GWPF | 15 Dec 2014
UN Adopts ‘Toothless’ Climate Deal After Negotiations Fell Apart
Another city; pretty much the same outcome. The great climate change debate has rumbled along from Rio to Kyoto, through Copenhagen and on to Lima, without the breakthrough that campaigners have sought. There was an agreement of sorts in Peru, but nothing that lived up to the billing. —Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 15 December 2014
Lima is just yet another re-enactment of the three-stage ritual that has become only too familiar over the past 20 years. First, we are treated to months of ludicrously unscientific hype, telling us that the threat of global warming is now worse than ever. Then, they all gather in some agreeable venue, for the “developing” nations – led by China and India – to say they will only play ball if the “developed” world, led by the EU, the US and Japan, pays them $100 billion a year to curb their “carbon emissions”. In days of acrimony and stupefying boredom it emerges that the rich countries aren’t really intending to deliver. Finally, at the eleventh hour – or more likely 4 o’clock in the morning – a “breakthrough” is announced. Everyone has finally agreed on a meaningless document that commits no one to anything. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 14 December 2014
In typical fashion, the United Nations climate summit failed to make any real headway on a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming. Instead, delegates from 194 countries walked away with a non-binding agreement to come back and negotiate again next year. Some environmentalists and media outlets have tried to spin the agreement reached in Lima, Peru this weekend as a big step towards a real global warming treaty, but critics argue the failed climate summit was no surprise. “The Lima agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality,” said Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. “The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 15 December 2014
1) Loophole In UN Climate Deal Lets Countries Avoid CO2 Targets – The Times, 15 December 2014
2) UN Adopts ‘Toothless’ Climate Deal After Negotiations Fell Apart – Daily Caller News, 15 December 2014
3) New Climate Deal Addresses Demands Of Developing Nations: India – Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
4) Editorial: UN Climate Talks. Plus Ça Change… – Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 15 December 2014
5) Christopher Booker: UN Climate Talks – The Same Old Farce – The Sunday Telegraph, 14 December 2014
6) The Big Losers: Green Campaigners Slam Watered-Down Lima Deal – AFP, 14 December 2014
7) New Chairman Of GWPF Academic Advisory Council – Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 December 2014
More than 190 countries yesterday agreed a deal to tackle climate change, paving the way for a global treaty. The agreement was watered down, however, after many developing countries refused to sign earlier drafts. During a tense final 40 hours of negotiations in Lima, Peru, a loophole was inserted into the climate change deal that allows countries to avoid the tough, economy-wide emissions targets already adopted by Britain. A proposal to allow countries to review each other’s targets was scrapped after China objected. There will be no official assessment next year of whether targets are fair and comparable. –Ben Webster, The Times, 15 December 2014
India on Sunday hailed the outcome of the climate summit here, saying the deal reached has addressed the concerns of the developing countries and given them enough space to grow and take appropriate nationally determined steps to combat global warming. “We are happy that the final negotiated statement at COP20 in Lima has addressed the concerns of developing countries and mainly the efforts of some countries to re-write the convention has not fructified,” Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said. —Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
The final draft clearly mandated the developed world to take more firm financial commitments to scale it up to USD 100 billion per year from 2020. The financial treaty which was passed has more clarity. Now it is mentioned that they will provide and mobilise funds. Whatever developing world wanted ultimately remained intact. Predominantly developing countries demands were met. I think it is a good way forward for Paris. …It will not be lopsided anymore. –- India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar, Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American lobby group, said: “It’s definitely watered down from what we expected. It’s now totally voluntary whether countries choose to provide information [about their emissions targets].” Lord Lawson, the former chancellor and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a climate sceptic think-tank, said the weakness of the deal meant Britain should rescind a law binding itself to cut emissions. “The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose,” he said. “Following Lima, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.” –Ben Webster, The Times, 15 December 2014
A carbon-curbing deal struck in Lima on Sunday was a watered-down compromise where national intransigence threatened the goal of a pact to save Earth’s climate system, green groups said. NGOs and developing nations alike had hoped the agreement would compel rich countries to include information in their pledges on climate adaptation and other financial help. They had also sought a robust assessment of the pledges’ aggregate effect and a mechanism for ramping up contributions, if they were judged inadequate to meet the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels. But expectations were mostly disappointed. —AFP, 14 December 2014
1) Loophole In UN Climate Deal Lets Countries Avoid CO2 Targets
The Times, 15 December 2014
Ben Webster
More than 190 countries yesterday agreed a deal to tackle climate change, paving the way for a global treaty. The agreement was watered down, however, after many developing countries refused to sign earlier drafts.
