During the talks
[Edit this paragraph] Latest progress
According to CCTV, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was not over at noon on June 5438+09, local time. Countries have reached a preliminary understanding on some issues, but the final result still needs to be confirmed by the Conference. At present, all countries agree to "record" the Copenhagen agreement.
[Edit this paragraph] Draft for comments
A few hours before the official closing of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, a draft for the final vote was exposed in advance.
Many media, including the British Guardian, have disclosed the basic contents of this draft. The author also got this three-page draft. It is reported that this passage was thrown after the leaders or representatives of 28 countries, including China, held an emergency meeting in the early morning of 18 local time. But this does not mean that the text has been accepted by all parties. In fact, the text is still being revised and updated.
Judging from the draft that has been disclosed, there are not many bright spots.
According to the draft, all parties recognize that climate change is the biggest challenge facing this era. In order to achieve the goal of controlling the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, developed countries should take the lead in taking ambitious emission reduction actions.
The draft calls on all countries in the world to take strict measures to reduce emissions and reach the peak of emissions as soon as possible. Of course, considering the needs of social and economic development and poverty eradication in developing countries, the peak time of their emissions can be appropriately delayed.
However, the draft does not specify the specific emission reduction targets of Annex 1 country (developed country) by 2020, whether based on 1990 or 2005.
For developing countries, the draft requires that national communications be submitted every two years. At the same time, the mitigation actions taken should be subject to domestic audit, supervision and evaluation, and the necessary external questions and inquiries should be answered. However, mitigation actions that receive international funds and technical assistance must be subject to international verification.
According to the draft, from 20 10 to 20 12, developed countries will provide a total of $30 billion in climate aid funds, and give priority to those developing countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, such as the least developed countries, small island countries and African countries affected by drought, desertification and floods.
In addition, on the premise of taking meaningful actions to reduce emissions and ensuring transparency in implementation, by 2020, developing countries will be provided with 654.38+000 billion US dollars of aid every year. These funds will be provided through various channels, such as government and private, bilateral and multilateral. However, it is not clear in the text whether all funds should come from developed countries.
The draft decides to set up the Copenhagen Climate Fund (CCF) as the main body to implement this financing plan. 20 16, all parties evaluated the agreement and its implementation.
A China negotiator said that this text still has more Danish color. Last week, many media disclosed that the host country Denmark took the lead and secretly prepared the text for this negotiation, which was widely criticized by public opinion because it was more inclined to developed countries.
Judging from the contents of the exposure, the substantial progress of this agreement is limited. In particular, it is undoubtedly disappointing that the emission reduction targets of developed countries have not been determined.
Secondly, the draft sets the temperature control target at 2 degrees Celsius, which is unsatisfactory for small island countries, least developed countries and the African Group. The latter strongly appeals that according to the latest scientific cognition, the temperature rise should be controlled within 65438 0.5 degrees Celsius.
[Edit this paragraph] The draft is released.
The latest Copenhagen agreement
CBN obtained the latest draft text and lacked the long-term financial support plan for developing countries.
The latest drafts of Copenhagen Accord-Long-term Cooperation Action Plan (LCA) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) put forward by the chairman of the ad hoc working group, which were exclusively obtained by CBN, were reduced from more than 200 pages to more than 30 pages.
This is the result of negotiations in the past two years. Although it is not the final version, it is the latest. More importantly, it is different from the Danish version. This is an official version, not a suggestion made by individual countries.
It is worth mentioning that in the draft KP, "Annex I countries" (that is, the industrialized countries listed in Annex I of UNFCCC) need to take 1990 as the base number, and set the values at "20 13~20 18 or 20 13~2020.
Delporte, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at yesterday's press conference that there was a gap because it was still under discussion.
However, there is no suggestion in the draft to help developing countries formulate long-term climate financing plans to deal with climate change.
Moreover, unless the negotiators of the contracting parties can make further progress on this draft within the remaining two days, ministers and leaders of all countries will face this text when they arrive next week.
Text reduction
All the famous news agencies headed by Reuters were absent from an activity of the US Secretary of Commerce. At that time, the latest draft of the Copenhagen Accord proposed by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Group was published.
