No clear outcome of the Cancun climate talks
|
COMMENTS 
Japan’s indication that it would not be party to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol was the biggest threat to a successful outcome at Cancun
Also read:
Towards equitable sharing of atmospheric space
REDD+ is bad for climate: Indigenous groups
Japan is a top runner in the emissions reductions race
Cancun summit paves the way for global green fund
Climate summit debates transparency of climate mitigation and adaptation funds
Climate talks seek equal commitment from developed and developing nations
Despatches from Cancun, December 9, 2010: On the penultimate day of the UN climate summit, heads of leading international green NGOs hoped for an outcome, but were not very confident of obtaining one.
“The future of our children is at stake,” said Kumi Naidoo, who heads Greenpeace International. “History has called upon us to show courage: if we fail, it will be a failure of leadership.”
In answer to a question, he said that while the delegates hoped for a “package” by way of an outcome, an agreement on forests – named Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD – would be some movement forward. “However what is on the table on REDD is not acceptable,” he said. “The deal should prioritise issues for forest communities.”
Ministers from the most powerful countries, he said, had been trying to forge agreements, but there were far too many loopholes. Some countries had advanced the interests of the fossil fuel industries.
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam, said there had been a start with discussions on a global climate fund. “We are pleased with the progress to date,” he stated. “Half of these funds will be used for mitigation and the other half for adaptation to climate change.
“There are arguments that developing countries will not be able to manage such funds, which is similar to arguments used against aid, but these have been overcome. Gender has also been respected. The text has been negotiated in good faith.”
Japan, by indicating that it would not be party to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, was the biggest threat to a successful outcome at Cancun, said David Turnbull, Executive Director of Climate Action Network (CAN).
“Japan’s position was made clear from the very beginning; it was counter-productive.” Asked whether Bolivia, whose representative walked out of the talks after five minutes on Wednesday, wasn’t a bigger threat, Turnbull replied that Bolivia was only ensuring that issues remained transparent. Japan’s move was a challenge to the entire negotiations and this needed to change.
Bolivia wanted an ambitious deal at Cancun, Yolande Kakabadse, President of World Wildlife Fund International, said. “Mr Morales wants a different pattern, not the usual donor-recipient relationship (between countries which have caused climate change and those who are feeling its impact). Otherwise, he feels it will not be a clear deal.”
Coincidentally, this press conference was immediately followed by one addressed by Evo Morales, Bolivia’s President, who raised the rhetoric several notches higher. He spoke of the need to cool the planet, as he had mentioned a month ago. Different agencies and countries had to act, but nothing would change unless capitalism was done away with.
“One of the crises of capitalism is climate change,” he said. “It is an energy and food crisis. Climate change terminates life.” He called for an alliance of people mobilising from all over the world.
“It is painful to hear the complaints of my brothers and sisters: without water, there will be drought. There will not even be trees to provide shade.”
He referred to the meeting that he had recently organised at Cochabamba – Bolivia’s second biggest city, famous for successfully opposing a water privatisation scheme – where he had exhorted people not to allow nature to be turned into a commodity.
Infochange News & Features, December 2010