Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks

[santosh10]

Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks

World Development Movement report accuses developed countries of threatening behaviour at climate change summits :ranger:

Leading figures in western governments have been accused of using bullying tactics with developing countries during climate change summits.

The criticisms will cast a shadow over the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which begins tomorrow, in the latest attempt to stabilise greenhouse gas levels around the world.

A new report, published by the World Development Movement, contains previously unpublished testimonies from insiders at both the Copenhagen and Cancún climate summits in 2009 and 2010. Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

In one section the report criticises threats by richer countries to withdraw funds to help poorer nations cope with climate change if they failed to sign up to the accord. It says: "The US and the UK openly stated that climate finance would be limited to those that signed up to [it]. Ed Miliband, the UK minister, was blunt about linking the funding of developing countries with accepting the accord. The concerns he raised must be duly noted, he said, 'otherwise we won't operationalise the funds'."

The authors add: "The US said they would deny climate finance to Bolivia and Ecuador because they had objected to the Copenhagen accord proposal. The EU's Connie Hedegaard had also suggested that the small island-state countries "could be 'our best allies because they need finance'."

One diplomat from the tiny Polynesian island of Tuvalu said at the time: "Can I suggest that it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future? Mr President, our future is not for sale."

It is a standard tactic at UN climate meetings for rich countries to try to divide and rule developing countries' negotiating groups. Developing countries admit they are bamboozled by the tactics and are often unable to keep up with the negotiations.

One diplomat told the report's authors: "At one point in Copenhagen there were 26 meetings taking place simultaneously. How can a developing country delegation of two people possibly hope to cope? These numbers are life and death. There is no intention to agree a fair scenario, whether voluntary or by obligation. It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!" :ranger:

Another diplomat said: "There is the small stuff, like travels, scholarships, jobs, but the favours are also small stuff, or so it seems, until the implications come in, especially for developing countries' interests in general. And then there is always the threat to cut off funding for a project, or something, if one gets too aggressive."

In Cancún last year the rich countries created a new system of meetings. "It created confusion, it was so hard to challenge this and to say procedurally this is wrong. Procedures were totally ignored. If this would happen in Fifa the whole world would be scandalised!" WDM was told.

Bolivia felt particularly aggrieved by UN tactics in Cancún, where its representatives lobbied for deeper cuts in emissions than richer countries were prepared to accept.

According to a Bolivian diplomat, their delegation agreed to participate in a side-meeting on condition that no plenary meeting took place at the same time.

The diplomat said: "Three minutes after they left the hall, an official plenary [to adopt the outcomes of the Kyoto protocol] started. It was a deliberate trick! We could only lodge reservations, and run to try and find our senior negotiators and get them back in to the room."

Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks | Environment | The Guardian

 

[santosh10]

Nations meet prior to climate change talks in Doha
2012-10-23

The Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) on climate change, a new group of developing countries, have been coordinating their positions on climate change negotiations ahead of the upcoming climate change talks in Doha, Qatar, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has said.

Representatives of a number of developing countries-from Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Venezuela-attended the first meeting of the group, hosted by China in Beijing last week, according to a statement by the NDRC late Tuesday.

The new grouping, as part of the Group of 77 & China, creates a platform for developing countries with the combined goals of "environmental sustainability, social and economic development, and equity" to exchange views and coordinate positions, it said. :ranger:

Participants have vowed to work for an "ambitious, equitable and comprehensive outcome" of the upcoming climate change conference in Doha in December.

A top priority for the Doha conference is the adoption of an agreement for a second period of legally-binding emission reduction targets for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol, which start on 1 January 2013, according to the press release.

To be meaningful, the emission reduction targets must be "sufficiently deep" and in line with the requirements of actions to curb rising temperatures, participants were quoted as saying.:thumb:

Equally important, they added, is a meaningful and comprehensive outcome under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), which is responsible for implementing the Bali Action Plan launched in 2007.

Officials have said the AWG-LCA must make appropriate and balanced decisions on all aspects of its mandate, especially on supporting developing countries to adapt to climate change and provision of adequate financing, transfer of technology to developing countries, and adequate mitigation efforts by developed countries in aggregate terms and comparable efforts for emission reduction between them.

