Australia’s credentials in respect of Climate Change at stake?

Australia’s credentials in respect of Climate Change at stake?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
______________________________________________

Australia has allegedly wrongly presented its carbon emissions report by ignoring a massive rise in polluting gases from its agricultural and forestry industries, This "misrepresentation" by the Australian Government has already led to severe criticism from all quarters at the UN climate summit in the last week.

ABC reported that Australia had ignored a massive rise in polluting gases but still managed to make its overall emissions seem much lower than factual figures.

Australia under the Kyoto Protocol, is allowed to up carbon emissions by eight per cent compared to the 1990 levels. But as per factual figures say that between 1990 and 2007,the nation's real carbon emissions actually was raised by 82 per cent, the report said. This dramatic increase had mainly been caused by rising emissions from rural lands, caused by bushfires and drought.


Ironically in Australia, Political parties were hopeful of offsetting the rising industrial emissions with the support from the same agricultural, grazing plains and grass lands. In fact Australia had leaded the charge on proposed land use rule changes to the new global climate deal.

The changes will open the door to the bonanza of green carbon that can be stored away in the world's rural lands, the report said. But this move is deeply dividing the Copenhagen conference. Australia and other big players have been accused of a trying to pull off a fort.

Christine Milne, climate change spokesperson for Australian political party, the Australian Greens, said in Copenhagen that the country has been trying to "cook the books".
The United States has always wanted to use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry as a mechanism for not having to do as much in its fossil fuel sector, and Australia has always been the fall guy for the US," she said. "So I think what you are seeing is the umbrella group, chaired by Australia, including the US, including Canada, trying to really cook the books in some dodgy deals on land use."

"That is not an error. It is actually called Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry. Everything in these negotiations has an acronym -- this one is LULU_CF," she said.
But developing nations fear that with some changes to the existing rules, LULU_CF may be the way that countries like Australia will wriggle out of the reductions currently being negotiated for 2020 greenhouse targets.

A climate scientist for International Rivers network, Payal Parekh, says such loopholes will water down the carbon targets. "It essentially means that developed countries, including Australia, could actually increase their emissions in the next few years," she said.

She said "What it means is that it is a total scam. It appears as if something is done, but it is not. The best way to sum it up is that it is a 'get out of jail free card'".

No Breakthrough……. Heading to collapse?

No Breakthrough……. Heading to collapse?

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)

________________________________________________________________


There is no sign of breakthrough in the tough negotiations in climate change conference at Copenhagen.India has an apprehension that that the talks could collapse, but for a miracle.

There is a competition against time to knock-out a deal. India, Brazil, South Africa and China had issued a Joint statement on December 15, 2009 and condemned rich nations of trying to derail negotiations.

Jairam Ramesh, leading the Indian negotiators for working out some sort of a compromise to get developed nations commit to emission cuts and funds transfer to poor countries, said the talks were going “too slow”.

India is of opinion that if a compromise was not arrived at, negotiations to keep Kyoto Protocol alive beyond 2012 will continue into next year. Jairam Ramesh had said India was disappointed that developed nations were being unreasonable. Basic Bloc called on the developed countries to commit to legally-binding quantifiable targets and not to ignore or sideline the Kyoto Protocol.

The four ministers also elaborated on their own national voluntary mitigation programmes, and slammed the developed countries for offering "less than ambitious targets" in both technology transfer and finance as well as deliberately slowing down the process.On the issue of MRV Ramesh said there is "no greater MRV" than the Indian parliament, NGOs and India."Transparency and accountability is built into the Indian system," he said. Ministers of four countries had elaborated on the plans that they will be taking domestically to battle climate change.

The South African minister noted that developing countries remained vulnerable to water, food insecurity, health and infrastructure but had still decided to take on national voluntary targets to battle climate change even though it was not mandated in the UNFCCC.India's commitments include the pledge to reduce emission intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 from 2005 levels, to double renewable energy from 7 to 8 per cent by 2020, to ensure that 7 to 10 per cent of greenhouse gases will be sequestered by forest cover and to double in 10 years
The 3 million trees already planted.

India reiterated its stand that the national domestic measures will not be subject to Monitoring,
Reporting and Verification from overseas.

