Nylva Hiruela / Liliane Spendel, environmental director of Friends of the Earth and Hector Prado, Technical Change and Energy, recently returned from Cancun and mobilization coordinator, reflect on the consequences of Summit on Climate Change Cancun, COP 16 (16th edition of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or rganizers by the United Nations and held between 29 November and 10 December in Mexico.
Question. At the summit in Cancun, the most critical weather decisions (reducing greenhouse gas emissions, FUNDING ny forests) have again been postponed to the next conference in a year in South Africa. Has anything really served to cash in on climate change this Summit?
Hector Prado. The two main areas: emissions reduction and financing for adaptation funds [for mitigation and technology transfer to poor countries] that are the most intricate and political lack of progress. On the issue that has most advanced the REDD [Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation] to include forests in the carbon market. This Summit has not served because it has tried to make an extension of the Copenhagen agreement, as it has tried to introduce many points that were covered by this agreement.
P . Canada, Japan and Russia have warned they will not accept a second commitment under Kyoto, which expires in 2012, and the United States refuses to ratify it.
How do you see the future of the Kyoto Protocol and the future of the fight against climate change?
HP. The Kyoto Protocol is the only tool that is legally binding and ratified by 192 countries. We believe that if it reaches a second Kyoto period, which is expected to be negotiated in 2011 at the next conference in Durban (South Africa), will be even weaker than it is now. Every time we see greater commodification of the planet, since it will probably start adding new mechanisms to reduce emissions [currently there are three, including emissions trading] as REDD, trade in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Spendel Liliane. It is very important to follow a binding agreement. The good thing about Kyoto is that it looked like this, so that countries not meeting had to pay for emissions that had not reduced. What happens is that on one hand, we want to continue with the Kyoto Protocol precisely because it is binding, but do not want to be weaker by market mechanisms, ultimately it makes when a company can buy emission rights to final analysis, does not effectively reduce their emissions, Therefore, although the country pay large sums of money, does not reduce their net emissions.
P. Deforestation is currently responsible for 18% of carbon emissions. At the Cancun Summit seems to have recognized this problem but have not yet defined the details of the new financial instrument REDD, however, is widely rejected by environmental and indigenous organizations. REDD What is and why it is rejected?
HP . The problem is that this as it is raised and is being developed in many areas where it is operation and in Southeast Asia, or Latin America, carried out a land snatch communities that depend on these ecosystems, which are taken from there. Basically what you are doing is paying a company to stop deforestation, this leads to some companies choose to make such plantation crops like palm oil. You are like a forest that no longer are, because they are planting, and any ecosystem that had been there is gone, and there are trees of one species than good if they are doing the exchange of oxygen ... but that obviously is referred to REDD a very commercialized.
LS. Sure, we're not against protecting forests is the opposite. What happens is that forests through these mechanisms go into private hands, when they should be protected from public funds, and in any case the protection of forests and the money can go for that accounting for firms or countries to stop reduce their emissions, because it represents really the privatization of forests, and up to backfire because they would pay would continue emitting greenhouse gases.
P. From Friends of the Earth speak of the outcome of the Cancun summit climate puts on sale, why?
HP . Because we're seeing the process as being developed after 16 COP is proving that everything ends up with a price. Marketing is over the air space, are now introducing these REDD mechanisms, involving the marketing of forest and within the next four days could be water. The interest ended up being not so much to what science is recommending, but try to go to business again, looking the Arabian tactics and tricks to try to circumvent the actual domestic emissions reductions.
P. How do carbon markets?
HP Stated simply: there is a country, such that it agrees and has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and committing itself to reducing its emissions in a given time. Spain in particular are committed to a reduction of 15% for 2008-2012 compared to 1990.
If for example the country is that time is running out and is far from the objectives in reducing gases, it is through the carbon markets. These are like a bag carbon. The country could buy the remaining countries with emissions, for example, the countries that due to the economic crisis have been fewer. For example, a power plant in Ukraine had a quota of 2,000 tons of carbon has not reached the end or the middle, then you can sell these 1,000 remaining. Comes another country that has not reached the objective, and decide to buy.
Spain to meet Kyoto Protocol would have to invest between 700 and 800 million "buying air" to achieve its objectives.
P. has agreed to create Climate a Green Fund with a commitment to supply it than 100,000 million dollars by 2020 Why create this fund and how values \u200b\u200bClimate Friends of the Earth that will be managed by the World Bank?