The participants affirmed that under the Durban Platform, they are committed to making progress on discussions for the enhanced implementation of the Convention in the post-2020 period, and they reiterated that the process, as well as the outcome, of the Durban Platform in both work streams are under the Convention, and must therefore be in full accordance with its principles and provisions, especially equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

The recent outcome of the UN's Rio+20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro reaffirmed the principle of common, but differentiated, responsibilities and stated that parties should protect the climate system "on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities".

As developing countries experience many severe impacts of climate change, they share common interests and priorities, said the participants.

An increase in extreme weather events, including heavy rainfalls, extensive floods, storms and hurricanes, has underscored the need for global cooperation and actions on climate change, they added.

At the same time, for developing countries, the problem of climate change goes beyond issues of environmental sustainability as it also directly impacts on their survival and development aspirations. :ranger:

The participants reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen the unity of G77 and China, and strengthen cooperation to fight the global problems of climate change in accordance with the principles and provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the NDRC said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-10/23/content_15840402.htm

 

[santosh10]

Developing countries firm up common Doha climate talks position
By XINHUA | Tuesday, October 30 2012

Hundreds of people protest in the halls of the venue of UN Climate Talks on December 9, 2011 to demand that nations not sign a "death sentence" during the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban. Developing countries are forging a common stand ahead of next month's climate talks in Doha.

Hundreds of people protest in the halls of the venue of UN Climate Talks on December 9, 2011 to demand that nations not sign a "death sentence" during the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban. Developing countries are forging a common stand ahead of next month's climate talks in Doha.

Negotiators from 46 Least Developed Countries (LDC) met in Nairobi on Monday to develop a common position to be presented at the November climate talks in Doha.

The technical experts said that developing nations will agree on shared goals which include establishment of a new climate treaty, financing and technologies required to accelerate green transition.

"We all have a responsibility in some way to address climate change in order to achieve sustainable development. Africa, small island developing states, and least developing countries, continue to suffer most from the effects of climate change," Kenya's Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Ali Mohammed said.

He regretted that the global South has borne the brunt of negative impacts of climate change despite minimal contribution to green house gases responsible for warming the planet.

"Our countries are the most vulnerable and yet have the least capacity to adapt due to inadequate energy services, infrastructure, agricultural technologies that are important for adaptation needs to be met," Mr Mohammed said.

A consultative and inclusive process is critical to advancing climate discussions at regional and global level. Mr Mohammed noted that climate change is a global challenge that requires a universal consensus to enable countries chart a new low carbon future.

"The multilateral process under the UNFCCC has and continues to provide vulnerable developing countries with a forum for participating in global discussions and agreements to achieve priority actions," he said.

Developing countries should strengthen their negotiation capacity to influence a positive outcome of the Doha climate talks. He noted that several roadblocks in previous negotiations have denied developing countries a chance to table their concerns.

"These preparatory meetings, however, form part of a crucial process required for our vulnerable countries to come up with a common and robust negotiating position ahead of COP 18 in Doha," Mr Mohammed stressed. :thumb:

The Kyoto Protocol empowers developing countries to fully participate in processes geared towards achieving low carbon status. Experts told news agency Xinhua that strong presence of vulnerable countries in climate talks has influenced a positive outcome.

The Legal Officer of Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, UNEP, Robert Ondowe, said that the Nairobi preparatory meeting will enable negotiators from developing countries present coherent proposals at Doha climate talks.

"Developing countries are in agreement that financing for climate adaptation, operationalisationof a green climate fund and the future of Kyoto protocol are key issues that should be prioritised at the Doha meeting," said MrOndowe.

Developing countries firm up common Doha climate talks position - Business and Finance - africareview.com

 

[santosh10]

Warsaw climate change talks falter as EU and developing countries clash
22 November 2013

EU chief chastised for expressing frustration with failure to agree timetable on emission cuts and attempts by some to opt out

United Nations talks on climate change were on the brink of breaking down on Friday as a group of developing countries launched a furious attack on the European Union over plans to set out a timetable towards a global deal on greenhouse gas emissions.

Rows over whether rich countries should pay compensation to the poor for the effects of climate change, and over how governments can move to a historic global deal on emissions, have disrupted the fortnight-long talks, which have been marked by walk-outs and recriminations.