During a tense final 40 hours of negotiations in Lima, Peru, a loophole was inserted into the climate change deal that allows countries to avoid the tough, economy-wide emissions targets already adopted by Britain.
The deal sets the framework for a treaty to be signed in Paris next December to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial times. Yet the final text noted with “grave concern” that there was a “significant gap” between existing pledges to cut emissions and the reductions needed.
Countries “may” announce detailed new emissions targets next year, the final draft said; an earlier version said that all countries “shall” announce such targets. Many developing nations objected to this, saying it was unfair to ask them to make commitments that could hamper their economic growth.
A proposal to allow countries to review each other’s targets was scrapped after China objected. There will be no official assessment next year of whether targets are fair and comparable.
Key issues remain unresolved, including how responsibility for reducing emissions by the required amount should be divided between developed and developing countries.
Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, played down the significance of the loophole, saying that large countries would adopt targets because they would be exposed if they did not. “It’s about political pressure.”
He admitted that the national targets, which countries are due to submit to the UN by June, were unlikely to be enough to meet the 2C target.
Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American lobby group, said: “It’s definitely watered down from what we expected.
It’s now totally voluntary whether countries choose to provide information [about their emissions targets]. Any comparison is left to outside bodies, such as think-tanks, weakening the ability of countries to scrutinise each other.” […]
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a climate sceptic think-tank, said the weakness of the deal meant Britain should rescind a law binding itself to cut emissions.
“The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose,” he said.
“Following Lima, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”
2) UN Adopts ‘Toothless’ Climate Deal After Negotiations Fell Apart
Daily Caller News, 15 December 2014
Michael Bastasch
In typical fashion, the United Nations climate summit failed to make any real headway on a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.
Instead, delegates from 194 countries walked away with a non-binding agreement to come back and negotiate again next year.
Some environmentalists and media outlets have tried to spin the agreement reached in Lima, Peru this weekend as a big step towards a real global warming treaty, but critics argue the failed climate summit was no surprise.
“The Lima agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality,” said Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. “The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.”
The Lima climate summit ended, once again, with countries split across rich-poor nation lines. In the early years of climate talks, the rich-poor split was less of a problem because most greenhouse gas emissions came from rich, developed countries.
But a new dynamic has changed the very nature of the climate summits. China, India and other rapidly developing nations are overtaking rich countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, China is now the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.
Rich countries, led by the U.S. and Europe, have been trying to push China and others to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. China has pledged to peak its emissions by 2030, but it was unwilling to let other countries scrutinize its efforts.
Chinese delegates also made hay over the lagging climate aid from rich countries to poor countries.
“As seasoned observers predicted, the Lima deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight,” Peiser said.
Environmentalists were also displeased with the outcome of the Lima summit. Green groups tend to want legally binding caps to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Negotiators failed to build on the momentum coming into these talks,” said Jamie Henn, spokesman for 350.org. “Over the past year, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand climate action–millions more will join them in the year ahead. Politicians can either ride that wave, or be swept away by it.”
But others in the environmental movement has said the Lima agreement puts a global climate treaty within reach.
“A global climate agreement is now within reach,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. “While more hard work remains, negotiators found common ground on the most pressing issues.”
“In the coming months, countries must propose their climate action plans and hammer out the details of the core agreement. Momentum has been growing for global climate action, with the US, China, and EU putting their emissions targets on the table early. Now others countries need to step up to the plate,” Morgan said.
Delegates will meet again next year in Paris to hash out a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. But critics of the UN climate summits say that provisions in the Lima agreement could allow countries to remove legally binding emissions reductions goals.
“In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Lima deal opens the way for a new climate agreement in 2015 which will remove legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions,” Peiser added. “A voluntary agreement would also remove the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”
3) New Climate Deal Addresses Demands Of Developing Nations: India
Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
India on Sunday hailed the outcome of the climate summit here, saying the deal reached has addressed the concerns of the developing countries and given them enough space to grow and take appropriate nationally determined steps to combat global warming.