Even at the verge of collapse of the summit, main parties at Copenhagen have no consensus and are undivided on key issues. While India’s Jairam Ramesh was highlighting the stand against international scrutiny, UN Chief envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern was addressing a press briefing where he stressed the need for all major emerging economies to report their national actions in an international treaty.

"So far what we have seen is a derailment of the mandate agreed in 2007," Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister of South Africa, read out a part of the BASIC statement, noting that there had been constant efforts to "renegotiate key principles". "We will not accept the demise of the Kyoto protocol: She added.

The overall climate negotiations are moving under two tracks – the first track is Long Term Cooperation Action (LCA) under Bali Action Plan that requires parties to produce a legally binding treaty before the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.The second track is the extension of the Kyoto Protocol into the second commitment period from 2013 to 2018 where developed countries will have to take binding cuts.Any how U.S is not a party to the Protocol.

The Basic Bloc and African group within G 77 want the developed countries to make mitigation pledges under the second commitment period from 2013-2018 but the European Union, Australia, Japan, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) want a document broader than the existing Protocol that puts obligations on the United States and on emerging economies.

The European Union is still adament and has categorically stated that it prefers a single agreement that “goes beyond Kyoto”, following protest by environment ministers of BASIC countries and Africa that negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol were being ignored. “We prefer a single agreement,” Stavros Dimas, the European commissioner for environment, told journalists.

As the developing nations suspect that that EU is trying to move away from Kyoto Protocol to get out of their commitments, the Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said, “We are not at any level trying to elude the level of our binding commitments. Its not that we’re try to weaken the binding of our targets“. Instead they want legally-binding economy wide targets that should cover all developed countries and need commitments to actions from the emerging economies as well , he remarked. EU also noted that it had always been a strong supporter of Kyoto having set up emissions trading system and invested in Clean Development Mechanism with 80 per cent of the of 23 billions Euros in CDM projects coming from the bloc.

Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard has formed five small groups to sort out the five "crunch issues" at this summit, as she put it: Improving the targets to be set by developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are causing climate change;

* The mitigation actions of developing countries;
* The long-term finance to be provided by rich nations so that poor countries can cope with climate change effects;
* How to deal with emissions caused by the aviation and shipping industries; and
* Special circumstances of some countries (such as Russia) in relation to mitigation.

Each group is co-chaired by a minister from a developed and a developing country in an effort to sort out the main problem, the anger of developing countries at what they see as the foot-dragging of industrialised nations.

Desperately India had made it clear that there would be no treaty at this summit while s he said: "This conference must make it clear that negotiations towards legally binding treaties will continue in 2010".

Hedegaard accepted that there was a "discrepancy between citizens' concerns and calls for action and what they hear coming out of our conference".

She claimed that there had been progress, "but it's very clear that ministers have to work very hard in the next 48 hours. There are many major obstacles."

UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer also said: "We've seen significant progress but we haven't seen enough; there's enormous ground to be covered."

Referring to representatives of 192 countries gathered here, de Boer added: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. We've brought 192 horses to water."

His words reflected the frustration as the climate summit threatened to collapse repeatedly during intense closed-door negotiating sessions, with rich nations sticking to their point that they would not do anything more to avert climate change unless emerging economies agreed to international inspections of their own actions.

This was rejected once again by India, China, Brazil and South Africa, whose environment ministers shared a podium to indicate that their BASIC group was now a reality.

Ramesh had said: "We are coordinating between ourselves on the hour and we are continuing to resist pressure to hijack this conference."

Indian Initiatives:
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has said that there have been some developments in the three provisions of the draft prepared under LCA track, which India presently finds "unacceptable".

This comes following a brief halt of the proceedings by the Africa group and the BASIC countries.
Noting that the three disputed provisions have come from the Alliance of Small Island States, Ramesh said he had met with ministers of several AOSIS nations including Bermuda, Grenada, Barbados and would also be meeting the Maldives later.

India had suggested alternative formulations and our objections to para 3, para 4 and para 8 in writing to Michael Cutajar",who is heading LCA. As per the draft Article 3 calls on all parties to reduce the emission cuts by 50, 85 or 90 per cent by 2050.