Due to the closed meeting, the reporter got the latest Copenhagen draft. Compared with more than 200 pages people used to read, the draft KP has been reduced to 27 pages, while the draft LCA has only about 6 pages left. However, the expression of this text does not look like a legally binding document.
In addition to the above-mentioned emission reduction targets, in the KP draft, under the clean energy mechanism, we can see that the heated debate has reached a preliminary result: carbon capture and storage (CCS) is listed as "Scheme I" and "Scheme II" is to consider the qualification of CCS in the second commitment period.
At present, countries with relatively mature technology and similar to Saudi Arabia are in favor of including CCS in CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), but this move has been strongly opposed by climate-affected countries such as Tuvalu.
At the same time, there are three options as to whether nuclear energy should be included in the CDM mechanism, namely, from ineligible inclusion, restricted inclusion, and 1. Commercial nuclear energy after 2008 can be eligible to be included in the CDM mechanism in the second commitment period.
In addition, it is somewhat disturbing that the baseline under the clean development mechanism is still under discussion, and the description under this item is "no decision has been made".
Similarly, China is very concerned about whether to redistribute "balanced geographical distribution". At present, there are two schemes: one is undecided, and the other is detailed. The main content is to give preferential policies to the least developed countries and small island countries to a certain extent.
At this Copenhagen meeting, some delegates thought that the current clean development mechanism ratio had a negative impact on some least developed countries and suggested reforms. For example, at the meeting of the COP/MOP on the 9th, the representative of Congo pointed out that 70% of the more than 65,438+0,400 examined projects in the world are concentrated in three countries, and only 34 projects are in Africa, so it is necessary to establish a quota system for all countries.
There are still great differences in goals.
As far as the draft life cycle assessment is concerned, the figures are quite different.
For the first time, the draft reflects the problem of limiting the temperature rise insisted by small countries such as Tuvalu. The draft adopts "1.5℃ or" 2℃ ",indicating the continuation of coordination work.
Secondly, based on the global emission reduction target 1990, the global emission reduction targets of 50%, 85% and 95% will be listed by 2050.
Developing countries as a whole need to reduce emissions by 75%~85% on the basis of 1990, and at least 80%~95% or more by 2050.
The description of the overall peak year has only become "as soon as possible".
To the disappointment of developing countries, the long-term funding target is written as "to be explained" in the draft.
In addition, the issues of MRV and science and technology in developing countries have not been covered and explained clearly.
Hill, Oxfam International Senior Climate Consultant, told CBN: "These suggestions have huge loopholes, especially in the long-term financing plan. The climate change fund is very important for truly reaching an agreement. "
In terms of short-term quick funds, the draft is also replaced by two XX.
"The core of this draft does not guarantee that the Copenhagen conference will start practical actions." Hill said that a new legal agreement is needed, not more deliberate delays.
At present, the news from the EU delegation said that at the EU summit in Brussels, European leaders had indicated that they would provide 7.2 billion euros (about 1 1 billion dollars) to help developing countries with climate financing, which is one third of about 30 billion dollars needed in 20 10.
The United States also said last week that it would pay enough fair financing funds.
At the press conference just held, Delporte, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that the EU's move greatly promoted the victory of Copenhagen, and "we need to see how other rich countries will play their cards".
"This draft provides a basis for making correct political decisions," Casterson, head of the global climate action plan of the World Wide Fund for Nature, told CBN. Although there are still defects and some cracks, it still clearly shows that there is still hope to reach an agreement. "
These shortcomings are now obvious and need political will and practical financial commitment to make up. But we still don't know the amount and source of these funds. Casterson said, "Only when the negotiations become fair, open and transparent can Copenhagen reach a real agreement. At the same time, we also understand that quite a few countries will be dissatisfied with the proposal in the draft. But what is important is that this text already exists, and its content may help restart the deadlocked negotiations. "
[Edit this paragraph ]WWF Interpretation
They told us it was over, but it wasn't, said the head of global climate action of WWF. Copenhagen has become a place for these political leaders to play the same old tune! The biggest challenge is to turn political will into a legally binding agreement between now and next year. After years of negotiations, we only got a weak statement of will, which can not provide any guarantee for our future generations to have a safer future. In the past, there were some beautiful illusions about the Copenhagen negotiations, that is, most countries promised to carry out climate change actions at the national level. From a political point of view, the world we live in agrees to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, but in fact our current commitments and actions will raise the temperature by as much as 3 degrees Celsius or more. The gap between words and reality will take millions of lives, bring hundreds of billions of economic losses and many lost opportunities. We are very disappointed, but there is still hope. Civil society will continue to monitor every step of the future negotiations, and political leaders must work actively and immediately. To make great achievements in the future, we need the joint efforts of developed and developing countries. We hope that Mexico, the host country of the next summit, can play this role!