“We are happy that the final negotiated statement at COP20 in Lima has addressed the concerns of developing countries and mainly the efforts of some countries to re-write the convention has not fructified,” Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said.
Negotiators today adopted a compromise draft for national pledges to cut global carbon emissions at marathon UN climate talks at the Peruvian capital here that addressed all of India’s concerns and paved way for a new ambitious and binding deal to be signed in Paris next year.
Indian delegation led by Javadekar worked overnight, engaging with developed as well as developing nations to reach the deal taking into account India’s concerns.
“We played a very pro active role. Last two nights we were awake and we remained actively engaged with developed as well as developing world,” the minister said after hectic negotiations by officials from 194 countries for 14 days.
“It (deal) gives enough space for the developing world to grow and take appropriate nationally determined steps,” he said.
He said the final draft reached after the talks, which ran into two days of extra time, has paved the way for a Paris Agreement to be arrived next year on the basis of principles of equity and differentiated responsibility.
“The final draft also clearly mandated the developed world to take more firm financial commitments to scale it up to USD 100 billion per year from 2020. Developed world is also mandated to provide resources for technology development, transfer and capacity building,” he said.
The developed world will have to take responsibility for action in technology and capacity building and to that end they will have to provide resources.
On Green Climate Fund, he said the developed countries have given firm commitment.
“The financial treaty which was passed has more clarity. Now it is mentioned that they will provide and mobilise funds. So it will be aggressive public financing,” Javadekar told PTI.
“There is a greater role for public finance for Adaptation Funding,” he said.
Javadekar claimed that India also succeeded in removing the provision in the earlier draft calling for ex-ante review of actions of even developing countries.
“The aspirations and main concerns of the Least Developed Countries and developing countries are addressed,” he said.
India pro-actively engaged with the developed as well as developing world to arrive at a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the convention and the whole edifice will continue to be under the convention.
BASIC countries — Brazil, South Africa, India and China– met five times, LMDCs (Like Minded Developing Countries) five times and stood firm on ground, he said.
“There was an issue of loss and damage. Whatever developing world wanted ultimately remained intact. This is a good way forward for Paris,” Javadekar said, adding the new deal created base for equity and differentiated responsibility.
The draft does not contain any information about an ex-ante review process of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), instead leaving it up to individual countries.
“INDCs will be nationally determined…We projected India’s achievements at the summit,” he said, adding India made a strong pitch for technology without IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) cost “which we could win”.
“Predominantly developing countries demands were met. I think it is a good way forward for Paris. …It will not be lopsided anymore,” he said.
4) Editorial: UN Climate Talks. Plus Ça Change…
Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 15 December 2014
Another city; pretty much the same outcome. The great climate change debate has rumbled along from Rio to Kyoto, through Copenhagen and on to Lima, without the breakthrough that campaigners have sought. There was an agreement of sorts in Peru, but nothing that lived up to the billing.
This gathering was supposed to clear away the obstacles blocking the way to a formal agreement, in Paris a year from now, to combat climate change. Instead, after over-running by two days, all delegates managed was to approve a framework for setting national pledges to be submitted to the Paris meeting.
Once again, there were divisions between rich and poor countries over how to spread the burden of pledges to cut carbon emissions, which will have to be resolved over the next 12 months – or in Paris itself – making success much less likely.
With 194 countries involved in the talks, each with its own interests to defend, expectations of a comprehensive deal need to be far more realistic. The fact is that the emerging economies will be reluctant to agree to legally binding caps on emissions that they, with some justice, feel were never imposed on advanced countries at the same stage of their development. They want richer nations to do more.
To that end, much more important than the pursuit of unachievable goals, was the recent pact between the world’s two biggest energy users, America and China, to work towards a common position on the reduction in fossil fuel use. Although they, too, disagreed in Lima over how emission cuts should be shared between rich and poor countries, such voluntary and bilateral agreements are the basis of the way forward. Otherwise, Paris will be added to the lengthening list of cities associated with false promises on climate change.