Article 4 calls on all parties to “peak” knowing that fact that that developing nations will do it later than developed countries. Article 8 calls for a comprehensive review of the implementation of mitigation obligations with the first one in 2016.

Stressing that para 3, 4, 8 have been presented without alternatives, India had cautioned that 3, 4, 8 are red lines as far as India is concerned. India clearly informed that find problems not only with the drafting but also with the ideas!.

It is to be noted that article 3 also deals with the limit to temperature rise and puts options of two degree Celsius and 1.5 Celsius. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) are fighting to change the temperature limit from 2 degree Celsius to 1.5 degree Celsius, and also to place more obligations on emerging economies.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that several of these island states would go sink or face catastrophic consequences due to rising sea level even if temperature rise was limited to 2 degree Celsius.

The minister also noted that India's opposition to 3, 4 and 8 had also been taken up by the developed nations and intimated to UK as they have considerable influence over AOSIS countries. Australian Environment Minister Peggy Wong is also informed.
India wants to treat AOSIS as an important entity. Of course cannot take them grantedbut can take note of their grievances.

India's opposition to the three provisions was supported by the BASIC countries and several nations in the G77, especially Saudi Arabia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Dramas at Copenhagen

New Dramas at Copenhagen
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________________
There were disagreements at the "informal" session of the summit called by the host, Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, in an effort to get at least a meaningful "political declaration" from the 192 countries gathered here.

India and China came under a concerted attack from rich nations on Monday December 14, 2009 for a three-hour suspension of the Dec 7-18 climate summit, though an Indian government delegate denied that the country had anything to do with it.

The group of African countries walked out of the session, with Kamel Djemouai, the Algerian representative as head of African group had talks and said that Hedegaard's attempts would meant "death of the Kyoto Protocol", the current international treaty to tackle climate change.

Delegates from the US and some EU accused India and China for motivating the Africans’for walkout, and some of them said that even Indian and Chinese delegates had too walked out. This was promptly reported by developed country media, leading to much confusion among the 3,000-plus journalists gathered to cover the summit.

But a senior member of the Indian delegation denied that India had walked out or had "put up" the African countries to stage a walkout. After three hours of intense closed-door negotiations, the "informal" session restarted.

But all this drama once again pushed back any chance of any strong outcome at Copenhagen, with rich countries still refusing any significant cuts in their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) - which are warming the planet - or to put any meaningful amount of money on the table to help poor countries cope with climate change effects.

The emission cuts promised by advanced economies will not keep the world within a two-degree rise of global temperature, a limit beyond which climate change effects will be "unpredictable and catastrophic", according to Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The informal session supposedly to programme the emission reductions, at a time when the developing nations were howling for funds to implement emission reductions as envisaged by the global community! EU gets silent support from U.S and disintegrated the unity amongst top growing economies from the rest of the globe. It is evident when Japan, Saudi Arabia, African nations etc are being wooed by EU and distancing from their moral responsibility to get along with India and China.

Negotiators will be restructuring drafts round the clock drafting when strategies are getting more biased, just to protect their own interests ready for the leaders to make the hard political decisions on carbon dioxide emissions targets and long-term financing.

The obstacles to an agreement are still momentous as on date especially when all key players EU and U.S evince indifference to the plight of developing nations.

It is to be noted that U.S, world's largest per capita CO2 emitter walked away from the Kyoto Protocol eight years ago, thus eligible to be the only major developed nation exempt from the obligations of that treaty. Of course, the present U.S regime will too never gets attracted to Kyoto while President Obama continues to reject the same despite showing good gestures by offering to cut emissions over the next decade. EU wants developed countries to reduce their CO2 emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, far beyond what the Americans are currently willing to accept.

The situation is complicated by the fact that there are two separate tracks in the negotiations for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol with another round of binding emissions targets, and for an entirely new agreement bringing in the Americans.

The Japanese, who hosted the Kyoto meeting 12 years ago had already threatened last week to walk away from that agreement if there is no significant progress on a new treaty, and there have been calls for Europe to do the same to renew the push at a later date.

World Bank’s lowest estimate to cope with climate change effects is $75 billion a year and in response to it developed nations could offer just $10 billion a year for the next three years!.There are hundreds of NGOs supported by top philanthropists and celebrities in the western world and if they are roped in, capital will be pumped into the exchequer to earmark the corpus for emission funds. There will not be any need for levying extra tax on fuel and luxuries then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toughening stand…… Fantastic Jairam Ramesh!

