The agreement reached by delegations on the 18th of December 2009 in C(H)openhagen seems not to be adequate, on the other hand such agreements require deep sense of solidarity among all nations of the world and so are difficult to accept by rich countries, cause they mean spending a lot of money to help developing countries.
Our Mock Conference aims at presenting various points of view on the issue by taking side of different parties representing countries.
Write a short speech presenting statement of "your" country. Prepare for the plenary discussion.
Hello
ReplyDeleteMy name is David Gomez, a student from America
and I just wanted to say that this sounds like a really cool project and I m gonna talk to my teacher so that we could do it in class.
The EU hopes this will still be possible, but should this not be the case the minimum outcome in Copenhagen must be a strong framework agreement covering the essential building blocks of the new treaty and a deadline for completing it. The essential elements are: (an ambitious set of emission reduction commitments by developed countries including the United States; adequate action by developing countries to curb their emissions growth); and a financial deal to assist developing countries in mitigating their emissions and adapting to climate change.In Barcelona the EU underlined its readiness to do everything to complete a fully-fledged treaty as soon as possible .
ReplyDeleteThe EU has made clear its preference for this two-track approach to lead to a single, legally binding international treaty. This must incorporate and build on the essential elements of the Kyoto Protocol, such as emission reductions by industrialised countries, market-based mechanisms, accounting rules for changes in emissions due to land use, land use change and forestry, and a strong compliance regime.
South Africa
ReplyDeleteTo cut emissions by 34% below current expected levels by 2020.[19][48]
This is equivalent to an absolute emissions cut of about 18%[original research?] below 1990 levels by 2020.[49]
On December 18 after a day of frantic negotiations between heads of state, it was announced that a "meaningful agreement" had been reached between the United States, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil.[96] The use of "meaningful" was viewed as being political spin by an editorial in The Guardian.[97] An unnamed US government official was reported as stating that the deal was a "historic step forward" but was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future. However, the BBC's environment correspondent stated: "While the White House was announcing the agreement, many other – perhaps most other – delegations had not even seen it. A comment from a UK official suggested the text was not yet final and the Bolivian delegation has already complained about the way it was reached – 'anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable'. With no firm target for limiting the global temperature rise, no commitment to a legal treaty and no target year for peaking emissions, countries most vulnerable to climate impacts have not got the deal they wanted."[96]
Early on Saturday 19 December, delegates approved a motion to "take note of the Copenhagen Accord[98] of December 18, 2009". This was due to the opposition of countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Sudan and Tuvalu who registered their opposition to both the targets and process by which the Copenhagen Accord was reached.[99] The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal as an "essential beginning" however debate has remained as to the exact legal nature of the Accord.[100] The Copenhagen Accord recognises the scientific case for keeping temperature rises below 2°C, but does not contain commitments for reduced emissions that would be necessary to achieve that aim. One part of the agreement pledges US$ 30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Earlier proposals, that would have aimed to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C and cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were dropped. The Accord also favors developed countries' paying developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, known as "REDD."[101][102] The agreement made was non-binding but U.S. President Obama said that countries could show the world their achievements. He said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made.[103] By 31 January,
Tuvalu is a small country located in the Pacific, is one of the smallest countries in the world is 26 km².
ReplyDeleteBy global warming and rising water level threatens Tuvalu preoccupation by the ocean- it is estimated the for about 40 years this country may disappear from the world map.
Tuvalu authorities will certainly be fighting for it to be as long as possible in their little country.
Kasia. Robert. Wojtek.
EU leaders decided to allocate 7.2 bilion euros over the next three years to support the poortest countries in their efforts to tackle global warming, hoping thereby to support the agreement negotiated in Copenhagen.
ReplyDeleteThe also agreed to allocate certain amounts to combat climate change, if other countries did likewase.
Assistance will indude funding for coast forest crops protection and modifying economy to create a low carbon emissions.
Grzesiek.Ania.Bartek
The USA intends to soon introduce new regulations requiring the use of new technologies, heating and insulation in construction, which would create conditions for reducing energy consumption in the U.S. and would make it easier to reduce emissions by more than 17%, and more than 80 percent before 2050. United States, declared a reduction of 2020 level of 4%. The President also assured that the discharge of their promises are not conditional on the success of the Conference and that will continue their chosen course regardless of the decisions taken in Copenhagen. Despite this, the issue of financing the global effort Obama has promised to contribute U.S. (10 billion U.S. dollars by 2012 and 100 billion by 2020) only when the money will assist the international agreement.
ReplyDeleteThe big developing countries like India and China
ReplyDeleteas a right to pollute up to Western levels. To me carbon equity
is the logic of mutually assured destruction. I think NGOs are
far too soft on the Chinese, given that it's the world biggest
polluter and is the single most important factor in deciding when
global emissions will peak, wchich in turn is the single most
important actor in the eventual temperature outcome.
"I think the bottom lina for China is growth and given that
this growth is mainly base on coal, there is going to have to be
much more pressure on China if global emissions are to peak within
aby resonable time frame."
The European Union had committed to implementing binding legislation, even without a satisfactory deal in Copenhagen. Last December, the European Union revised its carbon allowances system called the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) designed for the post-Kyoto period (after 2013). This new stage of the system aims at further reducing greenhouse gases emitted in Europe in a binding way and at showing the commitments the EU had already done before the Copenhagen meeting. To avoid carbon leakage—relocation of companies in other regions not complying with similar legislation—the EU Commission will foresee that sectors exposed to international competition, should be granted some free allocations of CO2 emissions provided that they are at least at the same level of a benchmark. Other sectors should buy such credits on an international market. Energy intensive industries in Europe have advocated for this benchmark system in order to keep funds in investment capacities for low carbon products rather than for speculations. The European chemical industry claims here the need to be closer to the needs of citizens in a sustainable way. To comply with such commitments for a low-carbon economy, this requires competitiveness and innovations.
ReplyDelete