5) Christopher Booker: UN Climate Talks – The Same Old Farce
The Sunday Telegraph, 14 December 2014
Lima is just yet another re-enactment of the three-stage ritual that has become only too familiar over the past 20 years.
At least those 20 Greenpeace activists who desecrated Peru’s most sacred World Heritage Site with their propaganda stunt in support of renewable energy provided welcome diversion from the UN conference in Lima 300 miles away. There, 9,000 delegates have spent two weeks trying to agree on that “universal climate treaty” they hope to see signed in Paris next year. In trampling over the 1,500-year-old “Nazca Lines” etched in the desert earth, the “environmentalists” can little have thought this would so enrage the Peruvians that they are now being threatened with six years in prison.
Lima is just yet another re-enactment of the three-stage ritual that has become only too familiar over the past 20 years. First, we are treated to months of ludicrously unscientific hype, telling us that the threat of global warming is now worse than ever. Then, they all gather in some agreeable venue, for the “developing” nations – led by China and India – to say they will only play ball if the “developed” world, led by the EU, the US and Japan, pays them $100 billion a year to curb their “carbon emissions”. In days of acrimony and stupefying boredom, when the poorer nations bid up the bribe they want (some were this time suggesting it should eventually be £1.5 trillion a year), it emerges that the rich countries aren’t really intending to deliver. The mere $1 billion promised to the “Green Climate Fund” by Japan, for instance, is all going to Japanese firms to build three coal-fired power stations in Indonesia.
Finally, at the eleventh hour – or more likely 4 o’clock in the morning – a “breakthrough” is announced. Everyone has finally agreed on a meaningless document that commits no one to anything.
Lima is the 20th time something similar has happened, as it will again in Paris next year. So the dreary farce will continue until the crack of doom – which, like that warming, will never appear as the computer models predicted. Or until they have all died of boredom.
6) The Big Losers: Green Campaigners Slam Watered-Down Lima Deal
AFP, 14 December 2014
A carbon-curbing deal struck in Lima on Sunday was a watered-down compromise where national intransigence threatened the goal of a pact to save Earth’s climate system, green groups said.
The hard-fought agreement sets out guidelines for the submission of national greenhouse-gas pledges next year.
But, the groups said, initially ambitious standards became weaker the longer the talks wound on.
In a tug-of-war between rich and developing nation interests, the end result was a “lackluster plan with little scientific relevancy,” said WWF’s climate expert, Samantha Smith.
“Against the backdrop of extreme weather in the Philippines and potentially the hottest year ever recorded, governments at the UN climate talks in Lima opted for a half-baked plan to cut emissions,” she added.
NGOs and developing nations alike had hoped the agreement would compel rich countries to include information in their pledges on climate adaptation and other financial help.
They had also sought a robust assessment of the pledges’ aggregate effect and a mechanism for ramping up contributions, if they were judged inadequate to meet the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels.
But expectations were mostly disappointed.
7) New Chairman Of GWPF Academic Advisory Council
Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 December 2014
On 1 January 2015 Professor Ross McKitrick will take over as Chairman of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council.
Dr McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, specialising in environmental economics, and has been a foundation member of the Council since November 2009.
He succeeds Professor David Henderson, who has held the chairmanship with great distinction since its inception in 2009. Professor Henderson is stepping down from the chairmanship at his own request, but will remain an active member of the Council.
Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said:
“I am extremely grateful to David, whose contribution to the work of the AAC and the success of the GWPF over the past five years has been immeasurable”.
The GWPF Academic Advisory Council is composed of scientists, economists and other experts who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice. It reviews and evaluates new GWPF reports and papers, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to GWPF research and publications.
The other members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council are:
Adrian Berry
Sir Samuel Brittan
Sir Ian Byatt
Professor Robert Carter
Professor Vincent Courtillot
Professor Freeman Dyson
Professor Christopher Essex
Christian Gerondeau
Dr Indur Goklany
Professor William Happer
Professor Terence Kealey
Professor Deepak Lal
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor Robert Mendelsohn
Professor Ian Plimer
Professor Paul Reiter
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Professor Nir Shaviv
Professor Philip Stott
Professor Henrik Svensmark
Professor Richard Tol
Dr David Whitehouse