Toughening stand……
Fantastic Jairam Ramesh!

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_______________________________________________________

Still India maintains tough in own stand and had to join with China while walking out of negotiations, apparently unhappy when developed nations go-off on their commitments under the Kyoto protocol to undertake emission cuts.

On Monday December 14, 2009 when negotiations at Copenhagen were briefly stalled over the opposition of developed countries to discuss their previous commitments under Kyoto Protocol, China stepped up pressure against the US and other Western powers. China’s Ambassador to India Zhang Yan calling for greater unity among developing countries amid what he termed as efforts to “split” this group.

Zhang reeled out statistics to make the point that the West was responsible for 72 per cent of the total CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2005 and then 50 per cent of the emissions in 2006. He had remarked that an empty talk about international cooperation or only talking about so-called shared responsibility, without taking up their historical responsibility can hardly convince the international community. The developed nations should remember that they have increased emissions when they needed to collectively reduce emissions by 5.2 per cent on 1990 levels according to the Kyoto Protocol.

As India and China sail on the same boat in the summit Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have to meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the backdrop of current position of EU and U.S before the commencement of the final summit. Probably this will be the beginning of a new era wherein India and China have to jointly participate for the cause of the developing nations in many forums here after wards.

The Chinese Ambassador Zhang took exception to remarks from US questioning the rationale for offering financial support to growing economies like China for adapting to climate change. He had pointed out that providing financial support is their legal obligation (under Kyoto Protocol)and If they change their position or retreat from it, then it only shows that US and other Western countries don’t have the sincerity to fulfill their commitments. How the funds will be used is a matter to be worked out after the conference. Taking the argument further, he felt such statements could only be interpreted as a ploy to divide the developing countries. While he desisted from speculating on the final outcome of the conference, Zhang minced few words. “The developed countries are trying to split the developing countries. That is why it is important for developing countries to work together.”

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who is leading the Indian delegation, along with his counterparts from China, Brazil and South Africa walked out of the negotiations to meet Connie Hedegaard, the Danish President of the COP, and conveyed their protest to Connie Hedegaard, the Danish President of COP.

All formal meetings at the Summit here were put on hold following the development. Though there was no official word on what led the leaders to stage a walkout from the ministerial-level talks, sources said the development followed a disagreement between the developing countries and the developed nations on the second commitment period after 2012.

It was known to all delegates that these four countries protested that due respect to their grievances and no focus was given to the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol that puts obligations on developed nations to undertake emission cuts.

In fact India had initiated for merging the Basic Draft ( of India, China, Brazil and S.Africa) with that of the draft of African nations of G-77 and there is an Afro-Basic draft getting declared. Basically, developing countries including small island countries have the same objective; it is just the matter of approach. But if we are divided by developed countries, then we reduce our own strength.

India thinks it right in not compromising on’ teen murti’ doctrine –NO LEGALLY BINDING EMISSION CUTS, NO PEAKING YEAR,NO INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF DOMESTIC FUNDED MITIGATIONS.

Fantastic Jairam Ramesh, you have rightly and boldly toughened Indian stand that the outcome of the summit have to be within the framework of UNFCC adhering to the Kyoto Protocol abiding by the Bali Action Plan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Global week-end at Copenhagen

The Global week-end at Copenhagen
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________

Thousands of people were arrested in Copenhagen on Saturday December 12, 2009 as demonstrators consisting anarchists and left-wing activists fought running street battles with police in the Danish capital while negotiations continued at the climate summit. They marched from Christiansborg Slotsplads or Castle Square,Southward to The Bella Centre.

Actually the main demonstration by the coalition of hundreds of environmental groups, human rights campaigners, climate activists, anti-capitalists and freelance protesters from many countries was mostly peaceful. In the peaceful march, a rolling sea of flags and banners swelled across the city. Most bore slogans related to global warming or urging world leaders to resolve the vast differences that still make an international treaty seems elusive as negotiations move into the second and final week.

