UN Cancun Climate Convention Nov. 29 - by-passing U.S. Congress w/ draft treaty ...
that is 100% enforceable. We were warned, but are we prepared? I fear not for a sellout of this magnitude. Go ahead and ban me if you choose, but we are up sh*ts creek with no paddle. God help us now. Get ready to burn cow manure patties after they dry out while being used for insulation on your huts. Don't think it can happen? That's what they use on their "huts" outside of the Jain Temple in Calcutta.For those who thought crap n tax (cap & trade) was dead. Wrong again Alex!!! They aren't even regulating it. They are ceding US sovereignty to the UN and the world.
COPENHAGEN CLIMATE TREATY FRAMEWORK DRAFT: By the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...eaty_draft.pdfThis is the most important document - No "final" exists yet, because the work done in Copenhagen was a disaster and incomplete. Globalists are hoping to complete the work in Cancun that was started in Copenhagen. This document tells it all...
U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS "WE REDISTRIBUTE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY" http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz15hbAcXFj
G20 vows to ‘spare no effort’ for Cancun climate meetinghttp://www.canada.com/technology/vow...827/story.html
Climate progress possible in Cancun despite problems: UN
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Cl...ms_UN_999.htmlInvestors call for global climate change deal at Cancun
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/n...ncun-1934.aspx
(Notice California Teachers fund in this article...... It's not about global warming, it's about MONEY!)WHAT'S AT STAKE IN CANCUN - U.S. IS PUSHING "A NEW PARADIGM" !!!!!!!
INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON GLOBALIZATIONWhat’s at stake in Cancun?
US pushes “new paradigm” for global climate governance at UNFCCC’s COP 16 in CancunThe United States is proposing that the UN Climate Conference in Cancun (November 29-December 10) adopt a “new paradigm” for global climate governance that—if formally accepted—would fail to achieve ecological objectives, flout established UN principles of equity, and backtrack from core commitments made by both Clinton and two Bush presidencies.
What’s at stake in Cancun is the circumvention of core values in the current UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) due to US efforts to operationalize its controversial Copenhagen Accord. Instead, the US should recommit to the current UN Convention’s objective and principles, accept emissions targets based on science not skeptics, agree on transparent carbon budgets, and stand aside if it cannot lead so that the world may move on.
All governments must agree to set strong ecological limits on the global economy. The world desperately needs democratic global governance mechanisms that stand a chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our shared atmosphere. If we don’t get commitments soon, we will create atmospheric anarchy. This would permit powerful polluters to continue emitting dangerous gases that poison everyone’s atmosphere, overwhelm the natural world, and overpower the rights of poor countries and communities. If there was ever a global crisis that required cooperation by all governments, the climate crisis is it.
Yet the US approach to Cancun would put the world on an emissions pathway to increase global average temperatures more than double what scientists say we must stay below if we are to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. Africans can expect even worse. Their “new paradigm” would also abandon already agreed-upon principles of global equity by adding new obligations on to developing countries even though the US has yet to begin honoring its outstanding obligations assumed almost two decades ago.
The US “new paradigm” vs the current UN Convention for global climate governance
US “new paradigm” (Copenhagen Accord) UNFCCC (current Convention)
Ecological ObjectivesFails to fulfill UNFCCC goal to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” due to a gaping “gigaton gap” between the pledges to cut emissions based on political “red lines” vs cuts suggested by science.
Currently considering global carbon budgets to set emissions reduction targets based on what science says are ecological limits. Governments must decide what would be equitable “effort sharing” by each country.Equity Principles
All major emitters list national “pledges” to reduce emissions regardless of status as developing countries, or per person emissions that are far lower than developed countries per person emissions.
“Common but differentiated responsibilities” guide effort sharing, with developing countries bearing biggest burden due to their longer time polluting and greater capabilities.Sequence of steps
All major emitters act in unison based on what pledges they listed.Developed countries act first, and provide developing countries with finance and technology.Perhaps the world could tolerate such an approach as provisional—until the US gets its act together by creating a national climate policy—but it would be collective suicide for governments to accept it as a permanent paradigm for governing our atmosphere. Indeed, it would be the essence of irresponsibility. The US must drop this demand, recommit to the UN process, and agree to a science-based target for total emissions that the world will achieve equitably.
Undermining Ecological Integrity
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for governments to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner…Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity” where “developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.”Most recently articulated by US Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern, who reports directly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, it is not exactly clear from where in the Obama Administration the call is originating for the US to unabashedly backtrack in Cancun from the current Convention’s overall objective to establish ecological limits, and its core principle of sharing efforts equitably.
Special Envoy Stern is preparing instead to operationalize “a set of decisions” cherry-picked from the controversial Copenhagen Accord to present a “balanced package” as the main outcome from Cancun. Forged in the wake of the President’s collecting a Nobel Peace Prize for supporting multilateral approaches via the UN to global challenges like climate change, the Accord sets up a veritable suicide pact for the planet that only invites countries to “pledge” whatever actions governments are willing to put on a list, as opposed to agreeing on a global cap on carbon in accordance with what science says is most prudent.
In addition to failing to recognize the earth’s real ecological limits, it also establishes additional obligations for developing countries, even though the US has yet to deliver on its own outstanding obligations made almost two decades ago – first signed in Rio 1992 by Bush I, operationalized in part in Kyoto 1997 by Clinton-Gore, and reconfirmed most recently in Bali 2007 by Bush II.
