CLICK HERE

(Source: Timesonline)

Some voices are standing opposite to what the media was collaborating today. The Green politician Hermann Ott told the German newspaper “Taz” that a political binding agreement was already hammered out between the USA and China. Supposedly, 24% will be the amount that developed countries want to mitigate until 2020 – calculating the loopholes this comes down to a lousy 10%. Emerging countries will be fed with some additional money.

Is this just a single voice or does something ly in the air? Tomorrow we will know.

Demo in support of Tuvalu (pic by Robert vanWaarden)

Right now, the negotiations within the CMP in the main plenary are stopped again and a small group of people is meeting in one corner of the room to find agreemend under the guidance of Connie Hedegaard, the COP-President. Tuvalu seemed to have insisted on its proposal to first deal with what kind of outcome COP15 will have before negotiation more details of it. This was – as voiced told me – supported by China. The question comes down to a more significant thing: will there be reductions for China? Todd Stern, Special Climate Envoy for the US said yesterday

“If you care about the science — and we do — there’s no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass…We’re not talking about the same kind of need for actions from the vast majority of developing countries. But the major ones, it’s going to be absolutely essential.” (here)

China is opposed to it “in principal”, as I was told. The main fault line of Climate negotiation is slowly coming to the front of the room. While Tuvalu’s proposal is primarily about the kind of agreement (legally or only politically binding), the question is if it will be an new “Copenhagen Agreement” (=kills Kyoto) and thus probably don’t have an Annex-1 with developed nations. The question, who at all has to give mitigation-aims in a legal form is then new on the table. China wants to use Tuvalu it seems to push for a clear reinforcement of the two tracks of Bali – a shared vision and a Kyoto-revisal with new numbers for developed countries only.

Denmark ist a small but very rich country in the North of Europe. It is known for Hans-Christian Andersen and his Little Mermaid and a lot of Wind Power. And the danish Capital is host to the biggest UN-Conference ever, COP15! Thus, Denmark has a unique responsibility as host and – in the person of its Climate Minister Conny Heedegard – as COP-President. So far, the Danish have tried quite hard to look fair and ambitious. This is pictured was shattered to thousands of splinters yesterday.

Has a problem: CMP-President Connie Hedegaard (Pic by cop15.dk)

The British newspaper THE GUIARDIAN leaked a secret paper that is suppose to become the danish proposal for a final Copenhagen Agreement. See it here (GET IT HERE). (More)

Spontaneous demonstrations and an attempted storm into the CMP-Meeting today (blocked of peacefully by the UN-Police) are probable reactions to these happenings.

Denmark supposedly worked together with the US and UK – two countries very suspicious of imperialist behaviour in the eyes of many (not only) in the Global South. In secred they prepared a paper I will shortly analyse for the Blog-readers here.

The most prominent thing this new proposal brings, is that when Obama and Brown can convince the Chinese to support this (unlikely in this form, however), it is like a pistol on the head of the rest of the world. Like: “Accept or die, Bangladesh.” This “Copenhagen Agreement” is a single Paper which is seen critical by some States as this might signal a weakening of the border between North and South – however, it still marks a line between both groups. Further, it is just a political agreement and not a legally binding one. This one would be done at “COPXX”. This means, not even Mexico 2010 is sure to be the end-point of this endless horror!But COP 2011 is only a year before the end of the current commitment period in 2012 and this gives hardly enough time for 194 countries to ratify. And there is a Presidential election in the US in 2012!

In addition to this, Offsets are allowed – but only as “supplementary to domestic action” – and a “well functioning carbon market” has to be established. No critique on the status quo or signs on where to improve. There is also a lot of Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) in the proposal (fear of poor countries getting too mcuh money?) and emissions form international flights and shipping shall be adressed (good!) via their respective organizations ICAO and IMO (bad).

Some other things are still unclear. Among them the numbers in reductions. But developing nations should be required to be clear and bound to a deviation from the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario in 2020. This is something China is consequently blocking.
The proposal gives reference to upt to seven additions, including on REDD+, Technology and Financing that are all to be decided in Copenhagen as well.

But maybe one can try to see it from the bright side – at least a bit. If this is really a paper not only by the Danish but done with the support (and agreement) of the US, they might want to give us a sign? This is clearly an interpretation (and a big one).

The 2°C-goal is set – which is a way ahead but not as good as we hope. Still, it requires more than what the US is currently willing to give (-4% under 1990). It agrees on an early peak for developed countries (but wants to set a clear peak for developing nations as well – unlikely to get approval from the South). The proposal takes Gender into the topic twice and is open to fast-track financing (10 billion USD – not enough, though). However, in the annex the number “[30]” stands – a sign that they are willing to start with more? This is than subject to „gradual increased“ on a tbd sum in 2020. Further, an International Climate Financing Board  – for a new central “Climate Fund” can to some extend decide with 2/3 majority. Would the US really do this if the Board is really fairly put together?

Most prominently, the proposal forsees NAMA-Plans (National Appropriate Mitigation Actions) for developed countries as well. More to it, they should/shall be subject to international MRV! This means UN-observers at a wind-mill in Iowas or what? This could be a big step towards trust building.
Unfortunately, the whole process eroded so much trust, that this could only be a drip of water on a hot stone.

China just said at the CMP-Meeting that it is not agreeing with the finding of the CDM Executive Board (EB) on taking back some CDM-Windprojects in China. The initial Critique came up by groups like CDM-Watch that China was lowering subsidies for Windprojects which are enabled under the CDM. They would then not be “additional” any more since they would have taken place without CDM (=certificates for the West) as well.

China now argued in a longer speech, that this dealing is basically unfair because the review (and cancellation or re-modelling) of CDM projects is role of the hosting nation (China). Thus, the EB went over its mandate by cutting those CDM projects. It is unclear, how this discussion (under the CURRENT CDM) is affecting negotiations for future Carbon Offsetting.

interesting Blog on the COP15.dk-Website. What interests me most: why is the official hosting-side posting news on problems within other negotiation-groups? sounds strange to me!

Indonesia, former chair of the Group of 77, proposes to extend the time frame for a new global climate treaty until June 2010. But there is a conflict of interests within the group, The Jakarta Post reports. (more)

hand – behind their back. If Congress makes more problems with passing the already weaky bill, another player might help Obama.

The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America “concludes that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. As such, the six substances can be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.” (Link to one of the many reports).

This does not just follow a Supreme Court ruling but is also a significant help Obama, who would like to do more on Climate Change but is bound to the slow political process and the continued brainless effort of the political right – even in his own party – who is trying to slow things down.

The ruling is not the biggest surprise: “In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down perhaps the most significant decision ever reached in environmental law. The Court ruled that the Clean Air Act, the landmark 1970 law aimed at protecting our air, is written to include greenhouse gas pollution. That verdict echoed what many scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens have said for years: there are no more excuses for delay.” (source: EPA-speech) But now, the EPA has the power to use the prior established GHG-reporting system thanks to the “Endangerment Finding” to do something against large polluters on behalf of the health of American people. Strange, that the health of the Global South, most threatened by American lifestyle, is not reason enough… whatever.

Link here! (Cop15-website)

France wants financial tax in climate accord

France is pushing for a political agreement at the climate conference in Copenhagen to include a tax on financial transactions to help developing countries, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says.

Kouchner says a very small tax — 0.005 percent on financial transactions — would help developing countries fight poverty, promote education and health, and meet the costs of combatting climate change.

Such a tax on all financial movements would be “impossible to feel,” he says, explaining that it produces just 5 cents “on a movement of a thousand dollars, a thousand euros.”

Kouchner says that France has been working on the tax idea for a year and hosted a conference in Paris in October with 59 countries as well as financial and economic experts to put together a proposal.

He concedes there is some opposition, even in liberal countries, but he predicts “all the people of the world will accept this kind of contribution.”

“It will be done, believe me, it will be done. I don’t know when. But I know that we (have) to rebalance the responsibility and the sufferings in this world,” Kouchner says. “If it comes through this conference (in Copenhagen) it will be a big, big, big, big benefit.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expresses hope that the French proposal “will be discussed in Copenhagen as a way to generate financial support in addition to public fundings to be provided by the governments.”

The secretary-general says that with 105 world leaders expected on Dec. 18, there is momentum to reach a strong political agreement in Copenhagen.

“The more ambitious, the stronger agreement we have in Copenhagen, the easier, the quicker the process we will have to a legally binding treaty in 2010, as early as possible,” Ban says.

Here, they probably talk openly. (G8 in Italy, Foto by The White House)

“The Chinese press is preparing the Chinese for future increases in fees and taxes to fund the nation’s efforts to curb its greenhouse gas emissions.” (source)

That is is stuff I want to read from every country. Climate Change will cost all of us huge amounts of money. The question is not if we have to pay, but when, how much and in what proportion towards each other. Isn’t it fair if rich countries people pay more (with a social balancing-methodology in place, of course)? Governments of the Global North should be honest and say it loud that their taxes and some fees have to rise in order to prevent climate change. But also governments in the Global South have to be honest and say, that they have to stark taxing according to the ecological footprint and that there are (most prominently physical) costs of climate change for their people.

Say it loud, leaders!:

Sorry my people, but you Americans all have to pay more in total – this is just how it works!

Es tut mir leid es so klar zu sagen, aber alle Menschen in Deutschland müssen mehr zahlen.

我很抱歉地说那么清楚，但在中国所有的人必须付出更多。

Jeg er ked af at sige det så klart, men alle mennesker i Danmark er nødt til at betale mere

Het spijt me te zeggen dat het zo duidelijk, maar alle mensen in ons land moeten meer betalen.

אני מצטער לומר את זה כל כך ברור, אבל כל האנשים במדינה שלנו צריכים לשלם יותר.

मैं यह तो स्पष्ट रूप से कह अफसोस है, लेकिन हमारे देश में सभी लोगों के लिए ज्यादा पैसा देना पड़ेगा.

Przykro mi to mówić tak wyraźnie, ale wszystkich ludzi w naszym kraju muszą płacić więcej.

Im ” n chwith i ddweud ei fod mor glir, ond yr holl bobl yn ein gwlad yn gorfod talu mwy.

Çok net bir şekilde söylemek, ama üzgünüm ülkemizde tüm insanların daha fazla ödemek zorunda.

Mi dispiace dirlo così chiaramente, ma tutte le persone nel nostro paese devono pagare di più.

(helped by GoogleTranslate – more and mmore sophisticated honesties welcome!)