'Kyoto principles' crucial in climate talks - China
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
China will insist the main principles of the Kyoto Protocol are retained in any new global climate change pact, even though others are seeking to abandon them, a high-ranking climate official on Saturday.
"China will carry out our negotiations on the basis of the Kyoto Protocol which we have adhered to all along," said Gao Guangsheng, director general at the department of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.
He told a conference that some countries were seeking to tear up the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" on which the Kyoto Protocol was founded.
According to the Kyoto principle, rich "Annex I" countries should take the initiative when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, while poorer nations such as China and India would not be obliged to set their own mandatory targets until 2020.
Much of the legal infrastructure of the protocol is based on the principle, including the clean development mechanism, which allows developed countries to meet their CO2 targets by investing in clean projects in the developing world.
"But now there are some signatories... trying to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, with some wanting to devise new laws," Gao said.
Gao did not name the United States, but the country's legislators are currently deliberating on a climate bill that would commit U.S. industries to costly CO2 cuts, and many have expressed concern that if China doesn't follow suit, it will gain a competitive advantage in world trade.
With the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012, leaders will gather in the Danish capital of Copenhagen next month to thrash out the details of a new deal, but few expect anything binding to emerge.
Gao said China remained optimistic.
"Looking now at the progress of negotiations, you can say China is still full of hope about the meeting in Copenhagen," he said. "We are now putting our utmost effort into the success of the Copenhagen meeting."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Sadly, Britain, with it's unnervingly inept government, still seeks to find something, anything, which they can claim to be "leading the world"
Copenhagen MUST fail - it is quite imperative that it does. And then when the UK govt seeks to go it alone with its devastating CO2 cuts program, the public outcry has to be sufficient to stop them in their tracks.
Perhaps I my be permitted a little aside. Reading today's TimesOnline, I note one of their more ridiculous Leader columns. My own qualifications include a good degree in nuclear physics, a PhD in atomic physics and I am also a Chartered Engineer.
However, I do not believe the thesis that CO2 is is any way responsible for anything which happens to the earth's climate. I consequence, the Times, the august Time of London in all it's glory chooses to label me a Village Idiot.
When people resort to this sort of language, they have de facto lost their case.
The effects of CO2 are debatable.
The effects of human on the planet is not debatable. Consider some of impact of humans:
- deforestation on massive scale
- diversion of rivers for hydro projects
- pestacides, fungacides, insectacides wiping out lower life forms like bees, frogs
- pollution causing runoff algae blooms hundreds of miles wide which can been seen from satellites
- contrails from aircraft causing upto 17% reduction on sunlight in cities near busy airports
- overfishing, destroying the sealife whole food chain
and many other human activites...
So more than just economics.
I am neither, but I see no reason NOT to cut CO2 emissions to a near-zero level.
Because I see no concrete evidence supporting the opposite thesis, namely that an increased global CO2 level does not harm our planet.
I see great risks in contineously increasing CO2 emissions, with a sudden stop in a matter of hundreds of years when finally the reserves are depleted.
Assuming we still are within safe margins for global CO2 levels -as you assume-, can you please calculate here at this platform offered by a the Independent exactly when it is NOT safe anymore? Because that is the implicite assumption you make. You assert you KNOW!
I assert we do NOT know. I don't call myself a true AGW-believer, but as long as we see correlations, and conclusive evidence supporting one of the contesting theories is missing, we scientists are a bit careful to start calling the other party ignorant. As both parties in this quest seem to find necessary far too often.
But just a thought I would like to add.
Assume that future technology is going to be based nearly entirely on carbon. Assume that all we use in our daily life will be manifactured of nano-technologically adpated carbon structures. We already see this in happening to a certain extent, don't we!? But imagine a future were everything, from cars, to houses, buildings, bridges etc. is manfactured of carbon. Answer then, where would you prefer we store the resources necessary to support this technology? Safely hidden in underground deposits, or burned up into CO2 in the atmosfere?
Another question I see nowhere addressed -obviously there aren't many biologists who dare to speak out- is what the increased levels of CO2 are going to mean for "evolution"? I mean, how is all life on earth going to be affected by insertion of large quantities of a biologically active gass in the atmosfere? Are we in for a new (minor) cambrian explosion? Which organisms would benefit from increased CO2 levels? Probably not only plants, but very likely everything from the tiniest micro-organism and up. Do you deny that there is a possibility that we might see an explosion of virusses and bacteria, both in numbers and in sorts!?
I hope you can rethink your position slightly based on my thoughts. For whatever the thoughts of someone who is not a nuclear physicist are worth. Sorry for the bitter undertone...
And finally, if we crash our economy now by converting, explain to me why it would be different when the fossil fuels really are gone? All what is needed now is a global understanding and consensus that it's wisest to converse while the going is still good. When the going is not good anymore, the pain may be worse.
So, for me it is imperative that Copenhagen does NOT fail, though I see too many insane politicians on stage for the timebeing to have any faith at all...
Point 1: In your studies you do not seem to have come across the idea of evidence. If you had you would have thought about both the amount of greenhouse gas and particulate pollution currently being pumped into the atmosphere and what amounts to around 35% increase in CO2 already in the atmosphere above the levels found in the balanced situation before the Industrial Revolution. You might also have tried to find out how CO2, methane, etc act in the atmosphere and how long they persist - perhaps looking at Venus as an example of a planet with a carbon rich atmosphere. You might also have looked at the historical record where the carbon cycle has been roughly in balance until recent times and thought to yourself that there are many causes of global warming and cooling which have operated throughout Earth's history: vulcanism, variations in the Earth's orbit, solar flares, etc. No previous warming seems attributable to CO2 but yet we already have observable and measurable effects in terms of changes in weather patterns, ice melt, sea-level rise, habitat loss, species extinction, etc. CONCLUSION: CO2 induced warming does not replace any of the other mechanisms - it is IN ADDITION and so produces instability! You might also have begun to wonder about world population growth and how the increasing number of high-level consumers in China, India, Brazil, etc. might impact of future emissions and further instability.
Point 2: You might have wondered about the possibility that climate action might actually work. Possibly there is only a slim chance but you might have taken some comfort from the effects of introducing The Clean Air Act or banning CFC's. After all pollution is pollution and 'it aint natural'. You might then have thought then that a natural state of balance without avoidable pollutants might have importance to bio-diversity, fertility, human health, etc.; that it might be a good idea.
Point 3: The question for Copenhagen is not about climate OR economics as you suggest in your heading. The question is actually about changing our economic model in order to live (and thrive) sustainably. Here the idea that China et al might not play their full part in order to gain some (albeit temporary) economic advantage is worrying. The principle of 'the polluter pays' should be applied rigorously. The important thing, however, is to move on from a pre-Victorian industrial system to one which is cleaner and does not squander finite resources. I can see this as better, as progress and our only hope.