Leaders called to special climate talks
Unprecedented number of summits as world struggles to hammer out agreement before vital meeting in December
ap
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in London last Friday presiding over a think tank on worldwide action on climate change
World leaders are to meet for an unprecedented second summit on climate change this year to try to get agreement on a tough new treaty by December, and may even get together for a third time before the end of the year.
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, is to call the world's heads of government to New York in September to "galvanise political will" about what he describes as "the defining issue of our time". And there are plans for another G20 summit to discuss the issue in the autumn.
These will follow a meeting of 17 key world leaders convened at the initiative of President Barack Obama immediately after the annual G8 summit in July. Observers cannot remember any similar progression of top-level meetings to address any issue over such a short period of time.
The moves come as pressure mounts on the leaders to reach agreement at December's vital negotiations in Copenhagen, billed as the world's last chance to get to grips with global warming before it escalates out of control.
On Friday a think tank headed by the former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan reported that climate change was already killing 300,000 people and affecting 300 million. The day before, 20 Nobel Prize winners, meeting in London, warned that it posed as great a threat as nuclear war. And in Copenhagen on Tuesday 500 business chief executives called for "an ambitious and effective treaty" to "help establish a firm foundation for a sustainable economic future".
The summits are part of an extraordinarily intense series of meetings over the next six months that will take negotiators from Bonn to Bangkok and from Barcelona to the Ilulissat in Greenland. The first three are formal discussions on a UN treaty for the Copenhagen talks, while key ministers from 30 countries will go to the small Greenland town next to the Arctic's fastest melting glacier at the end of next month to try to hammer out a "political declaration" to accompany it.
The next round of negotiations opens in Bonn tomorrow, but no one is expecting a breakthrough. Talks in the former West German capital in April made little progress beyond agreeing to draw up negotiating texts.
These will be on the table for the first time tomorrow, but they mainly serve to highlight divisions between countries and show how far there is to go in six short months to meet December's deadline.
One of the main stumbling blocks is how much rich countries will undertake to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in the short to medium term. There is general agreement that they should be reduced by a drastic 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050, the minimum that scientists say will be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But setting more immediate targets is proving much harder.
Ten days ago, China flung down the gauntlet by calling on rich countries to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020. The only advanced economy to come near that is the European Union, which has promised unilaterally to reduce them by 20 per cent by then, rising to 30 per cent if other countries follow suit. But at present there is little sign of other industrialised nations taking up the challenge; despite the new priority President Obama is giving to climate change, his plans would amount to a cut of only a few per cent from 1990 levels.
In return, developing countries, including China and India, would agree to slow the growth of their emissions through "measurable, verifiable and reportable" measures. But India has just signalled that it will not open such plans to global scrutiny unless rich countries deliver on a promise to provide funds to help it tackle and adapt to climate change.
That is the second sticking point. Developing countries want to get at least $200bn a year, which works out at about 0.5 per cent of rich nations' economic output and is about the same size as current development aid. It is a relatively small sum, especially in the context of the amounts spent in recent months on bailing out the banks, but developed country government are baulking at it. Last week Australia described the demands as "unimaginable".
In the end, senior negotiators say, success or failure will depend not so much on the climate talks themselves, but on whether the world adopts a Green New Deal as the best way to revive the world's economy.
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
Kofi Annan reported that climate change was already killing 300,000 people and affecting 300 million? What rot! And coming from the same inveterate liar who doubted that Saddam had WMD's!
China wants us to reduce emissions by 40%? Who the hell do those slant-eyed coolies think they are telling us what to do? The world's second largest economy? The owners of US national debt?
Heads up, all you deniers and polluting, waste-generating Yank-lovers: From now on it's China's way or the highway. Don't say I didn't warn you.
We cannot expect China to go renewable, while we continue to burn fossils.
We have mature technology to replace fossil fuels within a few decades. Costs? Who gives a damn! If we can survive Enron and Maddoff, we sure can cough up the lousy couple of a hundred billion dollars to get seriously started with renewables. And the very moment the scale is big enough, it will start earning us serious money. Also, think about all the currently unemployed construction workers. Wauw, huge potential! Isn't that what those Wall Street yuppies like best? Big figures? They can have it all and more and do it even without risking the future of this planet.
There are so many more reasons to abolish fossil fuels. I cannot even begin to comprehend the mind-set of those monkey's in a dress discussing a lousy percent more or less. Forget about those silly conspiracy plots of yours. Reality is most likely much more banal. The monkey's just aren't smart enough...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSc9Tn3M
I think you basically hear what you want to, but don't use the bullshit from a politician as "proof" for your point of view. It only shows ignorance.
In addition I can only say that my argument to cut our fossil fuels is based on many arguments, most of them completely independant of the question whether or not AGW is happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGe
We KNOW that the climate will change, regardless of what we -humans- do. This is probably the best solution to a problem that would occur ANYWAY.
The reasons to abolish fossil fuels have as much to do with a sense of global hygiene, as with being prepared for what is to come anyway.
Harvest the energy we get for free, transport it in such a way the ravaging power of our climate can't touch it, and keep the goodies for later.
We might actually NEED the fossil fuels some time in the future, either to stabilize the climate, as a resource for future carbon-based technologies, or as a cheap fuel when things go wrong with other sources of power.
Eating it all up now, is just plain stupid.
Are we still bloody, stupid infants!!!???
300,000. That was propaganda spread first by the NYT. You are supposed to believe harmless and insignificant emissions of CO2 caused earthquakes, tidal waves, wars, droughts, typhoons, pestilence and suicides. (War maybe attributable to weather, Blair may have been suffering from sunstroke when he involved Britain in the invasion of Iraq.)
Copenhagan attendees please read the following article carefully to understand the relentless misdirection you and the public are being subjected to.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prome
"there was no way to distinguish deaths or economic losses related to human-driven global warming amid the much larger losses resulting from the growth in populations and economic development in vulnerable regions"
And to understand why the lies, propaganda and misdirection are relentless you need only follow the money:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog
In perspective, US deaths attributable to alcohol - 100,000
http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.ht
Global deaths attributable to tobacco - 5.4 million
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessat
Malaria causes around 350 to 500 million illnesses and more than one million deaths annually.
http://www.malarianomore.org/malaria/in
Does CO2 emitted by us cause climate change?
http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pd
Nope.
If these ne'er do wells gave a toss, money would be spent on saving lives, not ghost busting. But then as we all know, politics is not about telling the truth.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
if you want to understand climate change you'll actually have to put some effort in. in all probability, the numbers that will suffer and die due to our abuse of the planet will be huge......but don't you worry, some right wing politician will salve your conscience.
300,000 deaths:
Go to the GHF report table on page 90. Here are the GHF estimates of deaths from climate change:
Malnutrition: 154,000 deaths/year
Diarrhoea: 94,000 deaths/year
Malaria: 54,000 deaths/year
Total: 302,000 deaths/year
Now, go to the WHO report:
who.int/publications/cra/chapters/volume
What are the death estimates in that report? From pages 1544-1545, they are:
Malnutrition: 77,000 deaths/year
Diarrhoea: 47,000 deaths/year
Malaria: 27,000 deaths/year
Do you see any correlation?
(Source, in comments responding to http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prome