Seems there was no agreement to reduce emissions, but just "meet and talk". Developed countries proposed targets that could limit climate change to an average of two degrees Celsius. Some developed countries made this commitment conditional on major developing countries, notably China, India and Brazil, agreeing to accept binding targets. This wasn’t forthcoming, though China did, for the first time, suggest it would be prepared to accept binding intensity targets.
The dialogue between the developed and developing countries was further complicated by the developing countries most vulnerable to climate change pushing to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. This standoff ended with the developed countries, including the United States, agreeing to submit their firm emissions targets no later than the end of January. The two-degree limit would call for reductions of 25% to 40% relative to 1990 by 2020, a level deeper than any proposed at Copenhagen; the estimate of current non-binding pledges yields about a three-degree increase, so there’s a large gap to be closed. What is going to happen to the major industries reaction to this ? Improve technology to reduce emission is going to cost them in production and manufacturing and will directly pass on to the consumers. Their concerns were mitigated somewhat when the developed countries, again including the United States, agreed to fund as much as $100 billion for technology transfer to accelerate the development of low-carbon economies and adaptation measures in the developing world. The action has to be taken very carefully by these major producers. China and the United States agreed to internally measure and report on the results of their mitigation actions. While agreeing to the overall conference summary, the smaller developing countries remained skeptical that there would be sufficient commitment to even the two-degree target, which they already deemed too high for comfort. Brazil and Norway proposed an international fund to support deforestation reductions in developing countries.
The EU already is committed to 20% below 1990 levels, but has agreed to 30% if other major emitters, notably China, the United States, India and Brazil, make meaningful commitments. This higher level will mean some radical rethinking of everything from building codes to energy supply. However, while challenging domestically, the EU's overall climate policy is acting as a catalyst for some world-class businesses.
Following Copenhagen, China was criticized by many as being a major barrier to a deal. Specifically, it wasn’t ready to commit to intensity reductions or outside verification. In the same month, China established some of the most ambitious renewable energy standards anywhere in the world, backed by strong domestic policy and guidelines. This follows its recent implementation of tough vehicle efficiency standards, systematic development of high-speed rail and radical upgrading of building codes. The need to grow with far less pollution is becoming clearer to the Chinese, and they aren’t overlooking the potential world market for energy-efficient solutions and climate-friendly products.
The next conference will be in Mexico in November this year. One way or another, U.S. need to be comfortable with monitoring and managing greenhouse gas emissions as a part of their normal job responsibility, just as their bankers now have greater moral responsibility to work harder and pay back their dues, if at all, by way of reduced bonuses, where in the past they have been generously and overly remunerated.
No comments:
Post a Comment