As the talks dragged on into the night, the EU's climate chief, Connie Hedegaard, expressed frustration with the failure to agree a timetable on emissions cuts, and with attempts by a small number of developing countries to opt out of the proposal.

In a dramatic intervention late on Friday, Venezuela's head of delegation, representing a group of "like-minded countries" including China, India, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, accused the EU of "damaging seriously the atmosphere of confidence and trust in this process". Claudia Salerno said: "We are shocked by the brazen attack against our group by Hedegaard – it is incredible that she has chosen to accuse our group of blocking progress."

Talks had been inching towards a conclusion, with participants reporting "productive" meetings and "modest progress". The negotiations were meant to lay the groundwork for a crunch meeting in Paris in late 2015, at which governments are supposed to sign a new global treaty on climate change, to come into force from 2020, which would be the first to include commitments on emissions from both developed and developing nations.

Before this can happen, it is crucial thatall countries set out national targets on emissions well in advance of the Paris talks, so that other participants can assess the targets – which would lay out cuts into the 2020s and beyond – and can see whether they are sufficiently ambitious to head off dangerous levels of climate change.

The US, the EU and many other rich and poor countries see such a programme as essential. But as the talks dragged on into extra time in Poland's national football stadium on Friday night, there was still no consensus.

Salerno's outburst underlined the fractious nature of the talks, and the new divisions between some rapidly emerging economies, some of them with large fossil fuel interests, and other developing countries that have more to lose from the effects of climate change.

The spokesman for Hedegaard said some countries wanted to portray the talks as divided between the developed and developing world. "It's not like that. It is the willing versus the unwilling."

The EU and US are also anxious to ensure that rapidly growing economies – especially China, which is now the world's biggest emitter of C02 and second biggest economy – take on responsibilities for their emissions, which they did not under the Kyoto protocol.

In another strand, the highly contentious issue of "loss and damage", by which developing countries stricken by the effects of severe weather would receive assistance, was moving towards compromise.

That would involve a mechanism for channelling funds to vulnerable countries when they suffer natural disasters related to global warming. This is very different from the "compensation" that some developing countries want from the rich world, and which rich countries have ruled out, but they may accept this compromise as it would allow them to receive funding when disaster strikes.

Ed Davey, the UK's energy and climate secretary, said: "I think we will be able to reconcile these views."

Warsaw climate change talks falter as EU and developing countries clash | Environment | The Guardian

 

[santosh10]

Topic of This Thread

here I would like to clear to the readers of this thread that my this thread is not 'exactly' about Climate Change problem, but its more about the circumstances the Developing countries are facing due to the irresponsible behavior of Developed nations. amount of Carbon Emission per person is all about the number of ACs, Cars, Industries etc a country can have and there must be a logic to sign a Carbon binding agreement..........

there are too many forums discussing the Climate Change problem, I also have a thread in this regard while stating relation of high population and its impact on global climate, and hence to find out the ways to reduce the population of high population countries to reduce their overall emission level. but my this thread is mainly intended to expose the 'tactics', the Developed countries are using to bind the developing world under low emission so that they won't ever have enough opportunity to grow in future. this thread is also intended to find out, whether India and other similar developing countries are taking the right steps to defend interests of its civilians, while facing the challenges from developed nations? thanks

 

[santosh10]

Countries by Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C (59 °F)[note 1] colder than at present.[2][3][4]

However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[5][6] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas.[7]

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

=> List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

=> List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[santosh10]

we may also have a look on the main list of CO2 emission level by 2009 as below, :ranger:

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[santosh10]

with the above list, we also have one of the most recognized way of measuring Carbon Emission level. its about "GDP on PPP per ton of Carbon Emission".

we have the list based on this criterion is as below. here we may have a pact based on reaching GDP on PPP at $4000+ per ton of Carbon Emission within a time limit, say. but here Developed countries do need to help the Developing countries to get this target, say by 2030 :thumb:

List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[santosh10]

Criterion of Carbon Binding Agreement

Per capita Carbon emission of "Industrialized nations" is too high, and as China has also got the state of being Industrialized, so its also on the higher side right now. while on the other hand India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia type emerging economies are having around 2.0tons/person Carbon emission, and they all are on the path of Industrialization too........