[Edit this paragraph] Four key steps
In Bali in 2007, 192 States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change pledged to start negotiations on measures to strengthen the response to climate change. The above process will end with an ambitious negotiation agreement at the end of 2009, which needs to be implemented before 20 13 1.
Therefore, we only have nine months to complete the most complicated international negotiations in the world today. Last year, negotiators had a deeper understanding of the different goals of the action plan they reached in Bali, and completed the collection of ideas and suggestions. At present, the similarities of the above political processes have gradually surfaced. These similarities will form the basis for reaching a preliminary draft agreement, which will be submitted in Bonn in June this year.
In order to take effect before 20 13, the Copenhagen agreement must meet the political requirements of all participating countries. In order to achieve this goal, four political points need to be clarified this year.
First of all, it is necessary to define ambitious and legally binding emission reduction targets of industrialized countries. Without such a goal, the international community will not be able to take the necessary actions to deal with climate change, and developing countries will not believe that industrialized countries are willing to take the lead in solving problems caused by themselves.
There are some positive signs in this regard. For example, the EU has agreed in principle to a climate and energy plan, which stipulates that the EU will achieve the goal of reducing emissions by 20% at the level of 1990 by 2020 (if other industrialized countries do the same, they will achieve the goal of reducing emissions by 30%). ) In the United States, President Obama said that he would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and proposed that American emissions should return to the level of 1990 by 2020. Other countries, such as Russia and Japan, will announce medium-term emission reduction targets before the end of this year.
Secondly, it is very important to know the degree of mitigation measures that major developing countries can take in addition to existing measures according to their own national conditions. For many developed countries, especially the United States, it is hard to expect to reach an agreement if their people do not witness the willingness of major developing countries to carry out in-depth cooperation.
Some developing countries, such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa, have formulated national climate or energy strategies, which show the extent to which they can solve problems under the constraints of economic factors. Many developing countries have put forward ideas on further national mitigation measures that they can take.
Third, we must clarify the mode of capital supply. The scale of action in developing countries largely depends on whether international cooperation can effectively provide funds and clean technologies. We need to know how to raise meaningful financial resources to help developing countries adapt to the impact of climate change while controlling emissions growth.
There are also some interesting ideas circulating at present. For example, industrialized countries proposed to auction emission rights and use part of the income for international cooperation-Germany has already implemented this practice. The United States also put forward this concept in the Lieberman-Warner Act as an example of the draft climate change law. Norway has put forward a proposal to monetize part of the emission budget of industrialized countries, which can meet the funding needs of international cooperation.
Emissions trading and market mechanisms will continue to play a role. However, the Bali Action Plan emphasizes the need for developing countries to take mitigation measures suitable for their national conditions. Since the carbon emission market is not the only way, we also need intergovernmental cooperation.
Finally, it is necessary to clarify the governance structure adopted under the framework of the Convention. If it is necessary to invest important financial resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation, developing countries will demand the right to express their opinions on how to allocate and use these funds. The democratic principle must be the basis of the governance structure, while the democratic principle is based on equality.
This year's intensive negotiations will involve many other important concerns. But clarifying the above four areas will be the key to the success of Copenhagen.
[Edit this paragraph] was not adopted.
2009 12 19 According to sources, as of the early morning local time, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is negotiating some details of the final document, which will be submitted to the General Assembly for voting. After all-night negotiations, at 8 am local time, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen, chairman of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, announced that the draft Copenhagen Accord had not been adopted.
[Edit this paragraph] Differences still exist.
