Transcript THE CONFERENCE OF COPENHAGEN -2010

THE CONFERENCE OF
COPENHAGEN
The leaders of 190 countries met in Copenhagen in
December to agree a global framework which will replace
the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, the validity of
which expires in 2012.
The world has one last chance to reach a global agreement
to tackle climate change at the meeting of the UN Climate
Panel, which will be held in Copenhagen in December, said
from Budapest EU Commissioner for Environment Stavros
Dimas
• The impacts of global warming and the constant changes in
climate are now visible. Frequent rains and heat waves often hit
the earth, and tropical hurricanes and cyclones are most
intense with devastating consequences. At the same time,
temperature and level the surface of the oceans continue to
rise, threatening the ecosystem as a whole.
However, environmental issues requiring co often concealed by
the contact under the mantle of deliberate indifference, leading
thus to environmental degradation. Climate change is a fact,
affecting all of us accumulate for centuries owing to the man.
Failure to timely and effective response will be disastrous for
all, without exception, the regions and peoples of the earth.
Mankind had never faced serious and difficult challenge. Our
planet in danger and we with him, the same time as salvation
depends solely on humans.
• In order to meet this nightmarish situation, which result in
dramatically disturbed the ecological balance of the planet and whole
regions at risk of sinking, 120 heads of state and 192 countries
participated in the Conference in Copenhagen in order to achieve a
new, global, single, universal and legally binding agreement to tackle
climate change, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires
in 2012. The characterized as a historic conference was regarded by
scientists as the largest made so far. For the first time in over 17 years
of discussions on climate, a large number of states become
concerned and reported objectives and proposals for saving the
planet. It seems that the world community has accepted the
responsibility to take action to address the threat of climate change.
On the eve of the crucial conference, an optimism had already been
created for the state of discussions with many countries to express
their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the
voices were missing and those already characterized the meeting as
sham, expressing their pessimism about finding a fair solution.
Objectives of the negotiations in
Copenhagen Summit were:
• Setting levels of commitment by all developed countries for specific
percentages of generated pollutants
• Achieving commitment for action to reduce emissions in developing
countries.
•
The determination of the amount of necessary international funding
will be provided by developed countries to developing countries'
adaptation to climate change
• The identification of means of implementation of commitments on
emission reduction and adaptation in developing countries to climate
change. The technology transfer, financing and capacity building of
developing countries are the means of implementation
•
Discussions began in snowy Copenhagen, on 7 December, promising to find a
binding and ambitious climate agreement, giving the world hope for a better
future. The first official draft fell to the negotiating table early enough,
according to which developed countries should, by 2020, reduce emissions by
70-85%. This was a highly ambitious project, which was rejected, as expected,
from the United States and China, for different reasons on either side, causing
a strong reaction of the poorest countries. The disagreements between
developed and developing countries, and disagreements between China and
the U.S., which accounts for the largest proportion of global emissions,
dominated the 15th Session of the UN climate change in Copenhagen.
Developed and developing countries disagreed on the percentage reduction in
emissions of greenhouse gases and on the amount of funding for the poorest
countries in their efforts to tackle global climate change. Strongly dissatisfied
with developments, representatives of African countries left the Bella Center,
the meeting is being held, temporarily interrupting the negotiations. Denmark,
which hosted the summit, accused strongly by those countries to undermine
the debate on climate change, due to negative attitudes towards reducing
greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol. The fact that the
poorest countries are vulnerable to climate change, with African countries to
pay the bulk of the price. Therefore, their representatives made it clear that rich
countries should commit to reducing emissions and not to abandon the basis
set out in the Kyoto Protocol.
• As shown in the negotiations, developed countries promoted a
new agreement without taking into account the problems and
concerns of the economically weak countries. Fear of losing
many of the benefits envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol, the
poorest countries, have temporarily left the negotiations to
return to them later. On the other hand, the rich developing
countries for the sake of economic growth, have shown great
willingness to commit to major reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. Poorer countries, led by China, called for reducing
emissions from industrialized countries, on the grounds that
those responsible for the current chaotic situation. In other
side, the richest country in the Recommendations of the U.S.
invoked the economic and population growth of these
countries, describing China, Brazil and India as major futures’
polluters
• The hopes for a fair, reasonable and balanced outcome through
joint efforts and collective decisions have been lost. The failure
appeared in sight. But personal diplomacy by U.S. President
prevented, according to many observers, but the failure to
produce the expected result would give the key solution to
environmental problems and enhance public confidence in the
face of those who govern them. The last-minute efforts between
the U.S., China, Brazil, India and South Africa led to a highly
controversial agreement. An agreement is not binding, serving
only the interests of those who created it, meaning the global
pollutants. It seems that the U.S. and China holding the key to
the negotiations and decided to use the last minute, leaving out
any discussion of the vast majority of States Parties. Despite
internal disagreements, the European Union (EU) adopted a key
role in facilitating the outcome of the Conference.
