I/II. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091219/ts_afp/unclimatewarming
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091219/ts_afp/unclimatewarming> Climate deal passed amid condemnation, disappointment by Richard Ingham – 12 mins ago COPENHAGEN (AFP) – A UN conference on Saturday rammed through a battle plan against climate change forged by US PresidentBarack Obama and other top leaders, sidelining smaller states which lashed the deal as betrayal. After toxic exchanges, the summit chair forced through a deal using an unusual procedural tool that effectively dropped all obstacles to the new-born Copenhagen Accord. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon admitted the agreement had failed to win global consensus and would disappoint many who demanded stronger action against climate change. Related article: Ban Ki-moon welcomes accord But he voiced relief it had not been strangled at birth. "Many will say that it lacks ambition," Ban said. "Nonetheless, you have achieved much." Obama earlier called the political accord an "unprecedented breakthrough" after meetings with about two dozen presidents and prime ministers in Copenhagen. The agreement was assembled in a frenzied game of climate poker among the leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa and major European countries. The group had been chosen by conference chair Denmark after it became clear the summit was in danger of catastrophic failure. But the deal was savaged when it was put to a full session of the 194-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Half a dozen developing countries led the charge, blasting the document as a cosy backdoor deal that violated UN democracy, excluded the poor and doomed the world to catastrophic climate change. "It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future," said Ian Fry of Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific island whose very existence is threatened by rising seas. The draft is intended to be the kernel of a strategy to slash the fossil-fuel emissions that trap the Sun's heat and are warming Earth's surface, slowly but ruthlessly damaging our weather systems. It set a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but did not spell out the important stepping stones -- global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050 -- for getting there. It did not identify a year by which emissions should peak, a demand made by rich countries that was fiercely opposed by China. And, under it, pledges are voluntary and free from tough compliance provisions to ensure they are honoured. China had bristled at anything called "verification" of its plan to cut the intensity of its carbon emissions, seeing it as an infringement of sovereignty and saying rich nations bore primary responsibility for global warming. Related article: Climate leaders: The rhetoric vs. the reality The deal was more detailed on how poor countries should be financially aided to shore up their defences against rising seas, droughts, floods and storms. Rich countries pledged 30 billion dollars in "fast-track" funds for the 2010-2012 period, including 11 billion from Japan, 10.6 billion from the European Union and 3.6 billion from the United States. They set an ambitious goal of "jointly mobilising" 100 billion dollars by 2020. But to make the "fast-track" funds operational, the accord needed plenary approval. Countries were invited to sign up to the deal. The UN's climate pointman Yvo de Boer denied the 13-day conference had been a complete failure but admitted it had not lived up to expectations. "A great deal of energy was invested, a great deal was within our grasp, we managed to capture a certain degree of success but we should be conscious of the huge challenge that lies ahead of us," he told a closing press briefing. The goal is to complete a signable treaty in Mexico City in December 2010 and have it take effect from 2013, after the current roster of pledges under the UN's Kyoto Protocol expire. The outcome in Copenhagen will deliver a boost to Obama's efforts to secure legislation in the US Congress that would set his country on a path to lower emissions by around 17 percent by 2020 over a 2005 benchmark. He described the deal as a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough." "Going forward, we are going to have to build on the momentum we have achieved here in Copenhagen. We have come a long way but we have much further to go," he added. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will host the next climate summit in mid-2010, said she viewed the result "with mixed emotions" but added that "the only alternative to the agreement would have been a failure." The Copenhagen Accord was met with dismay by campaigners, who said it was weak, non-binding and sold out the poor. "Well-meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis that calls for completely new ways of collaboration across rich and poor countries," said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF?s Global Climate Initiative. II. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6844148/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Ban-Ki-moon-hails-deal-as-essential-beginning.html Copenhagen climate summit: Ban Ki-moon hails deal as 'essential beginning'Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, has welcomed the climate deal in Copenhagen as an "essential beginning" despite opposition from developing nations. By Alastair Jamieson<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/alastair-jamieson/> Published: 1:31PM GMT 19 Dec 2009 Delegates finally *agreed to ‘recognise’ the US-brokered deal<http://preview.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6843304/Copenhagen-climate-summit-deal-agreed-amid-chaos.html> *, which was arranged between five key nations including China and Brazil but which did not secure unanimous support. But Mr Ban said the agreement must be made legally binding next year. Several South American countries, such as Nicaragua and Venezuela, were among a group saying the agreement had not been reached through proper process. Mr Ban told journalists: "Finally, we sealed the deal." "It may not be everything we hoped for, but this decision of the Conference of Parties is an essential beginning." But he added: "We must transform this into a legally binding treaty next year. "The importance will only be recognised when it's codified into international law." Delegates at the climate summit had been battling through the night to prevent the talks ending without reaching a final deal. A decision was made after an all-night plenary session, in which a small group of nations blocked the US-brokered deal because it lacks specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. Instead, it was agreed that delegates would "take note" of the deal instead of formally approving it. Experts said that clears the way for the accord to become operational in practice even though it has not been formally approved by the conference. "The linkage is strong enough for it to become operational," said John Hay, a spokesman for the U.N. climate change convention. Several developing countries, including Bolivia, Cuba, Sudan and Venezuela, have bitterly protested the deal and said it is unacceptable because it lacks specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. Decisions are made by consensus in U.N. climate negotiations. An exhausted Ed Miliband, Britain’s Environment Secretary, insisted the outcome was not a failure. He said it was very important that the adoption of the accord drawn up by leaders would allow the flow of money to begin. But he said: "We recognise there could have been more ambition in parts of this agreement. Therefore we have got to drive forward as hard as we can towards both a legally binding treaty and that ambition." After the often-fractious negotiations ran through the night before finally reaching a decision, Mr Miliband said: "It seemed at times during the course of the night as being quite difficult, because there were always a very small minority of countries which seemed determined not to sign it." He said he had told negotiators that the UK believed the agreement on the table was a good one because it provided money, provisions for emissions targets and transparency. Asked if it was a problem that the deal contains no timetable for turning the accord into a legally binding treaty, he said: "I wish there had been a timetable. "But what became clear in the negotiations was that developing countries didn't want to sign up to legally binding targets. "A lot of procedural arguments that were going on were fundamentally about this issue of legally binding targets." -- Peace Is Doable -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