Comprehensive news: After all-night negotiations, at 8 am local time 19, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen announced that the draft Copenhagen Accord had not been adopted.
Earlier, it was reported that leaders and ministers of 28 countries burned the midnight oil on 18 and finalized a draft agreement on climate change, expecting more than 100 leaders around the world to sign it.
19 On the last day of the meeting, the chairman of the meeting, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen, announced that he would discuss the draft Copenhagen Accord and vote on it. The draft agreement *** 10 page, including the long-term goal of global temperature control, the mandatory emission reduction target of developed countries, the financial support of developed countries and so on. However, it is reported that the parties have great differences on the content of this draft agreement.
[Edit this paragraph] to express disappointment.
Environmental groups expressed disappointment at the Copenhagen agreement.
Many environmental protection organizations and trade associations are dissatisfied with the agreement, arguing that it is not enough to issue a non-legally binding statement, nor is it enough to provide a clear signal to the world.
In response to the Copenhagen Accord reached by the United States, China, India, South Africa and Brazil on February 19, 65438, many environmental protection organizations expressed their disappointment at the first time.
"Without fairness, ambition, not to mention legally binding, leaders of various countries have not fulfilled their responsibilities on climate change." Kumi Naidoo, global director-general of Greenpeace, said, "Today, none of them can avoid catastrophic climate change."
Kim Cartensen, the head of global climate action of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), had previously expressed optimism about the prospects of the negotiations, but he could not hide his disappointment.
In his view, after years of negotiations, what we finally got was a "non-legally binding" will statement, which could not provide any security guarantee for our future generations.
Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, also believes that the commitment of $654.38+000 billion is "just a beautiful goal, not a commitment."
In addition, as an industry association, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) said that this "temporary agreement" with only two pieces of paper is not enough to provide a clear signal to the market and investors.
Steve Sawyer, the chairman of the agency, told the author, "We need to listen to the voices of other 188 countries".
He also believes that a clear long-term political commitment to use renewable energy to reduce emissions will lead to more private investment in clean technology, "and a weak agreement will miss the opportunity of energy technology reform."
Jake Jake Schmidt, director of international climate policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the political declaration a "step forward", although it was enough for NDRC.
Considering what the United States has done in the past eight years, its attitude towards climate negotiations has changed a lot. Obama needs such a declaration, so that the US Senate can pass the energy and climate bill next spring, and the goal of reducing emissions by 17% on the basis of 2005 can be written into domestic law by 2020, thus making the commitment of reducing emissions in the United States practical.
Yang Fuqiang, director of the Global Climate Change Response Program of WWF, pointed out that this is the product of political compromise. As expected, a fair, just and legally binding agreement could not be reached. But the agreement at least "talks about something", such as the annual aid plan of 654.38 billion US dollars, and the emission reduction targets are at least figures, which were empty before, especially in the United States.
[Edit this paragraph] An imperfect ending
Greenpeace 12 19 strongly condemned the arrogant attitude of "accept the agreement or give up" shown by developed countries at the Copenhagen climate summit. Although the heads of developed countries claimed to have reached an agreement and got up for the airport, the Copenhagen climate summit failed to produce a legally binding agreement. What is left to people is still confusion and confusion.
Kumi Naidoo, Director-General of Greenpeace International, warned that the world is facing a crisis dominated by developed countries. The leaders of these countries did not consider the future interests of hundreds of millions of people in the world, and reached a historic climate agreement to avoid climate deterioration, but betrayed the present and future interests of the people in the world and avoided directly facing thorny issues.
Greenpeace said in a statement that the current agreement does not contain effective measures to urge developed countries to reduce emissions, which is a huge concession to those polluting industries.
Greenpeace's statement also said that although the agreement on climate issues will continue to be discussed next year, the Copenhagen Climate Summit failed to reach a "legally binding document", which really missed an excellent opportunity.
The organization also acknowledges that the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Summit also contains some "positive factors", such as the provisions on the establishment of a new climate fund institution and the agreement of developing countries on the large-scale funds needed to improve the climate, so that developing countries can protect their own forests, gradually embark on a low-carbon development path and help them adapt to the impact of climate change.