we want carbon binding on 'per person' criterion only, on per capita basis. if USA is the United States of America and EU27 has 27 states, then similarly India, China also have 30+ states. you can't compare India, China with Canada, Green Land, Australia type big lands but low population . will Japan, Germany type highly industrialized countries accept Carbon emission binding based on 'area'???? there would be a logic to discuss Carbon Emission targets and the same formula, one formula, would be applied on Developed and Developing countries, both. ........

you can't say that by reducing 2.0tons/person, Australia/Canada/Germany/Japan/Saudi Arabia/Qatar etc type countries may come 'fair', whose per capita emission is close to 20.0tons/person right now. and hence you can't bind India, Brazil, Indonesia with their current 2.0tons/person Carbon emission this way

amount of Carbon Emission per person is all about the number of ACs, Cars, Industries etc a country can have and there must be a logic to sign a Carbon binding agreement. those who are Industrialized, have to reduced their current level, and those countries who are on the path of getting Industrialization, would be provided the enough opportunity to do so.... :thumb:

and as India is blamed for being little densely populated, ranked 33 out of around 200 countries as below, so we would welcome any step by the Indian diplomats/ politician to accept the Carbon limit legally binding India for the carbon emission per person which is 'average' of the countries who are more or closely densely populated than India and are OECD member, regardless of any continent, as India would itself become similar to OECD countries within 10 to 15 years. But accepting less than the average of carbon emission per capita of OECD countries, who are more or closely densely populated than India, if this will be the case, then it will only mean that Indian Diplomats/ Politicians sold the future of Indian coming generations to the foreigners for their personal benefits"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.

US is United states of America and EU27 combines 27 states and similarly India also has over 36 states, and the same is true in case of China, Russia. There must not be any comparison of overall emission by India or China to that of UK, France, Australia, or other smaller states. As, even if Green Land has very big area and Russia is around two times bigger in area than the USA, US will not accept Russia to emit 2 times more carbon than USA nor Canada will accept to emit equal to that of Greenland as both have similar size areas. There must be a logic behind legally binding agreement on carbon emission.....

The countries more or closely densely populated than India and are also member of OECD countries are as below:

Belgium, Japan, Netherlands, Israel, South Korea,Singapore, Republic of China (Taiwan), Vatican City/ Luxembourg, & please add Bahrain also

List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


=> with that, we do know that we have only one Climate, one Earth, so we would welcome any effort by the World to 'force' India to reduce its population to the level it had till 1947, at the time of Independence, at around 347 million by end of 21st century...... but yes its a little tough task so we may have a revised target of twice to the population level by 2050, say, to bring it down to 700 million :thumb:

this issue is also discussed in the thread as below: :thumb:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...source-sufficiency-evaluation.html#post955556

.

 

[santosh10]

India may also accept a Carbon Emission Level at the factor of '0.9' to that of China's Emission Level

here, I would like to give a clear meaning of my last post, why we want Carbon Binding on 'per capita'/ 'per person' basis only? and as I have said before in my posts,Carbon Emission Binding is all about numbers of ACs, Cars, Industries etc a country can have, and hence its all about the number of people, that certain country will have to handle.........

I mean, if US has 60mil ACs in its homes and 200mil Cars for 330mil population, with the status of highly industrialized nation, then why India also can't have at least 60mil ACs, 200mil Cars, and the same number of industries for its 1.2 billion population????? and with the fact that USA is United States of America and EU27 combines 27 states, India & China also have the same number of states........

one day I also said that if China has 1.34 billion population and India has 1.21 billion people then we may also accept India with the emission level at the factor of 1.21/1.34 = 0.9 to the Total Emission Level of China :thumb:

I mean, there would a logic behind anything we say on the Indian forums, or, we do know that China has successfully emerged as a true representative of developing countries and we would 'only' demand India to be legally bound with the Carbon Emission level at the factor of '0.9' of total Emission level, the Chinese government would accept for its own people. I mean, on just this Carbon Binding negotiation, India may follow Chinese negotiators ....

