Governments are keeping it on life-support for the sake of the carbon markets but once they have a new deal they will kill it completely.'

FINANCE
'The only notable achievement here in Durban is on the Green Climate Fund. Governments have agreed that the Fund will soon have staff and an office.

'But the Fund remains empty and so countries must keep working to identify new sources of the $100 billion a year which they have already agreed must be available to poor countries by 2020, to help them cope with climate change and pursue sustainable development.

'At present, the Fund remains empty and so can do little to help developing countries cope with the crippling costs of climate change and to develop in cleaner ways which won't greatly exacerbate the crisis.

ends

To talk to Mohamed Adow and for more pictures and information, please contact Rachel Baird: +00 27 (0)7914 56324 and +00 44 (0)7545 501 749.

1. Christian Aid works in some of the world's poorest communities in nearly 50 countries. We act where the need is greatest, regardless of religion, helping people build the lives they deserve.

2. Christian Aid has a vision, an end to global poverty, and we believe that vision can become a reality. Our report, Poverty Over, explains what we believe needs to be done – and can be done – to end poverty. Details at http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/poverty-over-report.pdf

3. Christian Aid is a member of the ACT Alliance, a global coalition of 100 churches and church-related organisations that work together inhumanitarian assistance and development. Further details at http://www.actalliance.org

4. Follow Christian Aid's newswire on Twitter: http://twitter.com/caid_newswire

5. For more information about the work of Christian Aid visit www.christianaid.org.uk

UNFCCC press release on Durban

2011-12-11T16:20:00.000+01:00

Here's the UN press release immediately following the conclusion of the Durban COP17 negotiations. Quite a different conclusion than the many critical assessments of civil society.

Naturskyddsföreningen om Durban

2011-12-11T15:39:00.000+01:00

Läs Naturskyddsföreningens kommentarer om Durbanmötet.

INDIA - 'Grim Reaper' of Durban -- Really?

2011-12-10T23:34:00.000+01:00

As increasing pressure and preparations for a nasty blame game was mounted against India principled refusal to abandon the Bali Action Plan -- from both rich countries, several island states, as well as major parts of the mainstream environmental CSOs -- Stockholm Environment Institute's Sivan Kartha felt the need to set the record straight. Read this important and revealing note with facts that should constitute the basis for any conversation about India's role and responsibility in relation to other countries.
/Niclas

INDIA - 'Grim Reaper' of Durban -- Really?
By Sivan Kartha
The common wisdom is that we've come here to save Africa. Africa, we hear every day, is a continent populated with poor people on the front lines of climate change, where immediate adaptation is a priority and climate delay means death. India, we hear, is the grim reaper. And the purpose of COP17 is, in large part, to compel India to step back from the brink and help save Africa. India should stop being an obstructionist like the US, and should come to the rescue of Africa.
Well... some comparisons are in order.

Africa is poor. VERY poor. Seventeen Africans live on the income of one American. And India? Turns out the number of Indians who live on the income of one American is... 16. Yes, India is a bit closer to Africa than it is to the US on this score.
But, even though India's *average* income is just about the same as Africa's, it's still crawling with millionaires like Mukesh Ambani, right? Actually, 1.1% of Africans have made it into the top global wealth decile, whereas 0.9% of Indians have. Rather even, I'd say. And again, India stands a bit closer to Africa than to the US (with 21% of Americans in the top global decile.)
But, anyway, Africa is a low emitter which is suffering from the rest of the world's emissions, whereas India is on a planet-incinerating coal binge, right? After all, an African's per capita GHG emissions are only 1/6 of an American's. And India? Well... only 1/10th of an American's, actually. And, if you don't like per capita comparisons (you don't think should India get a break for being populous?), India's *total* emissions are only 2/3 of Africa's.
And as for vulnerability? Where does India's water come from? From the Himalayan glaciers and from the monsoons. My guess is climate change will be no kinder to India than to Africa.
Of course, the point of this is not to compare Africa and India so we can figure out who is poorer, who is suffering more, and who is less responsible for climate change. The point is to ask why have so many people gotten sucked in by the India scape-goating, which is so obviously a diversion? The whole "survival versus development" false dichotomy has always been dangerous, but never more so than when applied to Africa and India. It is no surprise India appears to some to have have gone on the defensive, dug in its heals, and started looking for allies wherever it can possibly find them. Which, alas, has unsurprisingly led it to engage in some ham-handed diplomacy.
Yes, inequality is toxic. Yes, elites are parasitic. Yes, corporate capture is ruining our planet. But India has no monopoly on these things.
In these negotiations, we've *got* to turn our attention back to the Parties who are the real blockers... the greedy Parties that are demanding every loophole; the free-riders who are putting forward paltry pledges that are completely at odds with their capacity and responsibility, the tight-fisted countries that are still refusing to put real money on the table to help stop climate catastrophe, ostensibly because of their self-inflicted financial woes.
Shall we get back to work?
Sivan