In Saturday’s throng was 26-year-old Jemimah Maitei, dressed in traditional clothing from her native Kenya. She said she had travelled to Copenhagen to be part of a delegation representing indigenous peoples at the talks, which are overseen by U.N. She said about the impact of the climate change to her ethnic community-‘Masai’, and cited relentless droughts that had affected crops.

On a day when little progress was made in the climate talks, activists spread out on foot across the city holding banners in English reading, "There Is No Planet B," and rocking back and forth inside a long ring of fabric that constituted a human boat, complete with a sail. Many had the number 350 -- which stands for an atmospheric concentration of carbon equivalent to 350 parts per million, the more stringent climate target many scientists embrace -- sewn or printed on their hats and clothes.

Demonstrations, which unfolded in crisp temperatures under cloudless skies was not the exclusive province of climate campaigners. Groups of diverse social and political pedigree took advantage of the huge gathering to advance their agendas, too. One sign urged the overthrow of the Iranian government. Another, with the words “Earth in Need: Delete Meat,” was one of many promoting ‘vegetarianism’. People calling for a free Tibet were well represented. Another small contingent of climate skeptics and libertarians derided the United Nations summit.

A group chanted and carried banners reading “Demand Climate Justice,” “The World Wants a Real Deal" and “There is No Planet B” as they marked for miles past officers in riot gear, police dogs and the flashing lights of dozens of police vans.

Only by afternoon, when the crowd was marching southward over the canal towards the Bella Center, small bands of black-clad youths chanting anti-capitalist slogans and carrying sticks and rocks infiltrated into the peaceful crowd. These spontaneous demonstrations by bands of radical protesters resulted in police arrests.

Cobble stones were thrown through the windows of the former stock exchange building and foreign office buildings in the city even though police had resorted to large number of pre-emptive arrests under a controversial anti-hooligan law.

The fact that a lion’s share of greenhouse gases have been emitted by industrialized nations, developing countries have argued that they have a duty to help poor lands deal with the consequences of global warming, like drought, floods and tropical storms.

The demonstration when it started was very beautiful with all the colors and the music .What had begun with exuberance was seemed to simply fizzle at the end.

Many demonstrators made for the Metro trains, others decided to avoid the crush of the crowds and walk back to the city the way they came.


Suspected troublemakers were herded into a closed-off street, made to sit down and then tied up with plastic cuffs. They were then transported by buses detention locations ear marked for the purpose. As per police version, four cars were set on fire during the evening. One policeman was hurt by a stone and a Swedish man injured by a firework.

"You don't have to use that kind of violence to be heard," said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister presiding at the United Nations talks. She condemned rioters after welcoming the main march at a candlelit vigil outside the conference centre.

One activist group accused the police for forcing the protestors to sit on the road for hours in near-freezing temperatures. The day's main demonstration - a march involving 40,000 people - remained good natured but there remain fears that a hard-core of more violent demonstrators may still be waiting until later in the week, when President Barack Obama and other world leaders will arrive, to protest.

Inside the Bella Centre, delegates at the summit gathered around flat-screen TVs, showing both the police crackdown and the peaceful rally of environmental campaigners. There is a growing fears that the summit could degenerate into an undignified global squabbling match with poor nations accusing their rich counterparts of forging a "backroom deal" at a secret dinner.

The divide in the summit between wealthy, developing and poor nations was laid bare with news that ministers from a select group of 40 countries were dining together away from the summit venue. The meal, held behind closed doors at an undisclosed location, was viewed as a last-ditch attempt to cobble together a politically acceptable deal after a week of discussions marred by in-fighting, and "greener than thou" posturing over who is most to blame for global warming. Ministers are desperate to have a document ready when heads of state arrive for the final stages of the two-week conference on Thursday.

Leading them will be the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has fashioned himself as a global champion in the battle against climate change, and who is arriving ahead of other top statesmen in a bid to stamp his authority on the meeting.

But so far officials from 194 countries have failed to make any substantive agreements on even the most basic goals.

Arguments are still raging over targets and deadlines for limiting global temperature rise, as well as the extent to which rich nations should fund green projects for poor ones, and whether emerging economic superpowers like China should balance green considerations against much-needed development.

Washington and Beijing have also traded insults over whether China should fund its own green measures or receive handouts financed largely by the West.

