Developing Nations Walk Out Of Climate Talks

[Turborama]

Source: Sky News

Talks have been suspended at the Copenhagen climate change summit after developing countries walked out.

The main sessions of the UN conference were halted after the protest, which was led by African countries and backed by the G77 group of developing nations. They accused developed countries of trying to back out of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions.

"This is a walkout over process and form, not a walkout over substance, and that's regrettable," Australian climate change minister Penny Wong said of the action.

The Kyoto treaty ties the rich countries - but not developing countries - that have ratified it to binding emissions curbs.

"Africa has pulled the emergency cord to avoid a train crash at the end of the week," said Jeremy Hobbs from Oxfam International, referring to a summit on Friday due to be attended by about 120 heads of state or government.

Read more: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Summit-G77-Group-Of-Developing-Countries-Walk-Out-As-Protest/Article/200912215499846?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15499846_Copenhagen_Climat

---

Climate negotiations 'suspended'

Source: BBC

=snip=

African delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, about 200 activists responded with chants of "We stand with Africa - Kyoto targets now".
It is unclear how matters will proceed now, though informal talks are likely.

Blocs representing poor countries vulnerable to climate change have been adamant that rich nations must commit to emission cuts beyond 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the EU and the developed world in general has promoted the idea of a new agreement. Developing countries fear they would lose many of the gains they made when the protocol was agreed in 1997.

Previously during this meeting - formally called the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 - developing countries have accused the Danish organisers of ignoring their concerns.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. And from the BBC too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411898.stm

[Turborama]

2. Thanks, Muriel

I've added the BBC piece to the OP.

I wonder how this is going to pan out.

[denem]

3. Essentially the G77 + China want to have Annex 1 (Developed) targets decided first,

under the Kyoto protocol, which exempts the G77 group (over 130 countries) from binding targets

Then, after renewed Kyoto targets are agreed with reductions, the G77 will negotiate,
It is not expected any G77 nations will accept legal agreements, notwithstanding compensation.

China will neither accept binding targets, nor international monitors

[WriteDown]

7. You have nailed it...

Little more than a dog and pony show.

[Blue_Tires]

4. .......

:banghead:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Mission accomplished.

[Odin2005]

6. ARGH!!!! This is gonna be a clusterfuck.

:banghead:

[Posteritatis]

16. They're back in now. (nt)

[slackmaster]

8. And so it ends

Maybe next year.

[swilton]

9. Saddly,

when I see people driving their SUVs for local errands, the leaf blowers, the beef diets - I see this from the perspective of the developing countries. Simply put, the developed world has been responsible for using up more than its fair share of the atmosphere, and it is the developed world that has contributed the most to the planet's environmental degredation. Through even minimal efforts such as conservation, it is the developed world that could and should contribute the most to environmental remediation.

The developing countries are right to draw a line in the sand - enough of this rewriting treaties that let the developed world pretend that their offering consensus on agreements that say nothing and offer no real solutions.

[unabelladonna]

15. even though you might be willing to change your lifestyle,

many people in developed countrie (myself included) are not. i can afford new regulations, but many families are struggling and will be hit the hardest with higher energy taxes or surcharges....and the cap and trade? don't get me started.

[pampango]

10. They're back. "Developing nations return to Copenhagen climate talks"-BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8412483.stm

"Talks at the UN climate summit resumed on Monday afternoon after protests from developing nations forced a suspension. But talks have been limited to informal consultations on procedural issues, notably developing countries' demands for more time on the Kyoto Protocol. "

"The G77-China bloc, made up of 130 nations, suspended their co-operation as they accused organisers of trying to formulate a deal behind closed doors. They point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international legally binding instrument that has curbed carbon emissions, and also that it contains functioning mechanisms for bringing development benefits to poor countries such as money for investment in clean energy projects."

"G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation. "It has become clear that the Danish presidency - in the most undemocratic fashion - is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme."

"UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be "irresponsible for the climate". He said it would leave some of the world's biggest emitters such as the US, China and India without targets for cutting emissions, which was why the EU favoured an entirely new agreement covering all countries."

"Many developing countries have been arguing for a "twin track" approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol."

[Bragi]

11. Thing is, it's the developed world that created the problem

It's rather amusing for UK Climate Secretary Ed Miliband to say that for the developed world to commit to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol would be "irresponsible for the climate".