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[santosh10]

but again, the most recognized way of finding Carbon Binding is discussed in my post#8, in terms of "GDP on PPP per ton of Carbon Emission". we have the list based on this criterion as below. here we may have a pact based on reaching GDP on PPP at $4000 per ton+ of Carbon Emission within a time limit

List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


=> here, we may consider France as the benchmark, to match rest of the countries with them by 2050, say, which has GDP on PPP at $6,000+ per capita, as of now, as below :thumb:

List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and here we do see that China needs to do more in this regard :ranger:

 

[santosh10]

Africans Unite Against New Form of Colonialism
Mar 30, 2013

Outraged by the rampant land grabs and neocolonialism of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest degradation), Africans at the World Social Forum in Tunisia took the historic decision to launch the No REDD in Africa Network and join the global movement against REDD. :ranger:

REDD+ is a carbon offset mechanism whereby industrialized Northern countries use forests, agriculture, soils and even water as sponges for their pollution instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at source.

"REDD is no longer just a false solution but a new form of colonialism," denounced NnimmoBassey, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate, former Executive Director of ERA/Friends of the Earth Nigeria. "In Africa, REDD+ is emerging as a new form of colonialism, economic subjugation and a driver of land grabs so massive that they may constitute a continent grab.We launch the No REDD in Africa Network to defend the continent from carbon colonialism."

In the UN-REDD Framework Document, the United Nations itself admits that REDD could result in the "lock-up of forests," "loss of land" and "new risks for the poor."

REDD originally just included forests but its scope has been expanded to include soils and agriculture. In a teach-in session yesterday at the World Social Forum Tunis, members of the La Via Campesina, the world's largest peasant movement, were concerned that REDD projects in Africa would threaten food security and could eventually cause hunger.

A recent Via Campesina study on the N'hambita REDD project in Mozambique found that thousands of farmers were paid meager amounts for seven years for tending trees, but that because the contract is for 99 years, if the farmer dies his or her children and their children must tend the trees for free. "This constitutes carbon slavery," denounced the emerging No REDD in Africa Network. The N'hambita project was celebrated by the UN on the website for Rio+20, the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro last year.

Mercia Andrews, Rural Women's Assembly of Southern Africa urged "We as Africans need to go beyond the REDD problem to forging a solution.The last thing Africa needs is a new form of colonialism."

Africans from Nigeria, South Africa, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Mozambique, Tunisia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya and Tanzania participated in the launch of the No REDD in Africa Network.



According the The New York Times, over 22,000 farmers with land deeds were violently evicted for a REDD-type project in Uganda in 2011 and Friday Mukamperezida, an eight-year-old boy was killed when his home was burned to the ground.

REDD and carbon forest projects are resulting in massive evictions, servitude, slavery, persecutions, killings, and imprisonment, according to the nascent No REDD in Africa Network.

"The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on Climate Change against REDD and for Life hails the birth of the NO REDD in Africa Network. This signals a growing resistance against REDD throughout the world," Tom Goldtooth, Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. "We know REDD could cause genocide and we are delighted that the Africans are taking a stand to stop what could be the biggest land grab of all time."

Africans Unite Against New Form of Colonialism | Indigenous Environmental Network

 

[santosh10]

@Ray

sir, please have a look on this thread, does it deserve "sticky" status? something you would like to say on my posts?

most of them are my old posts, which I need to revise/update with new articles, more comments are needed to improve quality of this topic, i think :ranger:

 

[santosh10]

double post

 

[santosh10]

Special UN climate summit cannot bridge rich-poor nation gulf

The special climate summit convened by the UN Secretary General led to many initiatives, but could not bridge the gap between rich and poor nations on who should do how much

Speaking at the UN climate summit, Obama said, big countries like the United States and China "have a special responsibility to lead" on how to tackle climate change. (Image by UN Photo/ Kim Haughton)

India reiterated its need to develop, China listed the steps it was taking and the US repeated that all countries should control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – despite notable advances in many areas, the special climate summit convened by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday failed to bridge the gap between rich and poor nations.

Prakash Javadekar, India's Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, told the informal summit, "Just as the fossil fuel led model of industrialization that began in the West a couple of centuries ago is seen responsible for the growing human impact on the climate, the other stark fact is that poverty remains a major polluter"¦ Therefore, this talk about changed realities can only be misleading and motivated."

