Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Declared Dead by Chandrashekhar Dasgupta

Declared Dead by Chandrashekhar Dasgupta

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Dec 8, 2009   modified Modified on Dec 8, 2009


The prime minister of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, is now calling for a “political declaration” at the Copenhagen climate change conference, instead of the promised “ambitious” and “binding” outcome. In other words, brave words will take the place of bold deeds at Copenhagen. India and other developing countries are reluctant to accept this lowering of sights and are still hoping for substantive results.

The Danish announcement is disappointing but not unexpected. In a previous article in these columns (October 21), I had observed that “great expectations have understandably been built up for the Copenhagen conference, against the background of dire scientific estimates of the extent and severity of climate change impacts. Sadly, these expectations will not be met. With barely six weeks left for the inaugural session, the negotiations remain deadlocked”.

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the developed countries have an obligation to progressively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The alarming reality, however, is that the total emissions of these countries have continued to increase since 2000. Moreover, they are not prepared even now to commit themselves to reductions on the required scale. The prospects of climate change legislation in the United States of America remain uncertain. Thus, President Barack Obama is not in a position to make a firm commitment at Copenhagen and can only announce a modest “provisional” target. The commitments made by other developed countries to date fall woefully below the required level and are, moreover, subject to various qualifications.

A detailed analysis by the Austria-based International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis shows that the cuts contemplated by the industrialized countries would reduce their emissions by only five to 17 per cent (depending on attached conditions), compared to the 1990 baseline. Developing countries have called for a reduction of at least 40 or 45 per cent in the emissions of developed countries. The figures being mentioned by the developed countries fall short even of the European Union call for a cut in the range of 25-40 per cent — and this is a very low range, derived from an analysis that specifically excludes lifestyle changes.

Instead of implementing their commitments on the required scale, the developed countries are aiming to shift a large part of their convention obligations to the shoulders of developing countries, especially the so-called “emerging economies” like China, India, Brazil and South Africa, which they view as current or potential competitors in the global economy. They want a new agreement under which developing countries, with the exception of the Least Developed Countries, will have new, legally binding, commitments to moderate their greenhouse gas emissions and even to make financial contributions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in other developing countries.

These proposals are inconsistent with the UNFCCC. The convention recognizes that the “largest share of historical and current global emissions greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs”. It accordingly requires the developed countries to reduce their emissions in a time-bound manner. Affluent developed countries are also required to contribute financial resources and transfer technology to the developing countries, in order to enable the latter to respond effectively to climate change.

The convention provides that developing countries are to be compensated for the incremental costs of measures taken to moderate their rising emissions. It expressly recognizes that the “extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

More than any other international agreement, the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are equity-based instruments protecting the interests of poorer countries. These equity-based agreements are now under threat.

Current negotiations are proceeding on two tracks, corresponding to the two climate change agreements — the Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. The two-fold mandate is to “enhance implementation” of the convention and to lay down the post-2012 emission reduction commitments of developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations have made little progress because most developed countries have been dragging their feet in committing themselves to specific cuts. Indeed, they have made it clear that they are looking for a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol — a new agreement that will impose legally binding commitments also on developing countries.

This has been accompanied by a disinformation campaign of truly Goebbelsian proportions. The lie is being propagated that the Kyoto Protocol is due to “expire” in 2012 and that a new agreement is, therefore, required to take its place. The truth, of course, is that 2012 marks only the end of the first commitment period in the protocol. The protocol specifically provides for subsequent commitment periods. Article 3.9 requires that “commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B” and that the “meeting of Parties to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period”. Indeed, that is the mandate of the ongoing negotiations launched in 2005. Yet, the falsehood that the Kyoto Protocol “expires” in 2012 is being endlessly repeated in the international media, so that many of our own commentators have come to accept it as the truth.

At Copenhagen, the developed countries will renew their muscular efforts to change the two-fold mandate. They want to merge the two negotiating tracks in order to make it easier to lay the Kyoto Protocol to rest. We must ensure that Copenhagen does not become the graveyard of the protocol. We must be vigilant to ensure that the Copenhagen “political declaration” contains no formulation that can be interpreted as a death sentence for the Kyoto Protocol or a mandate for launching negotiations for a new agreement to replace it. Likewise, we must ensure that the mandate remains focused on the implementation of the convention, not its amendment or re-interpretation. The two-track approach must be maintained.

In an incisive speech on November 10, the South African environment minister, Buyelwa Sonjica, declared that “we will not be pressured into accepting a weak outcome that re-interprets the Convention and the Bali Action Plan to the disadvantage of developing countries… We cannot accept the demise of the Kyoto Protocol; we cannot turn the clock back on more than a decade of progress in building the international climate regime; and we cannot start a process of renegotiation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

These words echo the sentiments of billions of people in the developing countries.
 
THE AUTHOR IS A RETIRED AMBASSADOR AND IS CURRENTLY A DISTINGUISHED FELLOW AT THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE


The Telegraph, 8 December, 2009, http://telegraphindia.com/1091208/jsp/opinion/story_11835576.jsp
 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close