Globally funded Feed-in tariffs in focus at Durban COP17

2011-12-09T22:39:00.000+01:00

The bold, visionary idea of establishing a system of globally funded feed-in tariffs to simultaneously tackle climate change and poverty/energy access gained lots of traction during the Durban COP17. Several side events highlighted the approach with numerous researchers, civil society activists as well as government representatives pointing to the unique effectiveness of feed-in tariffs to rapidly drive massive investments in renewable energy.

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) organized a well attended side event on 2 December with the International Network for Renewable Energy (INFORSE) and Helio International. The INFORSE presentations provided a number of concrete, successful cases of renewable energy initiatives on the ground, while the SSNC presentation (by Niclas Hällström) focused on the idea of enabling local, bottom-up initiatives through global financing in line with common but differentiated responsibility.

Here' are Niclas and SSNC's powerpoint presentation on the idea of globally funded feed-in tariffs.

Climate justice policy briefs: Loopholes, pledges and the Bali Mandate

2011-12-08T22:40:00.000+01:00

Below three One-page Climate Justice Policy Briefs that highlights key issues at stake in Durban:

A comparison of pledges: Who plans to Act?
There is a serious lack of emissions reductions ambitions by the rich countries. There has so far been NO discussion or negotiation in Durban about increasing ambitions form the paltry Copenhagen "pledges" – which amounts to only 13-18% reductions by the rich, Annex 1 countries, compared to 1990. The Policy Brief "A comparison of pledges: who plans to act?" summarizes the Stockholm Environment Institute overview study from June 2011 which shows that four independent studies come to the same conclusions: Developing countries have committed to MORE reductions than the rich countries!

Targets could disappear into loopholes
On top of these shamefully low pledges by the Annex 1 countries, these countries refuse to remove the current loopholes from excess allocations to the former Eastern European countries ("hot air"), disingenuous accounting of forests, and double counting of off-sets. Research shows that all of the current Annex 1 pledges could be covered by loopholes, negating any pressure to really reduce emissions -- and possibly even allowing for net increase of emissions by the rich countries.

Building on the Bali Mandate
The controversy about whether to allow a new Durban Mandate or insist on the fulfillment of the current Bali Mandate through the Bali Action Plan constitute a fundamental crossroads.. At the core, this controversy is about the very nature of the climate regime: whether to open up for a voluntary "pledge and review" system with less clear equity concerns, or to keep a principled, top-down, binding approach with clear differentiation between developing and developed countries.

Press release: African Group sets out key demands as talks enter final stages

2011-12-08T07:07:00.000+01:00

African Group sets out key demands as talks enter final stages

COP17, Durban, South Africa - The African Group of negotiators have set out their five key demands as UN climate talks in Durban move into the high level stage of negotiations today.