The minister was referring to remarks made by leaders of many industrialised countries – including US President Barack Obama – that emerging economies like China and India should commit to tighter control on GHG emissions under a new global treaty scheduled to be ready by December 2015. Though the US President mentioned only China by name, his tenor was clear. So was Javadekar's response.

GHG emissions – mainly of carbon dioxide – are warming the planet. This climate change is affecting farm output worldwide, making droughts, floods and storms more frequent and more severe, and raising the sea level. Most of the emissions have been caused by rich nations since the start of the Industrial Age, but now China is the largest polluter, US second and India third. :ranger:

Rich nations want all countries – especially emerging economies – to take legally binding emission control pledges at the treaty, being negotiated under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Developing countries –especially India – remain steadfast in their opposition, on the grounds that such a move would be iniquitous.

At the same time, India has taken major steps to tackle climate change. Javadekar pointed them out at the special summit, saying, "The new government has doubled the Clean Energy Cess on coal to raise more revenue for clean energy technologies.At the same time, over $15 million have been allocated to the National Adaptation Fund; $80 million for setting up of ultra-mega solar projects; $100 million for a new scheme called ultra-modern super critical coal based thermal power technology; and $16 million for the development of 1 MW solar parks on the banks of canals."

The clean energy cess has been doubled this budget from 50 paise to one rupee per ton – India's way of putting a price on carbon emissions.

Javadekar listed other initiatives and then pointed out, "Evidence indicates that countries that have achieved a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.9 or more have per capita energy consumption of at least 2.5 tons oil equivalent per year. The current per capita energy consumption in India is about 0.6 per year, which is a fraction of the figures for the developed world. In other words, with today's technologies and living standards, the energy consumption in India would need to increase by four times as India's HDI increases from the current value of 0.5 to a value of 0.9."

"The key challenge therefore is to enable this higher energy consumption at a cost that people are willing and able to pay, and with lower carbon intensity. We are fully committed to achieving our voluntary goal for reducing Emission Intensity of its GDP by 20-25% by 2020 over 2005 level."

India has decided to double the installed wind energy capacity over the next five years, increase installed solar capacity to over 20,000 MW by 2020, and use energy efficiency to save 10,000 MW by 2020. Referring to these and other initiatives, Javadekar said, "It is self-evident that developing countries can do more if finance and technology support and capacity building is ensured. This must be a key focus of international cooperation. What is needed is political will."

The demands for finance and technology support have been major stumbling blocks in UNFCCC negotiations, with rich countries failing to adequately deliver even on the few promises they have made. China, India, Brazil and South Africa have led the demand for better results.

China's position

Speaking at the special UN summit, however, Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli stayed away from this, and confined himself to talking about what China had already done to tackle climate change.

Promising that "China will make more effort to tackle climate change out of our own will," Zhang pointed out, "China has done remarkable work by publishing its National Climate Change Programme before this summit."

The Vice Premier emphasised three targets of China:

Reduce carbon emission intensity;
Increase non-fossil fuel ratio and forest storage;
Try to achieve carbon (emission) peak as soon as possible.
Carbon emission intensity is the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP growth. At the 2009 Copenhagen summit of the UNFCCC, China made a voluntary commitment to reduce this intensity by 40-45% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. India made a voluntary pledge of a 20-25% reduction, and Javadekar said the country was well on course to achieve that.

Zhang also said China would provide $6 million to support South-South cooperation on tackling climate change.

US position

The Chinese and Indian speeches came after the US President had said, "No nation can meet this global threat alone"¦ Nobody gets a pass."

Obama also listed domestic efforts by the US to tackle climate change, at the same time pointing out the ravages caused by extreme weather events in the country. "The climate is changing faster than our ability to address it," he said. "The alarm bells keep ringing."

Coming to the issue of negotiations, Obama said, big countries like the United States and China "have a special responsibility to lead" on how to tackle climate change.

Climate change legislation is controversial in the US, but Obama promised, "We will do our part."While right-wing organizations said the US President had gone too far in his speech, some NGOs including Oxfam and Greenpeace felt he had not gone far enough.