• The non-binding agreement in Copenhagen recognizes the
need to cut emissions with the main objective to contain global
warming below 2 degrees Celsius, to avoid natural disasters
such as floods, heat waves, the extinction of various species of
flora and flora and the increase in ocean levels. The new draft
Declaration sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by 50% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. It sets voluntary
commitments by large developing countries to reduce
emissions, but without giving specific figures for the reduction
by 2020 and to impose clear deadlines. However, calls for the
adoption of a legally binding treaty by the end of 2010 and
referred to a review in 2016, the draft Declaration, which would
revise the threshold of 1.5 degree Celsius. The Agreement
provides for the establishment of a climate Funding Mechanism
for developing countries, which manage capital totalling 100
billion dollars annually. The EU pledged to contribute an
amount of 10.6 billion dollars, and Japan promised to provide
the amount of 11 billion dollars. The American superpower on
the other, merely amount of 3.6 billion dollars. These funds
may be used by developing countries to combat deforestation,
to switch to green growth, reduce emissions and to protect
themselves from the inevitable impacts of climate change. In
addition, developing countries agreed to take unilateral action
to reduce their emissions, if they receive adequate financial
assistance from developed countries.
• The agreement makes no reference to the request by
developing nations for an extension after 2012, the
Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding text, or
provide for the creation of a control mechanism
limiting the pollutants. The Agreement is designed to
not adopted by 193 countries who took part in the
conference. If some countries object, it will be
adopted only by those who support it. Delegations of
Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua already
disowned the agreement, stressing that adiafanos up
and that will help address global warming.
• The epilogue of the Copenhagen Conference was written in a
non-binding and without tangible results agreement. So step
forward is estimated that never happened. The dominant model
of economic growth, unfortunately, seems to prevail over the
inelastic need for maintaining ecological balance, putting
several under-voices-at risk the future of coming generations.
The rich nations showed no concessions available to
developing countries. The strong opposition of China to a
system that would control greenhouse gas emissions and U.S.
reluctance to make new commitments to reduce emissions
were the two biggest obstacles to an agreement. African states
fought for strict limits on emissions of industrial nations and
called for substantial financial assistance. The rejection of
these African countries continues to be in difficulty and
compromise Copenhagen was disappointing for them. All show
that Copenhagen has left a great opportunity to address the
impact of climate change. Humanity is facing an extraordinary
situation. Therefore, if we do not work to take decisive action
as climate change directly threaten the planet.
BUT WHY THIS FAMOUS CONFERENCE FAILED
IN NEGOTIATIONS????
AND THEN WE SAY THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAVE
THE WORLD
• But why did we get here? Since the first days after the end of the
session the powerful of the world are starting to throw the ball to each
other to relinquish responsibility for the fiasco. One, however, is
obvious and we know from the period of Kyoto. If the U.S. and China,
both major polluters of the planet, which together account for 42% of
global emissions are not legally bound to reduce their emissions in
future is very bleak.
The European Commission president Barroso expressed his
disappointment over the agreement, stating that it differs markedly
from the expectations of the EU It is obvious that the EU after a slow
but steady shift in the center-right government and the commitment of
the economic policy of the neo-liberal doctrine has lost its aura of
viable and sustainable eco-profile that was forged during the 90s. The
inability of the EU take a clear position and play a dynamic role in
international politics is cyclical, but structural problems. While Europe
is progressing economic integration, leaving the policy of integration
to hover the more vulnerable and unstable is to take political
initiatives internationally.
• Effective global governance for such a critical issue such as
climate change challenge remains dominant after the failure of
Copenhagen. The model of neoliberal capitalist globalization
that destroys the environment and economies worldwide is in
deep crisis. Alternative model will give way to the major
problems mentioned above sought. The democratic settlement
of globalization, strengthening the UN and the upgrading of its
political role in connection with the mobilization of people can
create the conditions for a new sustainable and socially just
reality.
The left movements, ecological movements in local and
international outreach, NGOs, active citizens, scientific
agencies continue to provide consistently battle for a
development that meets the needs of present without
compromising the ability of future generations to a similar
standard of living, a development that will gradually ease the
gap between developed and developing world. To change the
economic and development model locally and globally, the
awareness and active mobilization of citizens is a necessary
condition