Really?

If I was one of those "developing" countries that is responsible for almost none of the current accumulated gases behind accelerated climate change, then I would also want to assign the task of reducing the backlog of built-up emissions to those countries who created them. Only then would I want to sit down and negotiate an equitable and fair distribution of future carbon-related costs and burdens.

But I continue to think it barely matters. We've passed the window, the delayers have won, the inaction crowd has mounted a successful global filibuster. There will be no action at Copenhagen, or likely any where else in the foreseeable future.

So let me send a big "I'm sorry" and warm hug to everyone under about age 40 for the losses, famines, migrations, wars, etc. you will have to endure because my generation could not get our act together in a timely way.

And a happy holiday season to all!

- b

[pampango]

12. I think that part of what Miliband meant by "irresponsible for the climate" was that extending Kyoto

let the US, as well as China and India; the US because, of course, because Bush made sure we weren't a part of Kyoto. He might have meant that without the US, China and India (especially since China and the US are the biggest carbon polluters) signed on to a new agreement it would be an "irresponsible" agreement.

Not sure. But I think that might have been part of what he meant.

The rest of your post I agree with. It sure looks like this conference is going nowhere. Anything that does get agreed to is unlikely to have any teeth, so enforcement will be haphazard at best.

Future generations will, I hope, be understanding when we excuse ourselves by explaining the we didn't do more because we couldn't let "our country" be taken advantage of by "their country" by agreeing to do more than "they" did, so we kept talking and wringing our hands and signing ineffective agreements and blaming everyone but ourselves.

We'll tell then that it wasn't like WWII where everyone sacrificed and pulled together for the greater good. We were happy to do something about global warming as long as it didn't raise our taxes or the price of a gallon of gas or kilowatt of electricity, freeze or reduce our wages, or limit our mobility or choice of goods we could buy. It just wasn't that important. Have a good life kids!

At least future Americans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Europeans will all be able to ask their parents and grandparents the same question, "If you knew it was happening, why didn't you do anything about it?"

[fascisthunter]

13. everything is dictated by economics

no issue is more important than profit.

[daleo]

14. It seems like a variation on "prisoners dilemma"

If A cheats and B doesn't, A wins big and B loses.
If neither cheat, they both win.
If both cheat, they both lose.

The maximal strategy is cooperation by A and B, but a rapid reciprocal response to cheating by either side, followed by a willingness to forgive and start over.

Of course in this case A and B are gambling primarily their future generations prospects. So, even if one cheats and wins, their descendants will probably lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[bemildred]

17. And you know they are all going to cheat from day one. nt

[JonQ]

18. Probably just bluster

they're looking for a bigger check.

[eilen]

19. I think the entire thing is a colossal waste of time

and serves to mainly be a photo opp to show the world we are trying to do something when we really aren't. Ultimately, the problem is us. I like my laptop and if it were to break down, the motherboard to go... I'd want to go out and buy another. I see Christmas lights on all but a few houses on my street (mine is one of the dark ones). I drive a 4WD vehicle as we get quite a bit of snow here and I am often hauling instruments and kids. I rarely walk anywhere during the winter and I keep my heat above 55 at all times during this season. We use a snow-thrower.

If we were so serious about carbon, we'd restrict development and keep the trees. However, in the past 6 years, we've seen a boom in development, not reforestation. And we lapped it up, we ate it up like gluttons.

At the fall, we will change because we will be forced to change, and that is how human beings change their habits, because there is no other alternative.

We are not morally or ethically any different from the people in developing nations. They would behave in the exact same manner. They are not much different than us, just poorer. As they are, not many environmental controls are placed on global corporations that are harvesting their natural resources. Who ever has the power gets the dollar and generally stows it away in some European bank account, not reinvesting it for their fellow countrymen. The big ass elephant in the room is that ecological critical mass is coming together now. We are the congestive heart failure patient for whom diuretics have no more effect. We are all in this together, it is no longer a first world/third world negotiation. But no one has the cojones to demand an end to our current economical structure-- which is what it will take and say "no more" to Monsanto, Exxon, Dow, BigSteel, Massey, Pharma, military etc. No one has the balls to tell Americans (even the very wealthy ones) -- no more lights after 9pm.

I agree, the 113 countries -- the true motivation is strategy for more money.