All in all, there was little indication that the negotiations logjam would be broken, and there is little time. A draft of the treaty – expected to be signed at December 2015 UNFCCC summit in Paris – is supposed to be ready by the next UNFCCC summit this December, which will be held in the Peruvian capital Lima.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, said, "The only way to make Paris a success is to make a success of Lima – of the markers on the road to Paris."

Trying to make governments take a more holistic view, the UN Secretary General told the summit, "We must cut emissions. Science says they must peak by 2020, and decline sharply thereafter. By the end of this century we must be carbon neutral."

"No one is immune from climate change. Not even these United Nations Headquarters, which were flooded during Superstorm Sandy. I ask all governments to commit to a meaningful, universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015, and to do their fair share to limit global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius."

By the end of the day, Ban was more optimistic, largely because the special summit had come up with a series of initiatives. He listed them at the closing session, saying, "I asked for bold announcements from governments, business, finance and civil society in five key areas. The summit delivered."

"First, we heard strong commitment for a meaningful, universal climate agreement in Paris next year, with a first draft to be presented in Lima in December"¦ We heard commitments to cut emissions from many countries."

"Second, on finance, public and private sources showed the way forward for mobilizing the finance we need. Leaders expressed strong support for the Green Climate Fund. Many leaders called for the fund's initial capitalization at an amount no less than $10 billion. A total of $2.3 billion was pledged towards the fund's initial capitalization today, and others committed contributions by November 2014.A new coalition of governments, business, finance, multilateral development banks and civil society leaders announced their commitment to mobilize upwards of $200 billion for financing low-carbon and climate-resilient development.Private banks announced they would issue $20 billion of green bonds and that they would double the market to $50 billion by 2015, next year. The insurance industry committed to double its green investments to $82 billion by the same date, by next year." :ranger:

"Third: carbon pricing. This is one of the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions and generating sustainable development and growth. Many leaders from government and business supported putting a price on carbon through various instruments and called for intensified efforts to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.Thirty companies announced their alignment with the Caring for Climate Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing. And, a number of leaders agreed to join a new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to drive action aimed at strengthening carbon pricing policies and redirecting investment."

"Fourth, we heard how strengthening resilience – both climate and financial – is a smart and essential investment. Adaptation needs are growing, particularly for the least developed countries and small island developing states, which are most at risk and need most international support."

"Fifth, new coalitions are forming to meet the full scope of the climate challenge. The first Global Agricultural Alliance was launched to enable 500 million farmers worldwide to practice climate-smart agriculture by 2030.Leaders of the oil and gas industry, along with national governments and civil society organizations, made a historic commitment to identify and reduce methane emissions by 2020.A new Compact of Mayors, representing 200 cities with a combined population of 400 million people, pledged new commitments to reduce annual emissions by between 12.4 and 16.4%.Leaders from pension funds committed to de-carbonizing investments worth $100 billion and disclosing the carbon footprint of investments worth $500 billion."

Climate smart agriculture came under prompt attack from some NGOs, who fear the takeover of this initiative by firms manufacturing genetically modified seeds. Most NGOs were also sceptical about the commitment made by oil firms – for long the biggest deniers of climate change.

Special UN climate summit cannot bridge rich-poor nation gulf - India Climate Dialogue

 

[santosh10]

double post

 

[santosh10]

Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks

World Development Movement report accuses developed countries of threatening behaviour at climate change summits :ranger:

Leading figures in western governments have been accused of using bullying tactics with developing countries during climate change summits.

The criticisms will cast a shadow over the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which begins tomorrow, in the latest attempt to stabilise greenhouse gas levels around the world.

A new report, published by the World Development Movement, contains previously unpublished testimonies from insiders at both the Copenhagen and Cancún climate summits in 2009 and 2010. Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

In one section the report criticises threats by richer countries to withdraw funds to help poorer nations cope with climate change if they failed to sign up to the accord. It says: "The US and the UK openly stated that climate finance would be limited to those that signed up to [it]. Ed Miliband, the UK minister, was blunt about linking the funding of developing countries with accepting the accord. The concerns he raised must be duly noted, he said, 'otherwise we won't operationalise the funds'."

The authors add: "The US said they would deny climate finance to Bolivia and Ecuador because they had objected to the Copenhagen accord proposal. The EU's Connie Hedegaard had also suggested that the small island-state countries "could be 'our best allies because they need finance'."

