Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe Single Word That Gutted What Little Came Out Of Lima
EDIT
After an all-night session that forced an extra day, there remained a divide, generally between the U.S. and Chinathe same two countries who spent much of the year in secret talks before announcing a historic bilateral agreement on climate last month. A bloc of African countries and many small island states were on Chinas side, while Australia, Japan, and the EU joined the United States. So many countries objected to earlier drafts that the conference chair had no choice but to do a major rewrite to include stronger language saying that rich countries have a mandate to help buffer the "loss and damages" that climate change is already causing. China and the developing countries also wanted fewer constraints on the emissions reductions plans they'll be required to submit for the first time next year.
Before the rewrite, the United States issued a word of caution, warning that further tinkering could undermine the international process itself. And it appears that's probably what happened. In the final version of the text, developing countries largely got their wayincluding language referencing a temperature rise of just 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a target so ambitious that it would likely require a single-minded global focusbut one key word related to international oversight of the emissions reductions plans was changed from "shall" to "may" at the request of China. Had the re-write not occurred, a leaked strategy document showed a coalition of some influential developing countries, including India, were prepared to scrap the entire agreement.
This single word undermines much of what climate campaigners were hoping 2015 would bring: a concerted effort to assemble an effective and ambitious global plan of action on a country-by-country basis. The wording of the Lima text, in combination with the fact that any global deal almost certainly won't have legal force (because the U.S. Congress would never ratify a legally-binding climate treaty), means that whatever comes out of Paristhe site of the next climate summit, in 2015probably won't be a game-changer.
In one place, the final text borrowed directly from the recent U.S.-China deal, stating that all countries are required to cut emissions "in light of different national circumstances"a nod to vast differences in capacity. Theres also a substantial 37-page annex that includes the negotiating points, line-by-line, that will comprise next years agreementsome of which are surprisingly bold. Just dont plan on it meaning much. Whatever happens in Paris, its sure to be historicall countries on Earth will now be committed to slowing climate change for the first time. But gone is the accountability or matching of actions to each country's potential for change.
EDIT
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/14/lima_peru_climate_change_negotiations_one_word_undermines_the_entire_thing.html
OnlinePoker
(5,721 posts)I'm sorry, but any country that is able to send humans into space are no longer developing. They have the capability to clean up their act but choose to put their resources on the cheapest course to getting all the crap the "developed" world has, the environment be damned. China and India should be held to the same environmental standards and expectations as Europe, North America and Japan with no exemptions.