The Group, which represents 54 African countries and is chaired by Mr. Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are demanding:

A multilateral agreement that respects the principles and provisions of the Convention, and matches the ambition and substance set out in the Bali Action Plan
A second and subsequent commitment periods under the Kyoto Protocol with ambitious, science-based mitigation targets for developed country Kyoto Parties and provisional application to avoid a gap in the legally binding regime; and comparable efforts by developed country non-Kyoto Parties (United States) under the Convention, including ambitious, legally binding, economy-wide emission reduction commitments;
Agreement on long-term sources and scale of finance commencing in 2013, including a process for determining the levels of finance necessary for implementation of the Convention in a predictable and identifiable manner;
Full operationalization of the outcomes and institutions agreed in Cancun including the Green Climate Fund
Agreement on a work programme on adaptation to establish an international mechanism on loss and damage from climate change for developing countries.

Mr Tosi Mpanu Mpanu said:

"As a world leader on climate change, a major player in the UN climate change negotiations, and hosts of an "African COP" Africa must continue to play an important and growing role in the climate negotiations.

"The Durban Package must respond to Africa's needs and potential. We are talking to the developed countries about how they meet their historical responsibilities to deliver a fair and just climate deal for the world."

ENDS

A copy of the African Common Position on climate change is available here

Dale Wen: Reality Check on India and Climate Politics

2011-12-07T23:52:00.000+01:00

Reality Check on India and Climate Politics

Dr. Dale Jiajun Wen

Martin Khor, the Executive Director of the South Centre, recently published an article titled “Is China still a developing Country?” After laying out all the facts and numbers in per capita terms of indicators including GDP, Human Development Index, and carbon emission, etc all of which unequivalently showing China is still a developing country, he finished the article with following sentence “China's fight to retain its developing-country status is of interest to other developing countries, for they will be next, if China loses that fight.” The politics of the ongoing Durban climate negotiation seems cannot wait to confirm his prediction.

Media reports are starting to portray India as the blocker. There are headlines like “Durban climate talks 'roadmap' held up by India”, “China readies big climate offer, India mulls support”. And some NGOs are calling leadership from India. Let us have some reality check.

In 2010, India was ranked a lowly 132 out of 184 countries in per capita GDP. Its level was US$1370 compared to US$46,860 for the US, according to IMF data.

In 2008, India was ranked 138 in per capita carbon dioxide emission; its level of 1.48 ton compares with 17.52 tons for the US, according to UN data. Its high total emission is largely due to its huge population of 1.2 billion, for which it can be hardly blamed. Similar thing can be said about India’s emerging economy status. In terms of per capita GDP, countries like Tonga and Congo are doing better than India.

400 million people in India do not have access to electricity.

According to a 2005 World Bank estimate, 41.6% of the total Indian population falls below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 a day (PPP).

The 2011 Global Hunger Index (GHI) Report ranked India 15th, amongst leading countries with hunger situation. It also places India amongst the three countries where the GHI between 1996 and 2011 went up from 22.9 to 23.7, while 78 out of the 81 developing countries studied, including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kenya, Nigeria, Myanmar, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Malawi, succeeded in improving hunger condition.

India is also one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change. During Cancun negotiation, WFP released a "Food insecurity and climate change" map. In terms of "hunger and climate vulnerability index", mostly together with Africa countries, India gets the highest rating, meaning it has very high chance to face even worse food insecurity because of climate change.

For hundreds of millions of poor Indian, the right to development is the right to survival. Some narratives which pitches the right to survival (most by AOSIS and African countries) against big developing countries’ including India’s right to development is nothing but false dichotomy. India has very good reasons to insist on historical responsibility and equity, to insist developed countries to implement what they have already agreed under the convention, under the Bali Action Plan and under the Cancun agreement while it itself is on track to implement its NAMAs.

India embodies the double challenge of climate change to developing countries: to avoid the high carbon development pathway of the west, and to lift its people out of poverty. As a country with such heart-wrenching poverty, it undoubtedly needs help, meaning financial support, technology transfer and capacity building help from the north.