The “pledge and review” approach fails to fulfill this essential ecological objective by only requiring countries to list pledges of what they are capable of doing given their current domestic political restraints and then later reviewing those actions to see if they were sufficient. It’s hard to see what guarantees this approach offers the world, which is supposed to peak global emissions by 2015. An approach with more ecological integrity would be for developed countries to formally accept aggregate and individual targets based on sound science so that developing countries can plan their own emissions pathways to keep within the planet’s ecological limits. But until developed countries make these commitments it is difficult and risky for developing countries to commit to legal targets for reducing their emissions since their priority remains poverty alleviation.
Copenhagen was where expectations ran high that a new United Nations agreement would get developed countries to commit to cutting their carbon emissions while providing finance and technology to developing countries wanting to avoid dirty development. China was often accused as the spoiler of a deal, but the US insisted that developing countries first accept additional obligations before acting on its own UN commitments made almost 20 years ago.
Leading developing countries gave in, agreeing to the controversial Copenhagen Accord, although the UN did not formally adopt it. Some countries considered its insufficient voluntary actions as explicitly allowing average global temperatures to increase by almost 4 degrees C (double what science says is safe). The Accord also fails to provide far from enough financial support for poor countries to overcome the higher costs of clean energy or to adapt to the existing impacts of climate change. The paradigm of the Copenhagen Accord may be a clever stitching together of political red lines that hold back each country from making commitments, but it ultimately embodies a failure to govern a looming global crisis and shows a stunning lack of leadership in finding ways to equitably share our shrinking atmospheric space.
How to avoid another Copenhagen catastrophe
Avoiding another serious setback in Cancun could depend on how hard US negotiators insist that the UN accept their proposed “new paradigm” for global climate governance. Abandoning the challenge to make tough but necessary decisions—and instead agree only to what is politically acceptable for each nation—is the definition of the absence of leadership. What the US wants most seems to be reinforcing the regime it rammed through in Copenhagen that sets the world on course to CO2 levels twice what science says is safe.World leaders need to ensure that Cancún does not merely agree on a “balanced package” defined by political restraints among nations but also firmly establishes ecological limits for our atmosphere while agreeing how to fairly share the remaining space. If there is a stalemate in the UN talks, it is because the world has been waiting for the US to live up to the word of its three previous presidents that the country would “take the lead in combating climate change,” while not standing in the way when the rest of the world is ready to advance.
Is a UN Climate Deal necessary? Is it Possible?
Governments must agree to a global cap on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, then share the remaining space equitably. Today’s global architecture for governing our atmosphere is indeed still evolving, but it’s already built our only international instrument for legally binding commitments to cut carbon and other greenhouse gases. It is established to assess what the science says then agree on how to share that shrinking atmospheric space. Also, equity is already enshrined among the core principles of the current UN Climate Convention through the concept that parties have “common but differentiating responsibilities and respective capabilities” to address the climate crisis collectively.Until now, the US has accepted the need for developed countries to “act first” before developing countries commit to any additional obligations. However, going into Cancun, the US is suddenly calling the UN’s Berlin Mandate—which specifically exempts all developing country parties from any new commitments —the “Berlin Wall” that stands in the way against any breakthrough agreements between developed and developing countries. Abandoning an already agreed on core principle at this point after nearly two decades of talks destroys trust and sends a signal that the US is not negotiating in good faith.
We need the world’s governments to come together to cap global emissions (this means agreeing to an aggressive, aggregate amount of annual cuts in carbon by the developed nations first) while also working toward a rapid transition to clean energy in developing countries by providing finance and technology. Vast variations among nations may require some sort of “equity index” with an agreed formula determining legal responsibilities transparently. But for now, the world is waiting for the US to get its act together. So, if it isn’t ready to act then it should not hold back others from acting under an already agreed framework. Bending it too much toward the political necessities of nations, risks breaking its ecological integrity.
US standing under scrutiny
If the US wants to change the Convention, it should seek a new mandate to do so. President Bush’s ties to the oil industry were well known, and climate change impacts have become even more visible under President Obama, so the world’s reaction may rock US diplomacy with even more shock and outrage than when Bush’s 2003withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.Instead, US rhetoric going into Cancun is shockingly shrill and sanctimonious. Humility is the first thing US negotiators should pack for Cancun, as America has yet to enact any national climate policy.
Indeed, much of the world perceives America as not negotiating in good faith. Once again, developing countries are being asked by the US to accept additional obligations in order to “unlock finance,” though this is an outstanding US obligation.
To make matters worse for US negotiating leverage, its unstable financial position is known all too well, particularly by Chinese finance authorities that hold US debt and publicly express anxiety anytime the Obama Administration advocates additional spending.
The US is not prepared right now to lead; still it must not hold back the world from moving ahead. It must abandon its proposed new paradigm that would ignore core convention principles of equity and ecology.
Victor Menotti
Executive Director
International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue #2
San Francisco, CA 94129 USA
Cel: +1-415-351-8065
Tel: +1-415-561-3491
Fax:+1-415-561-7651
Email: vmenotti@ifg.org
Skype: victormenotti
www.ifg.org
http://www.ifg.org/documents/Whats-a...ncun.final.doc
Thursday, November 25, 2010
UN Cancun Climate Convention Nov. 29 - by-passing U.S. Congress w/ draft treaty ... - WELL REGULATED AMERICAN MILITIAS !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment