The morning of October 21, Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama held a telephone conversation, the core is the climate change negotiations - by the end of December as the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen of the "countdown" began negotiations to reach a consensus on how to make a global leaders of the busy subject.
"The key is to embody the" United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "and the" Kyoto Protocol "the basic principles, locking the Bali roadmap negotiations has been achieved." President Hu Jintao said so.
This seems to be the end of September, held in Bangkok conference has a direct response to danger signals. European Union proposed at the meeting in Bangkok, we should take a new "single legal framework" to replace the "Kyoto Protocol." Proposed that a, that is strongly opposed by developing countries. Because it means the end of the developed countries desire to "Kyoto Protocol" of this date, the only legally binding international convention for global emissions reductions "common but differentiated" principle of responsibility will be challenged.
As a global non-governmental organizations to participate in the negotiations in Copenhagen core staff, and years of commitment to international experts in climate change negotiations, WWF Global Climate Project Director Jimukasi Christensen (Kim Carstensen,) is also on the EU's proposal exceptionally concerns.
"Abandoned" Kyoto Protocol "is a political mistake. Technically impossible." Kasitansen reporter an exclusive interview recently said that it was made at the wrong time, wrong and dangerous choices.
Bangkok meeting unrelated to Kasitansen feel that the already tight climate negotiations are a waste of time, deadlocked, "window of opportunity is closing."
Bringing him good news is, the global heads of state in September at the UN climate summit to convey a common vision, but the political will to implement will take time. Kasitansen also seen in developed countries to developing countries (especially China) in response to climate change, deep misunderstandings, they doubt whether the developing countries adopted a real and effective emission reduction measures.
Therefore, the Kasitansen suggested that developing countries can more clearly convey the results have been achieved in reducing emissions, "If China can release carbon emissions 'significantly' reduced specific data would be very attractive."
Abandoned "Kyoto Protocol"
Is entirely a political mistake
"21st Century": the distance Copenhagen less than two months, but in the just-concluded meeting in Bangkok, developed countries have emission reduction commitments and funding issues, the negotiations are still no progress. Do you think the negotiations so far is in fact a waste of time Mody?
Carstensen: indeed a waste of time. We have seen the negotiation process is very slow, there is no progress on the core issues. But we have already negotiated the text reduced to 130 from 200, which also reflects the parties have reached some consensus.
We have also seen at a political level, the parties strive to reach a consensus is indeed high. September's United Nations climate summit can be clearly seen: more than 100 heads of state to the meeting, there are many positive statement.
But the level of negotiation and political dimensions do not match. This may be because of political vision has stood the principle may also be climate summit meeting in Bangkok, only a few days before the end of this political vision has not had time to implement. What is important now is that, when the negotiating parties returned home from a meeting in Bangkok, you should proceed to develop a clear and strong enforcement measures.
"21st Century": Bangkok During the meeting, both developed and developing countries on the "Kyoto Protocol" resulted in the abolition of significant differences. The EU proposal to scrap the "Kyoto Protocol" What is the reason?
Carstensen: I think, abandoned the "Kyoto Protocol" is a political mistake. This proposal provoked the European Union is very unwise. Although the EU proposal to retain the protocol framework and the core content, but we are concerned is that they believe have the ability to do so? They were convinced to do so is a popular do?
The negotiations so far, they do so at the wrong time to make the wrong choice, it is very dangerous. We know the real reason behind this is that the EU know that the U.S. will not join the "Kyoto Protocol" (which is impossible in politics), so the European Union to adopt this approach for the United States to join open the window.
"21st Century": Technically, the "Kyoto Protocol" may be irreplaceable?
Carstensen: technically impossible. This means that overturned the "Bali road map" for developing countries will not agree.
If the parties agree at this time, then we need to see if you can come up with a new agreement, than the "Kyoto Protocol" to better convey the "common but differentiated" responsibilities of the principle of the principle of historical responsibility, as well as stronger emission reduction targets, capital and adaptation commitments. But now we do not see any better.
The United States there is a big misunderstanding of China's emissions
"21st Century": developing countries come under increasing pressure from the mandatory emission reduction, do you think of "common but differentiated" responsibilities of the principle of whether we should adhere to?
Carstensen: I think that should be in the past and future carbon emission scenarios down to the climate change negotiations. Historical emissions in developed countries bear the responsibility is very important, they also have the ability to reduce emissions. Based on these two developed countries need to first make a stronger commitment to reduce emissions.
"Common but differentiated" responsibilities is crucial, while developing countries should take concrete action. Developing countries have done so, but we have not seen in international agreements and related commitments.
"21st Century": China in the UN summit on climate change made in the future to address climate change, three specific commitments, is this sufficient?
Carstensen: President Hu Jintao spoke of the three are very important. Renewable energy and increasing forest carbon sinks are very clear and specific. In future, the carbon intensity of the commitment, China said that it would "significantly" reduce; if a specific data released in the future, I think will be very attractive, I hope soon to see.
In addition, I hope that the talks in the Chinese and U.S. leaders, China on climate change to its results has been done to make more clear and strong and convincing presentation. Because at least the United States a great misunderstanding is that China has done nothing. Of course, such misunderstanding and unrealistic, but it is there.
"21st Century": U.S. "Clean Energy Security Act" is waiting for Senate consideration. In the United States advance the practice of climate legislation has been criticized because it is equal to force other countries in the international climate change negotiations to accept its domestic legislation. This is fair?
Carstensen: This is clearly unfair. The United States would say that this is the idea of the Americans may also be the idea of the international community. Indeed, the United States is a superpower, the climate change negotiations have great influence, but the United States must learn to listen and work with others.
The other side of the coin, the United States can not because the domestic legislation before it causes, while in Copenhagen to adopt an uncooperative attitude. Quit the "Kyoto Protocol" approach, the United States can not be repeated again in Copenhagen.
Money come from to pay attention to
"21st Century": In the Bangkok meeting, the question of funding still had not been properly addressed. Crux of the problem lie?
Carstensen: developed countries, it is difficult at this time, the issue of capital to make further commitments, they have there is a larger deficit. They do not know when the end of the financial crisis.
We need to get right at the Copenhagen meeting, the overall funding progress of the negotiations plate. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that by 2020, annually 100 billion U.S. dollars in financial support, the European Commission also said that by 2020, to provide 100 billion euros a year ago. While this is not enough, but is already beginning.
What is important now not to discuss the total amount of financial support, but these funds come from. So I hope that the Copenhagen meeting to reach a consensus on funding sources, such as from carbon trading, CDM projects. Then pay attention to which institutions to monitor these funds to ensure the governing body of the UNFCCC is responsible, transparent and efficient operation. This will have a package.
"21st Century": Many experts are pessimistic about the holding of the Copenhagen meeting expectations, do you pessimistic?
Carstensen: either pessimistic or optimistic, we really pressed for time to negotiate a window of opportunity is closing. Disposal of the "Kyoto Protocol" approach is stupid. "Kyoto Protocol" principle must be upheld.
We do not pretend that there is in Copenhagen, the ultimate outcome of the negotiations, but we can expect more than a political commitment to further agreement. You can then in Copenhagen after the 6 months to 12 months, that is, complete the details for the 2013.
We can expect the key issues in Copenhagen there will be a clear political commitment; will see of funding (funding sources, regulatory agencies), in the level of emission reduction, adaptation, forest issues, in the developing countries into the international framework for mitigation actions to reach a consensus. |
Article Details
