Campaign against Climate Change

So the Americans walk out. Good. Now they will have less opportunity to obstruct the talks. Better to have no agreement with the Americans (read Bush administration) than a dirty compromise that would throw out principals of binding targets and a cap on CO2 emissions. Any such agreement would undermine the Kyoto Protocol and be an obstacle to future agreements based on binding targets.

Forward:

Friends of the Earth International
Press Release

Immediate: Saturday 10th December 2005

KYOTO THRIVES IN MONTREAL
DESPITE LAST MINUTE GAME OF RUSSIAN ROULETTE

Government leaders in Montreal today (Saturday 10th December 2005) reached a historic agreement on future action to tackle climate change. The Montreal Action Plan (MAP) was concluded despite a last minute intervention from Russia which almost resulted in deadlock.

Negotiators worked through Friday night to reach a progressive agreement under the Kyoto Protocol, which will lead to deeper emissions cuts in the next commitment period, which starts in 2013. This Kyoto deal initiates crucial negotiations on legally binding targets for industrialised countries and also sets in motion a wider review of the entire regime involving all countries, due to be discussed at talks next year.

Agreement was also reached under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) despite the reluctance of the United States administration, which put forward new text to weaken the deal.

Friends of the Earth International Vice Chair Tony Juniper said:
“Despite Russia’s attempt to wreck the deal, this meeting has made a
historic agreement which will strengthen global resolve with legally-binding targets to take action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. It has sent a clear signal that the future lies in cleaner and more sustainable technologies and is good news for people everywhere.

“We expected progress under the Convention, but the US administration
effectively forced the rest of the world to bend over backwards to keep them on board. The result is a very weak deal.“

Friends of the Earth International Climate Change Campaigner Catherine Pearce said:“Scientific evidence clearly demands urgent action to cut the pollution that is warming our world. The international community has wisely taken these warnings seriously by agreeing to further action. This is a clear signal that the Kyoto agreement is alive and well. Leaders have shown that much-needed progress can be made. The Government of Canada deserves real
praise for the role it played in making the Montreal meeting a success.”

Late night drama (Thursday) saw the United States delegation leave the talks, in an effort to collapse negotiations under both the UN Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. On Friday further attempts to block progress saw the United States delegation table new draft text, further diluting the meaning of the deal.

But strong leadership from the Canadian President and clear resolve from other countries, including Britain, Japan and major developing countries, particularly Brazil and South Africa, made progress possible.

Countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol (all major industrialised and developing countries, except the USA and Australia) have agreed to ensure new targets on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will be in place to immediately follow the first commitment phase in 2012.

Rules governing the Kyoto Protocol’s operation (the Marrakesh Accords) were agreed in Montreal, including the legally binding nature of the regime. Countries also agreed to a review of both the Kyoto Protocol and Framework Convention to start next year.

An agreement was also reached on reform of the “Clean Development Mechanism” (the mechanism allowing industrialised countries to claim carbon credits by investing in clean energy projects in the developing world). But concerns remain about what this includes and what will be delivered.

---

These are the latest versions of the texts that are available from the UN website:

The text on Article 3.9:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/l08r01.pdf

The text on 'further discussions' including the US under the UNFCCC:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/l04r01.pdf

BBC - Last-minute climate deals reached:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4515898.stm

---

Phil England
http://coinet.org.uk/climateradio

Hello all just incase you would rather listen and watch than read. I`ve been working my way through the webcasts on the following link.

http://unfccc.streamlogics.com/unfccc/agenda.asp

Webcasts i have watched so far include:

"US Mayors climate webcast"
"Media availability of Prime Minister Martin and former President Bill Clinton"
"European Union Webcast"

BBC and Greenpeace: whose analysis is fairer?

BBC analysis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4519702.stm

Greenpeace analysis:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/
""How often does one walk into one of these things and come out at the end of it at 6 in the morning with just about everything you asked for coming in? Not very often." That was Greenpeace climate campaigner Steve Sawyer's reaction at the end of the Climate summit in Montreal."

Margaret Beckett response: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4518782.stm

A few more views on Montreal:

Mark Lynas: Montreal - Good Politics, Bad Science:
http://www.marklynas.org

Simon Retallack's final newsblog for The Guardian:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/12/12/dawn_deal.html

Aubrey Meyer, Global Commons Institute:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=1...