With signs of an irreconcilable split growing between the large and powerful and the small and poor, last night's dinner, attended by countries including Britain, the US, China and India – was viewed as an attempt by mostly bigger, better-off nations to strike a deal in private.

"A lot of the deals are done in back rooms but there has to be transparency at the same time," said Keith Allott, of the World Wildlife Fund, which claims smaller nations are being left out of the process.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, attempted to paint a brighter picture of the conference, insisting he was optimistic of a deal by the time heads of state arrived. This remains difficult in process terms because we have 100 and something leaders arriving on Thursday and we have to get to an agreement by the time they leave," he said

"The world is doing what it has never done before, which is trying to peak emissions and see them fall. It is not a done deal, it remains in the balance."

Gordon Brown plans to travel to Copenhagen on Tuesday evening, a day earlier than planned, in an attempt to help "seal the deal". Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister was expected to hold one-to-one meetings with key figures including Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General. He will attend a formal dinner on Thursday and an all-day session on Friday before returning to Britain that night. A source said: "He remains concerned that the commitment for a deal is still short of what is required."

A productive meeting at Copenhagen is widely seen as being crucial to the credibility of the global campaign on climate change. But the first week saw slow progress. Rich and poor repeatedly clashed over the need to reduce greenhouse gases, with Africa and the small island states threatening to walk out unless the developed nations committed to deeper cuts.

Many of the exchanges were bad-tempered, souring an event that aspires to be a vehicle for better global co-operation. He Yafei, China's vice minister of foreign affairs, said he was "shocked" at US climate change negotiator Todd Stern's assertion that Beijing did not need any American money. "It's not just about the US and China, it's the whole international community," he said, insisting that climate change was historically the fault of the West. "The US is a developed country and China is part of the developing countries. To tackle global climate change we need to work together."

China's chief climate negotiator, Su Wei, told reporters Saturday that his country was simply sticking to the Bali Action Plan that negotiators agreed to in 2007, calling it "quite clear."

Ian Fry, the representative of the tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu, has also claimed that even the more vulnerable countries' intended target to restrict global warming to a rise of 1.5C will leave his island underwater because of rising sea levels.

However, the G8 and major developing economies believe it is realistically impossible to restrict temperature rises to less than 2C. They have also accused developing nations of demanding more "go green" cash than they actually need.

After seven days' negotiating there is so far only a draft agreement on the table. The framework for a possible "Copenhagen Protocol" talks about cuts for developed nations of between 25 and 45 per cent by 2020, and calls on rich nations to pay their poorer cousins to reduce their emissions. But blanks remain in what negotiators term the "square brackets" – where officials must eventually insert precise figures and dates.

There is also the question of making the agreement enforceable in law. Britain has already suggested that a further summit will be necessary in six months' time to address the issue.

Conference delegates took the day off on Sunday December 13, 2009, enjoyed sights of Copenhagen, although environment ministers and their top negotiators met informally at the Danish Foreign Ministry and at hotels around the city to reach agreeable financing terms and emissions targets under a new deal. An agreement is likely to include a green tax on the shipping industry.

Scattered protests continued on Sunday too, but climate activists in Copenhagen were largely quiet after a day of mass demonstrations resulted in nearly 1,000 arrests. Danish police had arrested about 230 people by midday Sunday, most in an illegal protest in the northern part of the city. The Bella Center, where negotiations have been going on to craft a global strategy to combat global warming was closed for the day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No need To Go beyond Kyoto Protocol?

No need To Go beyond Kyoto Protocol?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________________

India has opposed to any amendments of the Kyoto Protocol despite the pressure from EU for an agreement which can be more broader than the 1997 treaty putting obligations to developing nations for emission reductions.

India’s spokesperson, Vijai Sharma who is the Indian Environment Secretary made it clear to press that India focuses on heightened implementation of the convention. He rightly said” the spotlight is on existing commitments”.

There was anew proposal for adding a fresh protocol to the Kyoto protocol, knowing the fact that developing nations especially India, China, Brazil and S.Africa adhere to the a one protocol approach. It was the tiny island nation TUVALU which situates at just two meters above the sea level and prone to get swamped by raising sea levels, put forth the new proposal.

Tuvalu's representative Ian Fry requested the minister of the Copenhagen Conference, Connie Hedegaard to immediately form a contact group to consider the proposal for a new protocol that calls for vigorous action, such as binding cuts and puts less than 1.5 degree limit in warming, by developed nations and emerging economies.

President Connie Hedegaard had to suspend the work of the COP following a deadlock on the Issue with EU and Australia supporting it.

Developing nations like India, China, and oil producing states including Saudi Arabia have opposed it on the ground that there should not be any detraction from Kyoto Protocol, the treaty that imposes legally binding sanctions on industrialized nations, excluding the US. Developing nations will be suspecting that Europe's support for a new protocol is to weaken the Kyoto Protocol. Vijai Sharma had remarked that the several provisions in the new proposal are inconsistent and obviously in conflict with the convention provisions pertinent to historical responsibility and equity. He said that there are articles bracketing the Annex 1 and non-Annex countries and allows Annex 1 to abandon Kyoto, which is not the right message to give at this point of time.

The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries, called Annex 1 countries, for reducing greenhouse emissions to an average of 5% against 1990 levels between 2008-2012. However, Tuvalu and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) have said here that the Copenhagen summit needs to produce a document much stronger than the Kyoto Protocol that neither puts obligations on U.S nor on developing and emerging economies!

Sweden's environment minister Andreas Carlgren told reporters, "If we were to end up with an agreement where the only legally binding part would be the Kyoto Protocol then we would not manage to achieve what is needed”.

Fry has repeatedly stated that his country do not want to "kill" the Kyoto Protocol but to make it tougher to both developed and developing nations.

A major portion of this conference is to extend the Kyoto Protocol into its second commitment period starting from 2013 where developed countries have to make cuts will be listed in Annex B, which is a top priority for India and China at this climate meet.

Liu Zhenmin, the deputy Chinese permanent representative to UN clarified that the Kyoto Protocol will not expire in 2012 and that is the reason for all nations to gather at Copenhagen!
In fact the protocol will be very much effective after 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol had given targets for developed countries to quantify their (emission) targets between 2008 until 2012. Thus the need for continuation of negotiations beyond 2012 arises. He remarked that Kyoto Protocol also has some other provisions and the other mechanisms."

In his opinion, Kyoto Protocol being a legally binding document has to continue to be effective. So there is no reason for developing nations to support the view that Copenhagen has to negotiate a fresh legally binding document to replace Kyoto protocol. It's a kind of a follow-up. It's an update, a continuation of the Kyoto process."

Climate change negotiations started over 20 years ago. The UNFCC is the first mile stone in the negotiation process and the Kyoto Protocol is the second one. The Copenhagen can be the third. Efforts for human kind to respond to climate change will not end in Copenhagen and it has to continue for ever.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jairam To Lay Foundations at Copenhagen

Jairam To Lay Foundations at Copenhagen

( Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_________________________________________________________

Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Environment made his presence at Copenhagen and his interaction with all groups proved that India has to play a constructive role for evolving an effective and equitable global treaty on emission cuts.

He reiterated that India's national voluntary domestic measures to tackle global warming are never open for international scrutiny and progress on these would be checked by country's Parliament. His mission at Copenhagen was focused on the various drafts of potential treaty from the Working Groups on Kyoto, the African group and Alliance of Island States (AOSIS) that have been circulating at the climate meet in Copenhagen. India had to draw attention to the basic Indian stand while participating proactively with all groups, India cannot deviate from the prefixed limits and cannot agree to any peaking of emission reductions mainly due to the fact that it will adversely affect generation and distribution of electricity in rural areas of the country, where there is a very huge shortage of power.

India has asserted that every individual has a right to an equal atmospheric space and feels the rich countries are trying to deny this to poorer populations of Asia and Africa. It says there cannot be an international treaty which creates a group of haves and have-nots.
India wants to facilitate a legally-binding deal and "has come here to play a constructive, facilitative, leadership role to ensure and effective and equitable agreement," Ramesh said.
The draft prepared by the Danish government, the host nation of climate negotiations contains a clause demanding that India and other emerging economies 'peak' their emissions by 2025, an issue on which India has strong reservations.

