All posts in COP17

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Take it, leave it or change it…

by Julian Velez

The ALBA group (Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas) sees that Transitional Committee (TC) has expressed very serious concerns regarding   the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The TC was uncharged of drafting all the details of how the GCF is going to function and the TC report was brought up for either adopting or rejecting it. The ALBA group doesn´t want to reject the report but they see that it has many parts that needs amendments. The TC and the GCF are one of the achievements of the Cancun Agreements. The GCF is a fund that is supposed to finance projects on adapting to climate change and mitigating Co2 emissions in developing countries.

They have various concerns on this subject. The fund as it is right now will provide funding based on the results of the projects, so that developing countries would have to finance the projects without having certainty on a refund. This system is kind of backwards because the whole purpose of the fund is to help developing countries that don’t have the resources to pay for the projects… they are putting the horse before the cart.

One of the proposals for the way the fund may be structured would be like that of a private entity: without assembly, in the form of a board.  It would also transfer funds to private entities directly without passing through governments or public institutions. ALBA is in favor of a board, with balanced representation from developed and developing nations, so that decisions are not taken solely by the providers of the money.

Another point that ALBA is concerned about is the fact that the World Bank is the current trustee of the fund, and if this is accepted the World Bank would have too much influence in where the funding goes.

ALBA would rather have nothing than a fund with many flaws. They want to leave Durban with a well structured fund.

They are also very strong about engaging with civil society to exchange perspectives both to enrich their positions and inform civil society about what is going on in the negotiations.

The dialog provided by ALBA was very valuable because it gave a perspective from the only unified Latin American block. They were very open and direct with civil society and willing to talk and answer questions. This forum is very valuable because it is very hard to find this kind of openness that includes civil society.

 

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Ministers begin their work

 by Samuli Sinisalo

The ministerial Indaba-consultations about the Durban outcome begin tonight. In front of them, the ministers have five options for the possible outcome. No decision is not amongst them at this level.

The first option is to implement a new legal instrument under article 17 of the convention. This would mean that the contents of the new instrument can be anything – made up in Durban.

Option two is to complete an agreed outcome based on the Bali Action Plan. Then the outcome would build on what that LCA track has negotiated since 2007. It would address Shared Vision, Adaptation, Mitigation, Technology Transfer and Finance.

Third option is to conclude the aforementioned BAP pillars through a series of decisions. This takes into account work done in Cancun and Durban. Fourth option is to implement BAP and the Cancun Agreements.

Option five is to complete the BAP and Cancun agreements through a series of decisions and begin a process to develop post-2020 arrangements/legally binding instruments. These negotiations could either take place in the LCA group, or within a new subsidiary body. Suggestions for timeline vary from 2012 to 2017.

Any of the above mentioned options can be described as a partial success – at least on the surface. What is common to all of them is the lack of ambition. That much seems granted at the moment. Only numbers on the table at the moment are those pledged in Copenhagen and cemented in Cancun. They put the world on a 4-6 degrees Celsius pathway.

Fortunately the EU proposed text today under the KP track that would enable countries to increase their ambition level in future. Similar designs have worked under the Montreal Protocol. But the climate negotiations are currently suffering from lack of political will for more ambitious emission reductions, and a mechanism by itself is not going to change that, or save the planet. It has to be used as well.

Further, the briefing paper for the ministerial Indaba mentions that the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities might be dynamic. The responsibilities specified for developed and developing countries might be redefined and renegotiated. Up to now, developed countries emissions reductions actions have been conditional on financial support from the developed world.

Friday night will tell what the final package is. It seems that things are in motion in Durban, and something will come out. Whether it is a real solution, or an empty shell is yet to see. There are positive signals for a potential outcome, but the risk of getting empty declarations instead of real solutions is still looming. Total failure is not likely, but neither is complete success.

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Global hegemons push through a well-disguised Trojan Horse

Ignoring all evidence that an agriculture work programme under SBSTA is a bad idea,  I’d automatically be wary of anything that the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are pushing this hard, especially if it’s ‘for the sake of’ developing countries.

 

Cartoon designed by a friend of Teresa Anderson, a woman we’re working with here in Durban.

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

U.S. Youth Ejected from Climate Talks While Calling Out Congress’s Failure

cross-posted from SustainUS <http://sustainus.org/component/content/article/115-news-general/628-us-youth-ejected-from-climate-talks>

Durban, South Africa – After nearly two weeks of stalled progress by the United States at the international climate talks, U.S. youth spoke out for a real, science-based climate treaty.  Abigail Borah, a New Jersey resident, interrupted the start of lead U.S. negotiator Todd Stern’s speech to call out members of Congress for impeding global climate progress, delivering a passionate call for an urgent path towards a fair and binding climate treaty. Stern was about to speak to international ministers and high-level negotiators at the closing plenary of the Durban climate change negotiations. Borah was ejected from the talks shortly following her speech.

Borah, a student at Middlebury College, spoke for U.S. negotiators because “they cannot speak on behalf of the United States of America”, highlighting that “the obstructionist Congress has shackled a just agreement and delayed ambition for far too long.” Her delivery was followed by applause from the entire plenary of leaders from around the world.

Since before the climate talks, the United States, blocked by a Congress hostile to climate action, has held the position of holding off on urgent pollution reductions targets until the year 2020. Studies from the International Energy Agency, numerous American scientists, and countless other peer-reviewed scientific papers show that waiting until 2020 to begin aggressive emissions reduction would cause irreversible climate change, including more severe tropical storms, worsening droughts, and devastation affecting communities and businesses across America.  Nevertheless, the United States has held strong to its woefully inadequate and voluntary commitments made in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 and the Cancun Agreement in 2010.

“2020 is too late to wait,” urged Borah. “We need an urgent path towards a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty.”

The U.S. continues to negotiate on time borrowed from future generations, and with every step of inaction forces young people to suffer the quickly worsening climate challenges that previous generations have been unable and unwilling to address.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →