CAN comments of first five days in Bonn
Monday: The Land-use, Land-use changes and forestry (LULUCF) issues could come into a new agreement with a very „flexible“ mechanism, allwoing countries to make their own „base-line“. This means countries themselves say how much they can safe by taking a low baseline and not making much actual emissions. Further there is the search of the part abut biodiversity and social safeguards in the Proposal-texts.😉
Tuesday: Apart from biodiverstiy, CAN noted the absence of more points in the LCA-proposal: developed countries should also (like developing countries) submit a „low carbon action plan“, the support given by the North (one day) to the South should also be „mrv“ (measurable, verifiable and reportable), emission reductions should not be counted double (need for domestic mitigation AND helping of the developing world – this is NOT the same!), scientific review in 2014 (next IPCC report!). Further, CAN critizies the GEF (Global Environmental Facility), which is currently trying to stay important by doing proposals and so on financial stuff, it is „an inadequate meachanism because of its bureaucratic procedures, donor driven governance and a lack of acceptibility and trust by the developing world“.
Wednesday: On eisngle concolidated fund is good, but it has to be filled – for this there needs to be a „revenue rasiing and robust compliance mechanism“. Promises are not enough (Africa still waits for the Gleneagles money!). EU and Russia are drunken, calling for a LULUCF-mechanism that would allow e.g. the US to INCREASE emissions by 10%! Further, teh US wants to count offset as part of their „financing“ – same cheating as with the ODA (develpoment aid)!
Thursday: The US pushes for accounting offsets (mitigation actions in the developing world under CDM) as part of their domestic mitigation – CAN doesn’t like this. But it is Status Quo! CAN is pissed that the negotiation texts are translated only 3 days in the event. Surely this is embarassing for the stressed UNFCCC, but who is actually waiting for a translation to look into the texts? Some parties push to exempt parties from LULUCF debits if the national forests are still a net-sink (not emitter). stupid. „Hot air“ (emission reductions by CEECs due to economic breakdown) will also be allowed in the next agreement, making -25% goal by the EU effectively a -21% goal. shit.
Friday: no real talk on money, further stupid ideas from the North.
And here are the FOSSIL OF THE DAY winners:
1 Australia, for announcing its target which puts unreasonable conditions on other countries. Australia plans to adopt an inadequate 24% target by 2020 with a long list of particularly obnoxious provisos.
2 Canada, for suggesting that “all Parties” should undertake all actions under the Bali Action Plan, including 2020 reduction targets.
3 Iceland, for announcing its 2020 reduction target at a mere 15% reduction on 1990 levels, arguing it constitutes a -25% reduction below their +10% Kyoto target.
1 Saudi Arabia, for asking that its income be protected by a similar insurance mechanism to the one designed to help countries that will
disappear beneath rising seas.
2 Russia, for insisting to include dangerous and inefficient nuclear activities in the JI and CDM, and for its continuing growth in emissionssince 2004.
3 New Zealand, for refusing to table a midterm national emissions reduction target at the AWG-KP Plenary and for saying that it won’t table a target until August.
1 USA, for arguing that international offsets should be counted as part of its international finance for developing countries as well as for their domestic mitigation obligation.
2 Australia, Canada, and Japan, for resisting a discussion on the scale of emission reductions in Tuesday’s contact group on scale of emission reductions.
3 The EU and Russia, for including in their LULUCF submissions an option that would allow countries to eradicate their forest sinks without accounting for it.
1 Argentina and the UK. Argentina objected to the UK’s inclusion of Islas Malvinas in its national communication, citing sovereignty disputes. The UK responded that emissions from the Falkland Islands were included since the issue of sovereignty was not in doubt.
2 The EU, for asking for an explanation of the “really difficult” concepts of atmospheric space and historical responsibility in the contact group on the scale of emission reduction by Annex I Parties.
Veröffentlicht am Juni 5, 2009 in Climate Policy und mit Bonn, CDM, cheating, climate change, Climate Justice Action, offsetting, permits, UNFCCC, US getaggt. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink. Hinterlasse einen Kommentar.