The full name of the Copenhagen World Climate Conference is15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which was held in Copenhagen, Denmark on February 7-18th, 2009. 192 negotiators held a summit to discuss the follow-up plan after the first phase of the Kyoto protocol expires, that is, the global emission reduction agreement from 20 12 to 2020.
Full name:15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Schedule: February 7, 2009 18- 18.
Venue: Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
Participants: 85 heads of state or government and environment ministers from 192 countries attended the meeting.
Focus: The main problem focuses on responsibility.
Objective: To discuss the follow-up plan after the expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol and sign a new agreement on future global action against climate change.
Structure and Member States: Up to now, 192 countries have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Partners: Cooperate with the Global Environment Facility to transfer funds to poor countries to support their emission reduction.
Objectives and expected goals:
Officials will reach a new agreement on climate change after the end of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol in 20 12 as a follow-up plan. Delporte, Secretary General of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, believes that at this meeting, the international community needs to reach an agreement on the following four points:
Global warming 1. What is the greenhouse gas emission reduction in industrialized countries?
2. How should major developing countries like China and India control greenhouse gas emissions?
3. How can developing countries be funded to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change?
4. How to manage this fund?
Focus problem
Focus problem The main problem focuses on "responsibility * * *".
Climate scientists say that the world must stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions and start reducing them between 20 15 and 2020. Scientists predict that in order to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 2℃, by 2050, the global greenhouse gas emission reduction needs to reach 80% of the level of 1990.
But which countries should reduce emissions? How much should we reduce emissions? For example, China, whose economy is growing rapidly, has recently surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. But in history, the United States has emitted the most greenhouse gases, far exceeding China. In addition, China's per capita emissions are only about a quarter of that of the United States.
The government of China [2] believes that, morally speaking, China has the right to develop its economy and continue to grow, and it is inevitable to increase its carbon emissions. In addition, industrialized countries "outsource" their carbon emissions to developing countries-China does a lot of carbon-intensive manufacturing for western buyers. Countries that are consumers should be responsible for the carbon emissions generated in the process of manufacturing products, not countries that export these products.
Such problems will affect the success of COP 15. At the same time, some people suspect that any measures to deal with climate change may seem trivial and too late. According to the Guardian's questionnaire survey, nearly 90% of climatologists do not believe that the global average temperature can be prevented from rising by 2℃ through political means. According to the level defined by the European Union, 2℃ means "danger".
On July 7th, 2007, a global concert called "Climate Crisis" was held, which called for people to take action to control global warming. Peter Hillary, a descendant of Edmund Hillary, a New Zealander, and Jamlin Nogai, a descendant of tenzing norgay, a Nepalese tour guide, said the day before yesterday that global warming is rapidly changing the face of Mount Everest, the world's highest peak, so that they can hardly recognize it.
Sir Hillary's son, Peter Hillary, who has climbed Mount Everest twice, said, "It is a fact that climate change is happening. The base camp used to be 5320 meters, but this year the height dropped to 5280 meters, all because the glaciers are melting from top to bottom. The height of the base camp is still declining every year. "
Jamlin Nogai, who also reached the summit of Mount Qomolangma, said that the changes on Mount Qomolangma are a harbinger that climate change will change the earth.
1953 On May 29th, Sir Hillary Clinton and Nogai climbed Mount Everest for the first time. In the past 20 years, the glacier where they set up their tent has retreated three miles. Scientists believe that in the next 50 years, if the current melting rate remains unchanged, those Himalayan glaciers that are half a mile to three miles long will melt into pieces of snow.
To make matters worse, melting glaciers will have an impact on people living in the Himalayas in India and China. On the one hand, landscape changes; On the other hand, a large amount of glacial meltwater forms a large lake in the local area, which poses a potential flood threat. According to the survey of the United Nations, more than 200 glaciers and lakes in the Himalayan region are threatened by floods. Scientists estimate that today's floods are 20 times stronger than the floods that caused disasters in 1985.
Peter Hillary said: "I once saw glacial lake water break through the bank with my own eyes, which had disastrous consequences." The scene was like an exploding atomic bomb, which destroyed everything. Today, unfortunately, the destructive power of the floods we may face is incomparable in the past. "