HP . Is created because there is a historical and moral debt of developed countries to poor countries that must be helped to adapt to tackle Climate Change. First it should be noted that the amount is insufficient, and second, that these funds are managed precisely by those favoring these countries are suffering further consequences climate change, such as the IMF [International Monetary Fund] or the World Bank is absurd and illogical.
FoE calls that any funds that are made for adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer to poor countries is not managed under any circumstances for an international body like the World Bank.
LS. In addition the World Bank is an entity that is funded projects with a high degree of environmental impact, particularly for the climate. It is characterized by a lack of total transparency and a fund to help the South in any case should be handled by an institution so opaque and so little concerned about the environment. It can not work.
P. Friends of the Earth urges the enactment of "laws of climate," National. What is it and why do you think is a fair and effective alternative?
HP . Because we think it can propose a law to reduce emissions at the state level or regional level is the most effective way to ensure that emissions reduction is taking place "at home" and is not depending on the taxpayers pay million to buy a country air. It is an idea that just out of a hat, but is now a reality and is operating in the UK or Scotland. It's about making a budget of carbon in which each industry can emit X tons of carbon, this requires that the sectors are in contact with each other because they share this responsibility. These laws are internalized climate emissions reductions.
P . Bolivia is the only nation that has rejected the agreement claiming that Cancun can not accept an agreement that "could bring the global average temperature increased more than four degrees." How does the position of Bolivia at the Summit?
HP From Friends of the Earth have shown the most support to Bolivia, he has been suffering a lot of pressure throughout the Summit, including countries which would be the environment such as the ALBA [Alliance Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of the Americas] that have made things difficult, thanks to the wiles of countries like U.S. whose position has been if you support what we say is not going to get money from an adaptation fund. And we have supported this country because in the background were the only ones who have rejected the agreement not rebellion, but by common sense and that, as things are now planned increase in global average temperature in the future may be 4 or 5 degrees. We believe that the position of Bolivia has been very brave, and has rejected the agreement because it believes that it takes into account neither the people nor to science, only to markets.
We are also very disappointed that the last time the United Nations have begun to question what it meant and what it meant consensus multilateralism.
P . Bolivia, hosted the World Conference of Peoples on Climate Change and Human Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba in April this year, which set more ambitious goals such as reduction of at least 40% of C02 emissions by 2020. you had any account of this agreement by industrialized countries by an international body?
HP . No, because the United Nations also sees it as a valid agreement because it believes that many parties are not represented. But the curious thing about this is that we have 16 COP and have achieved very little and yet about 7,000 people in two days have been able to agree on many things bringing the voices of communities and activists from around the world. It gives you to think a little goes a process and how the UN is and how advanced the process of people, in which it seems everyone has more or less clear.
LS. We also have to mention the double standards being applied, because what is called the Copenhagen Agreement, which also represented the whole country, that itself has been included in the agreement in Cancun. So the argument that it represented all the parties [People's World Conference on Climate Change] is not valid.
P. Focusing on the EU Can you defend the fight against climate change and also extend aid to the coal until 2018 (the ceiling was 2014)? Because we speak of a high investments, in fact, the Commission estimates that around 2,900 million in 2008. LS
Friends of the Earth calls on the EU to commit to reducing emissions by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990. One possible but applying important measures. If the amount of money to be applied to dirty energy was invested in clean energy, we would move on the path towards reducing emissions in the EU, and in particular in Spain. Speaking of which, leads me to talk about consistency within the English government. The Minister of Environment, Rosa Aguilar, has supported a 30% reduction for the EU in 2020. Which constitutes an important step, but we ask that if the minister advocates a 30% to the EU, should also be applied to Spain, with a particular change in the energy and transport.
Read more ...
Poor countries suffer most from the consequences of climate change and who have fewer resources to do the front. UNFCCC United Nations embodies the principle "Responsibility Common but Differentiated ", for it recognizes that most emissions of greenhouse gases in the world, historically, has originated in developed countries. Among the major issuers include the United States, with 29% of total cumulative emissions from the atmosphere, and the European Union, with 27%
cumulative CO2 emissions 1850-2005
Tons of CO2 per person
North America: 1073.0
Europe Oceania
588.8: 420.4
East North Africa and Middle : 85.5
Central America and Caribbean: 84.7
South America: 67.5
Asia : 61.6
Saharan Africa: 24.0
Source: Friends of the Earth
Hiruela Nylva Stock.
0 comments:
Post a Comment