All these are not to say India is blameless, its recent development has yet to reach large segment of the population. For countries like India and China, the notion of historical responsibility and common but differentiated responsibility are important both internationally and domestically to fight for equity. Common but differentiated responsibility is for everybody. It is NOT a blank check for developing countries as often misinterpreted. As a country/region/person’s income and emission grow, their corresponding responsibility grows as well. In terms of accumulative per capita emission, the rich in India and China are following the footsteps of the west, rapidly using up their fair share. If the principle of common but differentiated responsibility went out of the window, the rich in the emerging economies would be much easier to continue following the example of the west, meaning, continue to occupy a disportionately large share of the atmosphere space, leaving little for the poor.

Global emissions need to peak as soon as possible, thus it is urgent to have a honest look at how much atmosphere space is still available and how we can share it in an equitable manner. On December 3, BASIC experts jointly launched an equity paper, which is an example of ongoing efforts on this front. However, instead of engaging with such discussion, the west has largely avoided the topic and is using the emission growth of the countries like India and China as a smoke screen. For example, it is widely reported that India’s emission grows by 9% between 2009-2010, but little known is the fact US emissions also grows 4%. In absolute terms, US's increase of 0.2 Billion Ton is actually larger than Indian's 0.15 Billion ton. It is not only the US. EU-15 emission also grows by 2.8%, with Germany and UK emissions go up by 4%--but somehow, these countries are still considered forerunners of the supposedly progressive EU---let's don't forget all these developed countries have a legal obligation to reduce emissions. Instead of taking real leadership, it seems that EU is now hiding behind US and even India. This is no way for global emission to peak.

We are here to fight for the future, especially for the future of children. Indian children are already in dire situation. For Indian children under 5, 43.5% are underweight due to malnutrition, the highest in the world, even worse than any least developed countries. By insisting on equity in climate negotiation, India is already showing great leadership. Further leadership from India means, Indian government should improve the implementation of the same equity principle at home: this is something international colleagues and Indian colleagues can jointly ask. But in terms of international negotiation, it is simply unfair to ask India for more. Calling India a blocker in climate negotiation is almost tantamount of calling Chad or Lesotho a blocker.

Please find a pdf-version of this text here.

New report: Reclaiming Power -- An energy model for people and the planet

2011-12-06T10:21:00.000+01:00

Check out this new report speaking in favour of a system of globally funded feed-in tariffs to promote energy sovereignty and community empowerment in developing countries while simultaneously redirecting investments to fossil-free, renewable energy as a way of tackling climate change in a bold, transformative manner. The 16-page report is produced by Friends of the Earth England, North Ireland and Wales in collaboration with What Next Forum, and was released during COP17 in Durban.

Below table of content and overview map of a potential model. Download full report here.

Brev till Lena Ek från Naturskyddsföreningen och dess internationella partners

2011-12-01T12:00:00.000+01:00

Klicka här för brev till miljöminister Lena Ek med gemensamma synpunkter och krav inför Durban från Naturskyddsföreningen och fyra av dess internationella samarbetspartners i Syd: Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens, Brasilien, Third World Network, Centre for Science and Environment, India och Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa.

Några citat:
"Principen om gemensamt men olika ansvar måste sättas i förhandlingarnas centrum. De rika länderna har överlägset högst utsläpp av växthusgaser, både per capita och historiskt. Det är därför naturligt att dessa länder tar sitt fulla ansvar och kraftigt minskar sina egna utsläpp, samtidigt som de måste hjälpa fattiga länder att ställa om till fossilfritt och bekämpa fattigdomen. Det är de som gjort minst för att bidra till klimatförändringarna som drabbas värst av dem."