---

For what it's worth, here's my own take on Montreal in brief:

The most important outcome is that the US has not managed to hamper progress on moving forward with and strengthening Kyoto (despite the fact they have weakened it by not ratifying and have increased their emissions by 13-20% since 1990). Since the whole deal was in the balance right up until the end, I think this is very good news. I don't think anybody was realistically hoping for more at this stage.

The current US administration is increasingly isolated both internationally and domestically on the issue of binding emissions. Katrina has turned public opinion in the US around and we know that states, mayors and business are all signing up unilaterally to Kyoto type measures. Walking out on Thursday night did not look good and the Clinton speech just rubbed salt in the wound.

The talks about non-binding targets that the US finally agreed to are effectively meaningless, but everybody seems to think that talking is a better prospect than not talking.

What needs to happen now is that the US comes back on board after Bush leaves in early 2008 and the other Annex I (ie. developed) countries commit themselves to real cuts that are sufficient to avoid the critical 2 degrees C threshold (and take action to meet them!). The Secretariat is compilling information from countries that will inform the new targets and the world will be watching...

Phil England

---

FINAL TEXTS

Final decision on Article 3.9:
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consider...

Final decision on further dialogue under the Convention:
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cop11_00_dialogu...

Texts of all the final Montreal decisions can be found at:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php

ENB FINAL SUMMARY

Earth Negotiations Bulletin Final Detailed Summary:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12291e.html

---
Phil England
http://coinet.org.uk/climateradio

At risk of a big censure I am reproducing the following excerpts from the editorial, p3 of current New Scientist, most of which is not freely posted.

“AS DAWN heralded Saturday morning in Montreal, the latest international climate conference closed in a mood of euphoria. There were tears in the corridors. Margaret Beckett proclaimed a “diplomatic triumph” in which she had achieved all that she had hoped for. Even normally hard-boiled environmental campaigners and journalists were misty-eyed. “Historic,” said Greenpeace. “A big step forward…the US has been shamed,” said The Guardian.

“In the cold light of day we have to ask what exactly was achieved.

“First, the meeting shifted a backlog of technical matters that will allow the Kyoto protocol to come into force, such as letting rich countries earn carbon credits by financing green schemes in poor nations. Victory has been declared on these matters so often in the past that it is hard to be sure. But since there is now agreement on penalties for countries that miss their targets for the first compliance period, from 2008 to 2012, it probably is a done deal. So the talks moved on to what happens after 2012.

“Countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol agreed to begin talks aimed at reaching agreement “as soon as possible” on targets for a post-2012 compliance period. This was vital, not least because it signals to industry that it can profit for the foreseeable future by cutting carbon dioxide emissions and trading carbon credits. But it is hard to justify it as a “diplomatic triumph” when the protocol had already committed signatories to beginning those talks before 2006.

“Third, and most tortuously, the meeting agreed to begin an “open and non-binding dialogue” on how those without Kyoto targets – ranging from opt-outs in Washington and Canberra to fast-developing countries like Brazil and China – might contribute to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This was the bit that nearly derailed the Montreal talks. The US walked out because it feared being pressured during this “dialogue” to make commitments on emissions. It rejoined not because of a change of heart, nor even because of a lecture by Bill Clinton, but after winning a stipulation that the dialogue “will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments”. The White House wasn’t shamed: it won.

“The Montreal talks were no disaster, it is true. But they were certainly no triumph. It was sad to see environmentalists... getting caught up in the euphoria. Greenpeace’s Steve Sawyer echoed Beckett in claiming the talks had delivered “just about everything” he wanted. What kind of world does he advocate?

“With green groups playing politics, scientists seem to stand alone. In recent months, they have reported compelling evidence... that the global climate system may be on the brink of dangerous positive feedbacks.

“At this magazine we regularly meet climate and Earth-system scientists who harbour real fears... Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and George Bush’s top climate modeller, is not alone in thinking that we [humankind] have, as he said last week [to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union], “at most 10 years” to make the drastic cuts in emissions that might head off climatic convulsions.

“Back in 1997, the newly agreed Kyoto protocol was correctly hailed as a first step to a safer world. Eight years later we still await the second step. Montreal, for all the tears and supposed triumphs, was not it.”

in which he sets out a need for Carbon rationing and a probable need for a Churchill-style focus.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1665708,00.html

"Our best is not enough

"The pace of climate change talks is glacially slow. It's time for a global reality check"

Andrew Simms
Tuesday December 13, 2005
The Guardian