World Leaders Back Delay to Final Climate Deal
SINGAPORE - U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders on Sunday rallied around plans to avert a failure at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen that would delay legally binding agreements until 2010 or even later.
"Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we
must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let
ourselves be distracted by what is not possible," Danish Prime Minister
Lars Lokke Rasmussen told the leaders.
"The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion," said the Copenhagen talks host, who flew into Singapore overnight to lay out his proposal over breakfast at an Asia-Pacific summit.
Rasmussen's two-step plan would pave the way for a political accord at the December 7-18 talks, followed by tortuous haggling over legally binding commitments on targets, finance and technology transfer on a slower track, though still with a deadline.
In particular, it would give breathing space for the U.S. Senate to pass carbon-capping legislation, allowing the Obama administration to bring a 2020 target and financing pledges to the table at a major U.N. climate meeting in Bonn in mid-2010.
Analysts say it needs to pass through the Senate early next year to avoid becoming pushed aside in the run-up to mid-term elections.
"There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days," senior U.S. negotiator Michael Froman told reporters after the meeting, which was attended by leaders of the United States, China, Japan, Russia, Mexico, Australia and Indonesia.
"We believe it is better to have something good than to have nothing at all," Chilean Foreign Minister Mariano Fernandez said.
"TIME FOR LEADERS TO STEP IN"
Copenhagen was seen as the last chance for countries to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and put in place painful measures needed to fight a rise in temperatures that would bring more rising sea levels, floods and droughts.
The aim of the summit is to set ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gases, but also to raise funds to help poor countries tackle global warming.
However, negotiations have been bogged down, with developing nations accusing the rich world of failing to set themselves deep enough 2020 goals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
"Leaders ... were clear in their view that the current officials-led process is running into all sorts of difficulties, and therefore it is time for leaders, politically, to step in," Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told reporters after the meeting with Rasmussen.
It was not clear if China, now the world's biggest carbons emitter, had lined up behind the two-stage proposal in Singapore.
Chinese President Hu Jintao instead focussed his remarks at the breakfast meeting on the need to establish a funding mechanism for rich nations to provide financial support to developing countries to fight climate change.
He was echoed by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who said that if an agreement could be reached on a mechanism for global financing at Copenhagen it would be "much easier to achieve clear and pragmatic measures."
Their comments came a day after the presidents of France and Brazil, in a joint document, called for "substantial" financial help from richer countries to help them tackle emissions.
NEW DEADLINE COULD SLIP
Despite the talk in Singapore of urgent action on climate change, a statement issued after the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit dropped an earlier draft's reference to halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Environmental lobby group WWF voiced disappointment.
"At APEC, there was far too much talk about delay, and what won't be accomplished in Copenhagen," spokesperson Diane McFadzien said in a statement. "This does not look like a smart strategy to win the fight against climate change."
"In Copenhagen, governments need to create a legally binding framework with an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol. Legally binding is the only thing that will do if we want to see real action to save the planet."
Rasmussen said a two-step approach would not mean a "partial" agreement in Copenhagen and insisted that it would be binding.
However, analysts said a new deadline could slip if Washington's political will to agree on emissions targets and carbon cap-and-trade fades, which would be a particular risk if the U.S. economic recovery falters.
There is also a risk of growing frustration from developing countries which accuse rich nations of not doing enough to fight climate or help poorer states adapt to its impacts.
(Additional reporting by David Fogarty, Oleg Shchedrov, Yoo Choonsik and Lucy Hornby; Writing by John Chalmers; Editing by Neil Chatterjee)
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is it still considered objective or neutral to call these people "leaders"?
Holding elective office would seem an unrelated function.
Why would our so called "leaders" make a meaningful climate agreement? What are the immediate consequences if they do nothing? There appears to be no immediate ramifications for blowing off creating an meaningful agreement.
Is any group out there going to commit to civil disobedience or ratepayer boycotts to shutdown coal mining, tar sands or dirty coal power plants?
Is there any call from any enviro or social rights groups to all their millions of members for an all out boycott of any non-essential consumer goods worldwide until there is a meaningful new agreement? NO.
This would be the optimal time to call for such a boycott because it could really hurt the economy and thus Congress's next election in November 2010. How about it Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra Club, WWF, etc?
Is organized labor anywhere in the world calling for a new agreement or else they will shutdown commerce for a bit?
How about that Blue Green Alliance, Steelworkers, Longshoremen?
See. No consequences for these losers we call leaders if they do nothing. So, they will most likely do nothing.
Let us know if anything changes.
tick, tick, tick,,,,,,,
Politicians:
as you can plainly see I have nothing up my sleeves.
"focus on what is possible and not let ourselves be distracted by what is not possible,"
Lowering expectations.
Focusing on the possible means settling for the status quo. Focusing on the impossible means settling for the possible.
if we're waiting for the Congress to save the world from global warming we can forget about it. "History's page will be recraved in stone."
The USA has now become the USC - The United States of Coporations.
“ We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect marketplace, establish Profits, insure workforce instability, provide for the common defence of corporate profits, promote the general Welfare of the Wealthy, and secure the Blessings of Greed to ourselves and our subsidiaries, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Corporations.
In Greed we Trust."
Well said. Maybe we should add the pledge of allegiance: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States Corporations of America, and to the corporate Republic that now stands, one nation, indivisible, under war, with liberty and justice for all.
I just wanted to say very witty!!!!
You used humor to tell the truth. The United States of Corporations I will have to remember that.
I love it!Tragic but true.Tony
I think it's time we told Obama and the Congress that the American people are serious about global warming, even if they're only serious about fattening their bank accounts. It's time we started working on a one-day general strike. There may be nearly 20% unemployment but the bankers would still be a little inconvenienced if their tellers didn't show up for work and the bomb makers wouldn't be happy if they lost a day of stockpiling....
"...Legally binding is the only thing that will do if we want to see real action to save the planet."
----------------
You want a legally binding agreement with the U.S.?
We spit on the Geneva Conventions.
Defecate on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Shred the Convention Against Torture.
Set fire to our own Constitution.
And blame other nations while we violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement.
A legally binding agreement with the U.S. is worth less than a handshake with a con-man.
It's the same old story.....just ask the Native Americans how meaningful a treaty with the United States is.
Once you understand it then you got it. Once you got it you don't need it, & don't even worry about it.
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.
The nations are bickering about three seemingly conflicting goals: Economic development in the U.S.; aid to third world countries; and reducing carbon emissions. No-- all three goals can be met at the same time! A massive worldwide effort to build green technology and energy would do it. Ah humans-- will they bicker themselves to extinction?
Do you actually think the fossil fuel fascists are going to walk away from trillions in profits for the sake of the common good? Not likely in my lifetime. When is enough enough?
The fossil fuel fascists (FFF's) have two choices, as I see it: Shrink now, in an organized and dignified manner, or go down with the rest of the planet, in a blaze of chaos.
they don't care - they probably think the world has another 100-150 years before it blows up - and by that time there will be an international space station or colony on the moon -----
and lo and behold there are only a few spots open....
One guess who will get those seats?
Don't I wish! That is a near best case scenario.
I'd chip in for solid ox if they go now.