"EU:s mål att minska utsläppen med 20 % till 2020 från 1990, med beredskap att öka till 30 % om andra länder följer efter, är gravt otillräckligt… Av det svenska målet om 40 % till 2020 avser Ni att klara av 1/3 genom åtgärder i andra länder. Vi uppmanar Sverige att minska de inhemska utsläppen med minst 50 % till 2020 och närmare 100 % till 2030, och samtidigt bidra till att hjälpa fattigare länder. Vi kan inte förhandla med klimatet!"

"Samtidigt är det av stor vikt att de pengar som satsas på klimatet inte tas från befintliga biståndsbudgetar. En omflyttning av utlovat bistånd innebär i praktiken att de rika länderna låter de allra fattigaste betala. Den nya danska regeringen har lovat att skilja på klimatbistånd och befintligt bistånd. Det är hög tid för Sverige att göra detsamma. Utöver den 1 % av BNI Sverige har åtagit sig att betala i bistånd bör ytterligare minst 1,5 % satsas på klimatbistånd."

ETC Group Media advisory: Technology!

2011-11-30T00:36:00.000+01:00

What needs to happen on Technology in Durban? Check out this report by ETC Group.

At stake in Durban: A climate deal for the 1% or the 99%?

2011-11-28T01:10:00.000+01:00

Crucial read -- a critical assessment of what's at stake in Durban and what has led us here.

Niclas funderingar inför Durban

2011-11-27T15:19:00.000+01:00

Ur min horisont är ser det rätt mörkt ut – framför allt USA och Japan, Ryssland och Canada beter sig fullständigt oansvarigt, och har den absolut största skulden. Deras positioner är orättfärdiga och ytterst provocerande för alla andra.

Europa får därmed en nyckelroll. Med rätt strategi skulle EU kunna visa vägen mot en konstruktiv väg framåt – där USA och Annex-1-länder som inte tar sitt legala ansvar isoleras, medan grunden för samarbete med u-länderna, och inte minst Kina, stärks. Detta ger grund för att i senare skede ytterligare skärpa ambitionerna och regelverken (enda sättet att få USA att verkligen ändra sig är nog att stressa dem genom att de hamnar efter i omställningen mot en grön, klimatsmart ekonomi).

Vad som krävs nu, i Durban, är ett verkligt säkerställande av andra åtagandeperioden – utan att låsa fast de låga "pledges" – och ett tydligt åtagande att fullfölja Baliplanen (som ju faktist täcker 100% av världens utsläpp), dvs INGET Durbanmandat om något nytt heltäckande avtal. När Baliplanens frågor ger tillfredsställande resultat (teknologi, finansiering, osv) får man bedöma vilken legal form detta ska ha – COP-beslut eller LCA treaty eller någon mellanform.

EUs och Sveriges nuvarande linje med en starkt villkorad andra åtagandeperiod för att få med stora u-länder på något "nytt" leder endera till krasch därför att t.ex Indien och andra u-länder på goda grunder inte kan acceptera detta (och en upprepning av "scapegoating" Kina och nu också Indien) – eller, om det mot förmodan skulle tryckas igenom, bryter väg för ett nytt "single treaty" som sannolikt blir ett pledge and review system utan ambitioner eftersom USA då är med och effektivt sätter villkoren och leder ett race to the bottom, precis som man gjort sedan Köpenhamn.

Båda dessa resultat vore ytterst tragiska. Det krävs dock ordentligt med politisk kraft inom EU för att förhindra detta – det är för mig tydligt att det finns starka krafter inom EU, inte minst kommissionen, som inte alls är måna om Kytotoprotokollet och hellre ser något nytt pledge and review-liknande system, där det viktiga är att USA och Kina/Indien blir snärjda även om vi då sätter oss i en situation där själva klimatambitionerna blir mycket lägre – och förhållandet mellan u- och i-länder försämras ytterligare. Jag hoppas att Sverige ska våga ta en aktiv roll och påverka EU-positionerna tillräckligt mycket för att undvika en utkomst som vore mycket olycklig.

/Niclas, på vägen till Durban