Leaders cut safeguards to salvage Copenhagen climate deal

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6962193.ece

From Times Online
December 18, 2009

Leaders cut safeguards to salvage Copenhagen climate deal

Key safeguards on climate change were sacrificed today in a desperate attempt by world leaders to achieve a compromise at the Copenhagen summit.

Gordon Brown and some other leaders prepared to stay overnight as the final stages of the negotiations were prolonged by a dispute between the US and China over remarks made by President Obama.

But reports this evening that President Medvedev of Russia had already left the talks while Japan’s Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, was planning to leave later last night heightened the feeling that time was running out for a deal.

A commitment to turning the “Copenhagen Accord” into a legally binding treaty within a year was deleted from a draft of the text leaked tonight. The draft also contained only vague language on the key issues of limiting the temperature increase to 2C and cutting global emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/how-copenhagen-text-was-changed

How the Copenhagen text was changed

Haggling, fine-tuning, and late tweaks as negotiations continue

Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 19.24 GMT

National leaders and sleep-deprived negotiators haggled yesterday over a text that could determine the balance of power in the world and possibly the future of our species. What direction did the talks take? The list below gives an item-by-item breakdown of the changes from the morning to the early evening. By that time the Guardian went to print at least four drafts had been produced but the negotiations were ongoing.

Kyoto protocol

"Affirming our firm resolve to adopt one or more legal instruments..."

This bland sounding preamble, which appeared in the morning draft, is at the crux of the dispute: whether to continue a twin track process that maintains the existence of the Kyoto Protocol, or whether to merge everything into a single agreement. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada are desperate to move to a one-track approach, but developing nations are fighting any attempt to kill off the Kyoto Protocol – the one legally binding treaty that establishes the concept that rich nations have more responsibilities than later developers.

Deadline for a treaty

"...as soon as possible and no later than COP16"

This key phrase, which appeared in the morning draft and disappeared during the day, sets a December 2010 date for when a legally binding treaty should be concluded. A later text drops this, but the issue was still under discussion.

Temperature

"The increase in global temperature should be below two degrees."

This draft, governs the remainder of the text because it establishes the ultimate goal of preventing global warming. The key word "should", means actions are mandatory. The morning draft was a weaker "ought not to exceed 2 degrees."

…

[hatrack]

1. "The increase in global temperature should be below two degrees" - I was wondering . . .

There are two possibilities, given this statement:

1. COP15 nations have divine writ over physical Earth systems of climate and weather or:

2. Every thermometer on earth will be rescaled so as to allow an increase of 3C to appear as an increase of 2C.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. It’s all spelled out quite clearly in RFC2119

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

…

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.


2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.


3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.


4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.


5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option provides.)


6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting etransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.

…