Without a consensus,or a semblance thereof,the fortnight-long climate change conference ended with an “Accord” that was almost never agreed by thr majority of attending countries,who only “took note” of the said document .As it turned out to be ,the document was a mere political statement that was legally non-binding.Oddly still the deal was struck by US President Obama seizing the last moments of the conference with the BASIC four-China,India,Brazil,South Africa and a group of influential countries.
Contrasting with the outcome, the climate negotiators were labouring tirelessly under two tracks viz ‘Kyoto Protocol’ and “long term cooperative Action (LAC)” that required the parties to produce legally binding treaty before the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol ends in 2012 to fix the hazardous climate change .The previously mandated gas emission targets,ensuring commitments from rich nations on new or additional financial resources to fund adaptations and mitigations in developing countries,agreement over technology to developing countries, ambitions and binding targets for rich countries beyond 2012 did not find a place in the “Accord”. Instead rich countries will commit to provide US$ 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 for funding adaptation and mitigation efforts in the developing countries and that rich countries would set up a fund that would be able to provide US$ 100 billion per year after 2020.
But the most offending clause for developing countries ‘to allow international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines on their domestic voluntary mitigation actions’ was incorporated.This could cause misunderstanding and misinterpretation in due course .
Indian Prime Minister participated in the closed door meeting with Obama and India ensured it would sign on the accord. Many of the African and Latin American countries were critical of the accord which had no reference to any targets for emission reductions by the rich countries.
Back home, the Accord was strongly criticized in parliament with Arun Jaitely saying “This Copenhagen Accord is a global disappointment, it is a betrayal of the poor and developing nations and a premium for the default of the developed countries”.Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh admitted to deviation in India’s stand that had been insisting on finance and technology being made available by rich countries in order to take on major reductions in green house gas emissions .,
Likewise the consept of ‘Peak Year’ came in for strong criticism.To sum up the Accord only shows the way forward with much desired to be achieved in future meetings of the Copenhagen style conferences.
Contrasting with the outcome, the climate negotiators were labouring tirelessly under two tracks viz ‘Kyoto Protocol’ and “long term cooperative Action (LAC)” that required the parties to produce legally binding treaty before the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol ends in 2012 to fix the hazardous climate change .The previously mandated gas emission targets,ensuring commitments from rich nations on new or additional financial resources to fund adaptations and mitigations in developing countries,agreement over technology to developing countries, ambitions and binding targets for rich countries beyond 2012 did not find a place in the “Accord”. Instead rich countries will commit to provide US$ 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 for funding adaptation and mitigation efforts in the developing countries and that rich countries would set up a fund that would be able to provide US$ 100 billion per year after 2020.
But the most offending clause for developing countries ‘to allow international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines on their domestic voluntary mitigation actions’ was incorporated.This could cause misunderstanding and misinterpretation in due course .
Indian Prime Minister participated in the closed door meeting with Obama and India ensured it would sign on the accord. Many of the African and Latin American countries were critical of the accord which had no reference to any targets for emission reductions by the rich countries.
Back home, the Accord was strongly criticized in parliament with Arun Jaitely saying “This Copenhagen Accord is a global disappointment, it is a betrayal of the poor and developing nations and a premium for the default of the developed countries”.Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh admitted to deviation in India’s stand that had been insisting on finance and technology being made available by rich countries in order to take on major reductions in green house gas emissions .,
Likewise the consept of ‘Peak Year’ came in for strong criticism.To sum up the Accord only shows the way forward with much desired to be achieved in future meetings of the Copenhagen style conferences.
No comments:
Post a Comment