Trouble for 'save the world' talks

Negotiations to save the planet from catastrophic climate change are heading for trouble, five weeks before a crucial UN conference in Copenhagen.

The European Union has been at the forefront in pressing for binding, internationally monitored reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and funding from industrialised countries to help developing nations switch to clean energy.

"We can now look the rest of the world in the eyes and say 'we have done our job. We are ready for Copenhagen'," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso boasted last Friday, after EU leaders papered over their differences over how to finance climate protection in the developing world.

But even in Europe, which last year adopted ambitious goals to cut its own output of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent by 2020, there are signs of climate fatigue setting in.

This is partly because the Europeans have raised unrealistic expectations of a global treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol on climate change when it expires in 2012.

The United States never ratified or implemented the 1997 Kyoto deal, nor did the main emerging countries.

The unresolved struggle in the US Congress over a climate bill, and the reluctance of China and India to accept binding international curbs on carbon emissions mean the most that can be expected in Copenhagen is a political agreement based mostly on voluntary national pledges. Even that is uncertain.

So the EU risks being stranded on its own moral high ground.

Last week's wrangle among the 27 EU leaders over how to share the cost of helping poorer states fight global warming was a foretaste of the likely discord in the 193-nation UN negotiations from December 7-18.

The leaders agreed that it would cost about 100 billion euros a year (NZ$206bn) by 2020 to help developing nations reduce carbon emissions, and that up to half of that sum would have to come from public money mostly from the industrialised world.

But when it came to deciding who would pay how much within the EU, they stalled because of Europe's own wealth gap.

Poland led a cluster of nine ex-communist central and east European states that contend they cannot afford to contribute in proportion to their emissions, which are high due to a dependency on coal-fired power stations. They demanded that the EU apportion the burden based on national income instead.

That would leave wealthier west European states such as Germany, Britain and France bearing more of the cost. Unable to resolve the dispute, the EU created a working group to examine members' "ability to pay".

The Germans, the EU's biggest paymasters, are worried that Europe is seen as a soft touch.

Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed putting a firm figure for EU climate aid on the table at this stage but said the Europeans would have to pay about one-third of the cost of public financing if there is a deal in Copenhagen.

Many in Berlin feel that Europe has made enough concessions up-front and that it is time for the other major players - particularly the United States, China and India - to move.

There is also some concern that the US Congress, struggling to enact a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, will take fright at European estimates of the scale of international financing required to pay for a global deal.

The Obama administration has only requested $1.2 billion ($NZ$1.70bn) to fund climate mitigation efforts overseas, while the EU estimate implies a cost of at least 10 times that much.

The Europeans papered over another internal dispute over how to shield energy-guzzling industries such as chemicals, glass, concrete and steel from unfair competition from countries that do not curb carbon emissions.

The EU has agreed in principle to hand out free carbon allowances to those energy-intensive sectors exposed to global competition, instead of making them buy pollution permits at auction, in the absence of a comprehensive climate deal.

But France has led calls for Europe to go further and levy a carbon tariff on imports from states with lower environmental standards - a move which EU critics such as Britain and Sweden see as protectionist.

So, if the Europeans cannot agree among themselves on how to share the burden, what hope is there for reaching a global accord at the UN summit?

Newest First

Oldest First

seth   #25   08:50 am Nov 04 2009

@dmc #24: So how come in the last 10 years the global climate hasn't changed then? If its global warming how come we've just come off a 6 month winter?

Debunked. Bigtime.

Redge   #24   08:09 am Nov 04 2009

Here we go again, another debate on Climate Change. Sure, the climate may be changing but it has nothing at all to do with human interference. This is all just a big con and far too many people are being sucked in and I for one am not changing my lifestyle one little bit.

dmc   #23   01:23 am Nov 04 2009

I suggest we pool our money together and fly Mark #9 to Copenhagen in December to unveil to the world that human induced climate change is a myth because October 2009 in NZ was the coldest October here in 64 years...

Unbelievable   #22   07:59 pm Nov 03 2009

And I quote:

"Negotiations to save the planet from catastrophic climate change are heading for trouble, five weeks before a crucial UN conference in Copenhagen."

And this is a Reuters feed! Far out the debate is now about 'saving the planet from catastrophic climate change' – this rhetoric has no place in 'news' reporting, the curtain is being pulled on this massive orchestrated PR campaign.

Jake   #21   05:41 pm Nov 03 2009

I'm not here to argue for or against the reality of climate change, but I will say this... the worlds resources which supply the lifestyles we currently enjoy are being rapidly depleted, beyond a sustainable level. Does anyone disagree with this?

The same industries that are said to contribute to climate change are the ones responsible for the depletion of our natural resources.

Fight and argue all we want, we're heading for a crash course. Probably not a bad thing anyway, humans have become a plague and we'll do ourselves in at some point. Shame yes, tragedy no. Mo' Nature will always win, she can't lose and as soon as we're gone she'll flourish again.

I too   #20   05:31 pm Nov 03 2009

Sigh, I agree too. Reading this thread gives me no hope. All those muppets out there will happily lap up scientific progress when it puts out iphones and microwaves, but when overwhelming scientific consensus says climate change is an imminent existential threat, its heads into the sand.

Richard   #19   04:19 pm Nov 03 2009

Oh right #18 so because people don't agree with you they are dumb?? Know everything do you? Muppets like you are the reason that we are being ripped off becuase of this climate change myth. Get a life!

I   #18   04:03 pm Nov 03 2009

Sigh... the world is doomed... as all of the comments below (and I'm sure the ones added above) show, far too many dumb people in the world now...

Brandon   #17   03:34 pm Nov 03 2009

kit #14

Climate change is a natural phenomenon that the earth has experienced in its 4.5 billion years of existence. When this topic first came about, all the 'alarmist' and scientific consensus (if there every was one) called it Global Warming, i.e. the ice caps are melting because of the increased temperatures caused by CO2. However, it seems that these same people have now changed their opinion and called it climate change, presumably so that if the earths warms or cools, they will be right, (talk about a two headed coin). Funny enough the earth has experinced periods of warming and cooling in this time.

Also, I read in a paper yesterday that the biggest contributor to global warming is methane emissions, not CO2, yet CO2 is the one they are all gunning for. Lastly, if people are so concerned about CO2, then I suggest they better cap all the volcanoes on earth, as they are they are more influential on the earths climate than we are.

Richard   #16   02:46 pm Nov 03 2009

They cannot even predict the weather so how can they predict climate change? There is plenty of money to be made and that is the bottom line on climate change. Everyone will pay for something that is highly likely to be a myth.

Ad Feedback