One diplomat from the tiny Polynesian island of Tuvalu said at the time: "Can I suggest that it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future? Mr President, our future is not for sale."

It is a standard tactic at UN climate meetings for rich countries to try to divide and rule developing countries' negotiating groups. Developing countries admit they are bamboozled by the tactics and are often unable to keep up with the negotiations.

One diplomat told the report's authors: "At one point in Copenhagen there were 26 meetings taking place simultaneously. How can a developing country delegation of two people possibly hope to cope? These numbers are life and death. There is no intention to agree a fair scenario, whether voluntary or by obligation. It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!" :ranger:

Another diplomat said: "There is the small stuff, like travels, scholarships, jobs, but the favours are also small stuff, or so it seems, until the implications come in, especially for developing countries' interests in general. And then there is always the threat to cut off funding for a project, or something, if one gets too aggressive."

In Cancún last year the rich countries created a new system of meetings. "It created confusion, it was so hard to challenge this and to say procedurally this is wrong. Procedures were totally ignored. If this would happen in Fifa the whole world would be scandalised!" WDM was told.

Bolivia felt particularly aggrieved by UN tactics in Cancún, where its representatives lobbied for deeper cuts in emissions than richer countries were prepared to accept.

According to a Bolivian diplomat, their delegation agreed to participate in a side-meeting on condition that no plenary meeting took place at the same time.

The diplomat said: "Three minutes after they left the hall, an official plenary [to adopt the outcomes of the Kyoto protocol] started. It was a deliberate trick! We could only lodge reservations, and run to try and find our senior negotiators and get them back in to the room."

theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/26/climate-change-talks-durban]Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks | Environment | The Guardian[/url]

 

[Redhawk]

Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

Countries that take money as foreign aid from the West are under absolutely no compulsion to accept it. If they think accepting money from Western donor nations under terms and conditions stipulated by those donor countries for the aid being paid is a breach of the payee country's sovereignty as a nation, then they can exercise their national sovereignty and refuse to accept the money. It is all very simple! As a citizen of a country that forks out billions each year in foreign aid, I would be quite happy for those countries receiving Australian money as foreign aid to exercise their sovereignty and refuse to accept it. There are plenty of things we can spend that money on here at home. I can only repeat, it is not compulsory that foreign aid be accepted.

 

[Ray]

@santosh10,

Countries that have financial clout, economic clout and military might will always force their will on those who are not equal to them. That is the way of life and the world. Nothing can actually be done, but through discussion try to make them see the difficulties faced by the weaker nations.

One of the ways that is being adopted is having regional financial aid banks on the lines of the IMF/World Bank/ Asian Development Bank so that the bargaining power is increased of nations who are handicapped in getting what they feel a fair deal.


The "Brics" development bank is a case in point and that aims to challenge for the first time the US postwar dominance of multilateral lending institutions. people

The bank, to be controlled by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, is expected to start with capital of $50bn and to be officially launched by the Brics heads of state at a summit in Brazil on July 15.

If will it will serve as a reminder to US policy makers of the need to reform these institutions to better reflect the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.

it will serve as a reminder to US policy makers of the need to reform these institutions to better reflect the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.

The above has been reported in the http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/aea32354-00eb-11e4-b94d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Na7pT7Dm

Till alternate banks that assist developing nations are not set up, one will have to reckon with the lays of the world.

 

[Redhawk]

The "Brics" development bank is a case in point and that aims to challenge for the first time the US postwar dominance of multilateral lending institutions. people

The bank, to be controlled by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, is expected to start with capital of $50bn and to be officially launched by the Brics heads of state at a summit in Brazil on July 15.

If will it will serve as a reminder to US policy makers of the need to reform these institutions to better reflect the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.

it will serve as a reminder to US policy makers of the need to reform these institutions to better reflect the shift in the global economy towards the developing world.

I hope the BRICS development bank is an absolute and unqualified success. There really is a great need for alternatives to the U.S.-dominated/EU-dominated international lending institutions providing capital to the underdeveloped and developing worlds. It is good that the BRICS countries are stepping up to the plate and are willing to take this on.