The minister highlighted that not only was India announcing voluntary target of reducing carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 it was also taking a "nationally accountable mitigation outcome," which means that implementation and progress on these domestic measures would be checked by Parliament, civil society and media. There is no place on Earth that has domestic MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) as boisterous, intensive and aggressive as that in India," he said.

New Delhi has raised objections to a move it believes is intended to help rich countries get out of their commitments on emission cuts as negotiators from 193 countries struggled to find common ground at climate talks in the Copenhagen summit.

The formation of a new front of small island nations which floated their own draft is to be construed as a conspiracy to bracket developed and developing nations together by junking the 1997 Kyoto Protocol under which rich nations have to undertake legally-binding emission cuts.
The new draft follows the Danish proposal and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) document.

The un-cooked Danish Draft circulated at the start of summit was challenged by the G 77 group which included developing nations and the Basic Draft by Least Developed Countries and even Small Island States on the ground that it did not reflect their special susceptible issues to climate change. India has said it will not accept any changes or extension to the Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally-binding document that imposes emission reduction targets on industrialised countries, excluding US.

Minister Ramesh stressed that all action supported by international finance was subject to MRV but unsupported action was exclusively India’s business.

The US Chief envoy, Todd Stern, told another press conference that the mitigation part of the draft text issued by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Group for Long Term Cooperative Action, Michael Zammit Cutajar was "unbalanced" because it did impose sufficient emission mitigation obligations on developed nations.

Minister Ramesh expressed confidence about resolving the issue with the Americans stating that options like engaging in national communications once in two years but at the same time he emphasised that India would not make compromises on its previously stated positions including "peaking".

The “peaking” clause will adversely impact the development of backlogged rural electrification in India. There is no chance for any dilution of the previously-stated “red lines” drawn by India, the minister Ramesh said he had come here to play a constructive, facilitative, leadership role to ensure an effective and equitable agreement”. His comments is affirm as a direct answer to EU clashing with India with the contentious issue of making domestic commitments legally-binding and verifiable.

European Commission Director General Karl Falkenberger said that the EU expected India, China and other emerging economies to report on their national mitigation programmes, which would be incorporated in an international treaty.EU want India and China in a legally binding manner. He said “We need these contributions from everyone. We need them in a legally-binding manner from everyone. Differentiated commitments, we can accept, but it has to be verifiable”.

India objected this when with senior negotiator Chandrashekar Dasgupta commented that t Falkneberger’s position fell short of climate justice. Sensing a bid to “change the rules of the game”, he said India was “seeking climate adequacy and climate justice”.

Minister Ramesh spent day one at COP 15 meeting with his counterparts - environment minister of Algeria, Cherif Rahmani, US envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern, and UK Secretary of State for Environment Ed Miliband and Zhenhua Xie, Vice Minister, National Development and Reform Committee, and the Danish Environment Minister.He also had discussions with African group and Alliance of Island States (AOSIS).

Minister Ramesh expressly highlighted that he had a good meeting with Rahmani who was also chair of the African group, which is a subset of the G77, and there was a good chance of producing an integrated BASIC draft with the African group. He stressed that all action supported by international finance was subject to MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) but unsupported action was exclusively India's business.

The Minister said that while India and China were co-ordinating very closely at Copenhagen, the two countries should not be compared in terms of emissions with China being number one and India being five. "We are not in the same boat," he said. The Minister should take care while explaining that India’s emissions comparatively less with that of China; no much importance is to be given as this is already commented by EU representatives themselves. India is not supposed to comment on this unnecessarily.

Personally I would like to suggest that India should take an initiative with China and think seriously for a close dialogue with Todd Stern again. We know his stand, that the United States has to remain steadfast in demanding certain commitments to curb emissions from developing nations, taking into account that all future increase in emissions of greenhouse gases in the coming decades is anticipated to come mainly from China , of course India too. Thus the draft plan has to be balanced as a whole with due application of futuristic judgment. India and China can afford to consider this point to some extent and can address it by slightly relaxing the unbending attitude, get along with U.S and pave the way for achieving a result.

If India reach in terms with U.S, then can jointly prevail on EU , AOSIS and African front within G 77 to win at Copenhagen.

Let Ramesh prevail on U.S first, then he can easily reach an accord with others so as to get Victory for India and the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~