MCLC: climate talks

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: kirk (denton.2 at osu.edu)
Subject: climate talks
***********************************************************

Source: NYT (12/7/11):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/science/earth/at-climate-talks-a-familiar
-standoff-emerges-between-the-united-states-and-china.html

At Climate Talks, a Familiar Standoff Between U.S. and China
By JOHN M. BRODER

DURBAN, South Africa ‹ China, the world¹s biggest greenhouse gas emitter,
has once again emerged as the biggest puzzle at internationalclimate
change talks 
<http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php>, sending
ambiguous signals about the role it intends to play in future
negotiations. This week, the nation¹s top climate envoy said
<http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/12/05/china-shakes-durban-climate-talks/>
 that China would be open to signing a formal treaty limiting emissions
after 2020 ‹ but laid down conditions for doing so that are unlikely ever
to be met.

China¹s lead negotiator at the United Nations climate change talks here,
Xie Zhenhua, said that China was prepared to enter into a legally binding
agreement after current voluntary programs expire at the end of the
decade, seemingly a major step. China has always contended that because of
its rapid economic growth and the persistent poverty of millions of its
citizens, it cannot be bound by the same emissions standards as advanced
industrialized nations.

Mr. Xie outlined five conditions under which China would consider joining
such a treaty as a full partner, the major one being that China and other
rapidly growing economies must be treated differently from the so-called
rich countries. But that has been a deal-breaker for the United States for
years and is the central reason that the Senate refused to even consider
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement whose goal, still unmet, is
to limit global greenhouse gas emissions.

³These conditions are not new,² Mr. Xie acknowledged at a briefing here
where more than 190 nations are gathered for the 17th annual conference of
parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
<http://unfccc.int/2860.php>. ³These have been negotiated for the past 20
years.

³What is most important so far is to implement existing commitments and
review efforts undertaken by the parties, and after that we can think
about what should be done after 2020 and beyond.²

Todd D. Stern, the American climate change envoy, said that the United
States would be happy to discuss a formal treaty and then spelled out his
conditions, which also were not new and appeared to rule out any sort of
deal like that envisioned by Mr. Xie.

For a legally binding agreement to take hold, ³it¹s going to be absolutely
critical that it applies to all the major players, and China obviously is
one of them,² Mr. Stern said at a briefing.

³All the major players are going to have to be in with obligations, with
commitments that have the same legal force,² he added. ³And that means
there¹s no conditionality, they¹re not conditional on receiving technology
or financing, there¹s no trap doors, there¹s no Swiss cheese in that kind
of an agreement.²

The dispute between the United States and China, the two largest sources
of the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, has
come to be an enduring feature of these negotiations and a source of deep
frustration for the other players.

Jo Leinen, the German Social Democrat who leads the delegation from the
European Parliament, lashed out at both superpowers on Wednesday afternoon.

³What is really frustrating to see is this conference is again hijacked by
the Ping-Pong game between the U.S. and China,² he said. ³It is
unacceptable and no more tolerable that this game is blocking the overall
process. Now that China has done some moves, let¹s test their seriousness.
I don¹t see the same commitment, the same signals from the U.S. The one is
not yet ready; the other is not willing. We really have a problem.²

The standoff has threatened to derail the process in each of the past
several years, but at the end of the two-week session the parties usually
pull back from the brink and announce an incremental, face-saving deal.
This year¹s talks appear headed for the same sort of conclusion.

Negotiators appear close to agreeing on how to structure a fund that is
supposed to generate $100 billion a year in public and private financing
for climate change programs by 2020. They have also made progress on
programs to save tropical forests from clear-cutting, transfer
clean-energy technology to emerging nations and refine systems for
verifying that countries are taking steps to cut emissions.

The holy grail of these talks, a global treaty encompassing all nations
and limiting temperature rise to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above
pre-industrial levels, appears as elusive as ever.

Weary of the inconclusive jousting on a treaty with teeth, many delegates
and observers say that small progress may not be a bad thing.

Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Energy and
Climate Solutions <http://www.c2es.org/>, a private research and advocacy
group in Washington, said that while a legal treaty remained an important
prod to action, it should not get in the way of more immediate steps.

³This preoccupation with Œbinding¹ has become more an obstacle than a
means of progress,² he said in an e-mail. ³The reality is that key players
including the United States and China are not prepared at this stage to
take on binding commitments to reduce their emissions.

³Rather than arguing over that year after year, we should focus on
strengthening the international climate framework step by step.²