论文部分内容阅读
The Durban COP 17 gathering was always seen as a station on the long journey of global climate change consensus and not the destination.
If viewed through a positive pair of spectacles, the talks did not disintegrate, parties accepted that the present emission reduction efforts were woefully deficient and a course of action has been set in motion to discuss a binding agreement. Notably progress of commitment by developed and developing nations to work toward a legally binding carbon reduction agreement and deadline was reached. But still, the talking goes on.
Of all the issues at climate change debates, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) remains the most contentious. The KP – the only binding climate law the world has – survived the Durban talks. But it lacks support of key countries and although binding, it is practically unenforceable.
Of big importance is that all 194-member nations, including 35 industrialized nations, said yes to a second commitment period of the KP from January 1, 2013. Canada made no friends at COP 17 by pulling out of the KP second round. Like Canada, Japan did not sign up for the second round.
The United States opposed the KP’s assigning responsibility for emission reductions on developed nations, adamant that developing nations like China be included in those responsibilities. Yet developed countries have clearly not met their emissions-cut responsibilities under the KP and neither have they helped developing countries in this respect with financial and technical assistance.
At COP 17 Greenpeace criticized this failure, saying that two years ago in Copenhagen politicians promised a $100-billion fund would be set up to help the poorest countries adapt to and mitigate climate change. They came to Durban two years later only planning to design a way to collect and distribute the money. It turns out they could not even manage to do that, said Greenpeace.
China climate expert Cao Rongxiang said some developed countries even use intellectual property protection as an excuse not to honor the financial and technical obligations. however despite the finger pointing at China, the facts show that while China does not have mandatory emissionscut obligations under the KP, according to the country’s 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be reduced 17 percent compared to the level in 2010.
African countries joined forces to form a united front in the run-up to COP 17 as the“African Group,” aiming to put curbs on the threat of climate change to the African continent. The group said that the biggest and largest terror facing Africa is climate change and they were deeply disappointed by Japan and Canada’s stance. The group believe the $100-billion fund allocation as per the Green Climate Fund, is insufficient to meet the needs of developing countries and the requirement is estimated to be 5 to 6 times this amount. Like China the African Group said they reserve the right to reach global emissions that meet social and economic development needs.
A much stronger outcome could probably have been possible at COP 17 had proceedings been driven forward by the impressive proposals put forward by African, european and least developed countries. Countries like the U.S. and Canada who block progress need to step aside.
Multilateralism is still a difficult concept for most countries and as new geopolitical groups emerge, national responsibilities will always conflict with global responsibilities. After all governments promise economic stability and prosperity to their voting public, not people across the world. A climate accord demands sacrifice from countries and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, well understood by developing nations, must be incorporated globally.
even though COP 17 could be seen as an agreement among nations to keep on talking about the things they disagree on, and no formal mechanism exists to govern the KP, it is hoped that common sense about the fate of the planet will be enough motivation and that a global climate consciousness, while in its nascent arc now, will eventually dominate the world view.
If viewed through a positive pair of spectacles, the talks did not disintegrate, parties accepted that the present emission reduction efforts were woefully deficient and a course of action has been set in motion to discuss a binding agreement. Notably progress of commitment by developed and developing nations to work toward a legally binding carbon reduction agreement and deadline was reached. But still, the talking goes on.
Of all the issues at climate change debates, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) remains the most contentious. The KP – the only binding climate law the world has – survived the Durban talks. But it lacks support of key countries and although binding, it is practically unenforceable.
Of big importance is that all 194-member nations, including 35 industrialized nations, said yes to a second commitment period of the KP from January 1, 2013. Canada made no friends at COP 17 by pulling out of the KP second round. Like Canada, Japan did not sign up for the second round.
The United States opposed the KP’s assigning responsibility for emission reductions on developed nations, adamant that developing nations like China be included in those responsibilities. Yet developed countries have clearly not met their emissions-cut responsibilities under the KP and neither have they helped developing countries in this respect with financial and technical assistance.
At COP 17 Greenpeace criticized this failure, saying that two years ago in Copenhagen politicians promised a $100-billion fund would be set up to help the poorest countries adapt to and mitigate climate change. They came to Durban two years later only planning to design a way to collect and distribute the money. It turns out they could not even manage to do that, said Greenpeace.
China climate expert Cao Rongxiang said some developed countries even use intellectual property protection as an excuse not to honor the financial and technical obligations. however despite the finger pointing at China, the facts show that while China does not have mandatory emissionscut obligations under the KP, according to the country’s 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be reduced 17 percent compared to the level in 2010.
African countries joined forces to form a united front in the run-up to COP 17 as the“African Group,” aiming to put curbs on the threat of climate change to the African continent. The group said that the biggest and largest terror facing Africa is climate change and they were deeply disappointed by Japan and Canada’s stance. The group believe the $100-billion fund allocation as per the Green Climate Fund, is insufficient to meet the needs of developing countries and the requirement is estimated to be 5 to 6 times this amount. Like China the African Group said they reserve the right to reach global emissions that meet social and economic development needs.
A much stronger outcome could probably have been possible at COP 17 had proceedings been driven forward by the impressive proposals put forward by African, european and least developed countries. Countries like the U.S. and Canada who block progress need to step aside.
Multilateralism is still a difficult concept for most countries and as new geopolitical groups emerge, national responsibilities will always conflict with global responsibilities. After all governments promise economic stability and prosperity to their voting public, not people across the world. A climate accord demands sacrifice from countries and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, well understood by developing nations, must be incorporated globally.
even though COP 17 could be seen as an agreement among nations to keep on talking about the things they disagree on, and no formal mechanism exists to govern the KP, it is hoped that common sense about the fate of the planet will be enough motivation and that a global climate consciousness, while in its nascent arc now, will eventually dominate the world view.