Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (64160)	5/2/2009 12:15:26 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224756

Rich and poor still divided over climate pact Published: Wednesday 29 April 2009 euractiv.com Over 30 national proposals submitted to the UN in recent weeks have revealed that a significant divide must still be bridged between rich and poor countries if a new global climate agreement is to be concluded in December. The proposals are to form the basis of a negotiating text for the post-Kyoto treaty, and will set the tone for the next round of UN negotiations in June. Differing views on sharing the cost of climate change, which have been a stumbling block, persist in the submissions. Financing still elusive Developing countries called on industrialised countries to commit around 0.5-2% of their GDP to funding mitigation and adaptation measures in poor countries. Moreover, the idea of using revenue from emission allowance auctioning to do so was floated by China, India and Indonesia, among others. Rich countries, meanwhile, have been slow to come up with concrete proposals. The EU's stance is that the bulk of such financing will have to come from the private sector and carbon markets, and the bloc is yet to commit concrete sums to aiding developing countries (EurActiv 18/03/09). The two-day meeting of the world's 17 biggest greenhouse gas emitters, which ended in Washington yesterday (28 April), indicated the scale of the problems that the world must address before agreement can be reached. US President Barack Obama had called the meeting, under the framework of 'The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate' launched by his predecessor George W. Bush, to forge a consensus on issues like financing and targets for emission cuts by industrialised countries. Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, said he had come out of the meeting "if anything, a bit more optimistic". "I would not downplay or underestimate the difficulty of getting an agreement in Copenhagen in the first instance, and the enormous difficulty of wrestling this problem to the ground," he nevertheless warned. Although financing for developing countries was meant to be a major theme of the discussions, participants never even got as far as talking about it. They ran out of time after prolonged discussions on mitigation. "Unfortunately, the meeting saw no real progress towards greener development pathways for developing countries, and no new financial and technical support from developed countries to make that development possible," Carroll Muffet of Greenpeace said. Mid-term targets falling short Developing countries generally insisted that industrialised countries should commit to cuts of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. China insisted that it made no sense to talk about long-term targets for all parties before developed countries had agreed to such reductions. In fact, the EU is the only bloc of nations with a binding commitment to a 20% cut from 1990 levels by 2020. It has pledged to raise this to 30% if other developed nations take on comparable targets. The US, which has previously been focused on setting an 80% long-term reduction target for 2050, has now indicated that it will push for strong mid-term targets too. During the Major Economies Forum, Stern said the US would suggest a collective target that was at least as ambitious as the 14% cut below 2005 levels by 2020 as proposed by President Obama for the States. It might even propose targets in line with a draft Congress bill which would cut them by 20%. "There's no mystery," Stern said, pointing out that the US target would fall somewhere in between the two proposals. The US numbers are nevertheless far less ambitious than those proposed by the EU. As they take 2005 as the base level, even the stricter target floated by Congressman Henry Waxman would only stabilise emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. Stern reportedly said in March that insisting on US cuts of 25-40% would lead to a stalemate. But developing countries are unlikely to be satisfied with the proposed figures, considering the historical responsibilities for global warming borne by the industrialised world.