Blog
12.December 2015 - 05:25
Was this progress?
The Montreal Conference climaxed with Bill Clinton’s speech, in which he announced that he loves the Kyoto Protocol. The speech aroused a great deal of enthusiasm and after his speech, Clinton became surrounded by his admirers.
I returned from snowy Montreal to slushy Finland. I had just watched the news on the result of Montreal, which were loudly applauded as great achievements, and wondered what this was all about. After all, the result was really miserable: nothing will change.
Whose authority was protected here and why?
It is true that a number of decisions were hammered through, perhaps more than ever before. The possibilities provided by technology were scrutinised more openly than ever; the most interesting of the pondering efforts was the capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CCS). But taking a serious look at he results, I really don’t know what is so encouraging in the prospect that there still is no way to control more than one fourth of the world’s emissions.
The most important issue at the climate conference was what kind of climate politics would be practised after 2012, when the present Kyoto period has come to an end. The conference ended up proceeding, so to speak, along two tracks:
The first track concerns the post-2012 negotiations according to Article 3.9 in the Kyoto Protocol and those countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, the US and Australia will remain outside the Kyoto negotiations, unless they decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, after all. According to the article, the negotiation objects were only the so-called Annex 1 countries of the UN Climate Convention; in other words, the industrialised countries. Obligations would still not be placed upon the developing countries, just some voluntary dialogue. Theoretically the only avenue to obligate the developing countries could be opened through reviewing the protocol (Art. 9), but this is not very likely.
The intention was to begin with the negotiations next May and be prepared well in advance so that no obligation-free period would arise after 2012.
The other track refers to the post-2012 discussions, based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This would imply an informal dialogue concerning the curbing of climate change, the developing of technologies and adjustment to climate change. This would comprise all of the countries in the world (including the developing countries and the US). In this context, the US, however, opposed any such wording which would have hinted at any binding emissions–restriction obligations or that a dialogue would even sometime in the future lead to such. The idea is to now organise seminars on these issues during 2006-2007.
When one scrutinises the decisions, it could be assumed that the US will not accept the emissions-reduction obligations through the UNFCCC or Kyoto Protocol. It also seems very likely that the developing countries will not give up their special position to be, at the same time, in the climate change convention, but without emissions restrictions. As the emissions of developing countries are about a half and those of the US comprise a fourth, this simply means in practice that three fourths of the emissions will remain outside the emissions negotiations.
It is very difficult to rejoice.
Published: October 12, 2005
http://www.korhola.com/2005/12/oliko-tama-edistysta/
The Montreal Conference climaxed with Bill Clinton’s speech, in which he announced that he loves the Kyoto Protocol. The speech aroused a great deal of enthusiasm and after his speech, Clinton became surrounded by his admirers.
I returned from snowy Montreal to slushy Finland. I had just watched the news on the result of Montreal, which were loudly applauded as great achievements, and wondered what this was all about. After all, the result was really miserable: nothing will change.
Whose authority was protected here and why?
It is true that a number of decisions were hammered through, perhaps more than ever before. The possibilities provided by technology were scrutinised more openly than ever; the most interesting of the pondering efforts was the capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CCS). But taking a serious look at he results, I really don’t know what is so encouraging in the prospect that there still is no way to control more than one fourth of the world’s emissions.
The most important issue at the climate conference was what kind of climate politics would be practised after 2012, when the present Kyoto period has come to an end. The conference ended up proceeding, so to speak, along two tracks:
The first track concerns the post-2012 negotiations according to Article 3.9 in the Kyoto Protocol and those countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, the US and Australia will remain outside the Kyoto negotiations, unless they decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, after all. According to the article, the negotiation objects were only the so-called Annex 1 countries of the UN Climate Convention; in other words, the industrialised countries. Obligations would still not be placed upon the developing countries, just some voluntary dialogue. Theoretically the only avenue to obligate the developing countries could be opened through reviewing the protocol (Art. 9), but this is not very likely.
The intention was to begin with the negotiations next May and be prepared well in advance so that no obligation-free period would arise after 2012.
The other track refers to the post-2012 discussions, based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This would imply an informal dialogue concerning the curbing of climate change, the developing of technologies and adjustment to climate change. This would comprise all of the countries in the world (including the developing countries and the US). In this context, the US, however, opposed any such wording which would have hinted at any binding emissions–restriction obligations or that a dialogue would even sometime in the future lead to such. The idea is to now organise seminars on these issues during 2006-2007.
When one scrutinises the decisions, it could be assumed that the US will not accept the emissions-reduction obligations through the UNFCCC or Kyoto Protocol. It also seems very likely that the developing countries will not give up their special position to be, at the same time, in the climate change convention, but without emissions restrictions. As the emissions of developing countries are about a half and those of the US comprise a fourth, this simply means in practice that three fourths of the emissions will remain outside the emissions negotiations.
It is very difficult to rejoice.
Published: October 12, 2005
http://www.korhola.com/2005/12/oliko-tama-edistysta/