More

Climate Talks End with Deal To Do More: 'The Quest To Address Climate Change Is a Long Journey'

ARTHUR MAX   04/12/10 10:15 AM ET   AP

Climate

BONN, Germany — Delegates to the first U.N. climate talks after Copenhagen have agreed to intensify their negotiations on curbing greenhouse gases before this year's decisive ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico.

The agreement – itself a tacit acknowledgment of the slow progress in reaching a global climate pact – followed three days of at-times rancorous discussions that nearly ground to a halt.

It was an early warning that the split between industrial countries and the developing world will likely continue characterizing the talks.

Bolivian delegate Pablo Solon said Monday he was pleased Sunday's agreement made no mention of the Copenhagen Agreement – a political deal hastily cobbled together by President Barack Obama and a handful of other national leaders at the end of the U.N. talks in December.

"Despite continual attempts by the U.S. to make the completely unacceptable Copenhagen Accord the basis for future negotiations, I am glad to say they failed," Solon said in a statement.

Many other countries – even among the 120 countries that supported the Copenhagen Accord – denounced the closed-door manner in which it was negotiated, and voiced disappointment that its emissions requirements were only voluntary.

The delegates from 175 parties spent most of their time in Bonn squabbling over seemingly minor procedural issues surrounding how to conduct the negotiations for the rest of the year, including the authorization of a committee chairwoman to prepare a draft text for the next meeting in June, also in Bonn.

The delegates approved two previously unscheduled meetings after the June session, each lasting at least a week. They are meant as working sessions for delegates to refine the draft text before the final Cancun conference Nov. 29-Dec. 10. Each round of talks will cost between $3.5 million and $7 million, depending on where they are held. Locations have yet to be decided.

After the letdown of Copenhagen, officials downplayed expectations of a final deal being reached this year.

"We should not be striving to get answers to each and every question in Cancun," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. climate secretariat, said Sunday. "The quest to address climate change is a long journey, and achieving perfection takes practice."

The final agreement is meant to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has provisions capping greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries that expire in 2012. The new accord would be expanded to curtail emissions by swiftly developing countries like China, which already has surpassed the United States as the world's biggest polluter.

At a final session on Sunday, delegates wrangled over wording that implied a lesser status for the Copenhagen Accord. Also on the table was a draft treaty painstakingly negotiated among more than 190 countries over the last two years, but which leaves many core issues unresolved.

"This is not even a negotiating decision," chairwoman Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe said in frustration, trying to cut off the debate. "If we can't agree on this, then we may have problems when we really start negotiating."

The Copenhagen Accord sets a goal of limiting the increase in the Earth's average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels, but does not specify how that should be done.

It asks industrial countries to set targets for reducing carbon dioxide and other polluting gases causing global warming, while asking developing countries to submit national plans for slowing their emissions growth. It also calls for international monitoring to ensure those goals are met, but does not set any penalties.

U.S. chief delegate Jonathan Pershing said the accord was a package deal, and rejected suggestions "in which certain elements are cherry picked."

Pershing also confirmed Washington opposed granting financial help to countries that refused to sign onto the Copenhagen deal, which included a $30 billion three-year package of aid for handling climate emergencies and helping poor countries turn to low-carbon growth.

"Countries that are not part of the accord would not be given substantial funding under the accord," Pershing told reporters. "It's not a free rider process."

On Saturday, Bolivia's Solon, an ambassador to the United Nations, protested the cutoff of funds from the U.S. Global Climate Change initiative as "a very bad practice" and an attempt to put pressure countries to support the agreement.

Bolivia is holding a grass-roots World Peoples Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth on April 19-22, with the aim of presenting an alternative agenda for consideration by U.N. climate delegates.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

BONN, Germany — Delegates to the first U.N. climate talks after Copenhagen have agreed to intensify their negotiations on curbing greenhouse gases before this year's decisive ministerial confere...
BONN, Germany — Delegates to the first U.N. climate talks after Copenhagen have agreed to intensify their negotiations on curbing greenhouse gases before this year's decisive ministerial confere...
Filed by Gazelle Emami  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:07 PM on 04/22/2010
REMEMBER?

Last year we who track these issues kept reading that China's building a new coal power plant every week.

Well...while the U.S. dissipates its collective will dealing with its atavists, corrupt oligarchy, rigid ideologues, and quacks, here's what a dictatorial regime can do in the same time frame:

One Quarter of China's Electrical Energy to Come from Low-Carbon Sources by the end of... 2010.
You read that right...2010.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2261031/chinese-government-renewables
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
04:14 PM on 04/16/2010
HARD TO BELIEVE ALTERNATIVES CAN REVERSE THE NEED FOR FOSSIL FUELS!

Although not yet widely accepted by anyone with scientific background, water can replace oil as fuel.

Future cars might become power plants when suitably parked, ending any need to build coal or nuclear plants and demonstrating far less expensive alternatives to fossil fuel. Eventually, automobiles may pay for themselves.

See Running on Water at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

To learn more about water as fuel, visit the website of parallel technology developer, BlackLight Power.

Scientists understandably have a hard time accepting fractional Hydrogen, the basis of this radically new energy.

Laboratories should repeat the fractional Hydrogen experiments published by Rowan University and successfully repeated by GEN3 Partners, who advise Fortune 100 firms.

More labs, including the national laboratories, should perform the experiments and design their own.

As technology using water as fuel is demonstrated and reaches the market, it will become increasingly difficult to ridicule, ignore or deny.

Following the Pearl Harbor attack, within a few months a bomber rolled off an assembly line every 59 minutes.

These radically new technologies are much simpler and inherently cost-competitive.

Let's have an all out effort to develop them without delay!

There will be widespread support to end the rising price of imported oil.

Surprisingly rapid reduction in the need for fossil fuel can be led by consumer demand.
08:16 PM on 04/22/2010
Repeat after thee:
"Although not yet widely accepted by anyone with scientific background, water can replace oil as fuel."
"Although not yet widely accepted by anyone with scientific background, water can replace oil as fuel."
"Although not yet widely accepted by anyone with scientific background, water can replace oil as fuel."

Try and never will be because it's ludicrous on its face.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
09:20 PM on 04/22/2010
When it appears in products and is widely accepted by scientists, many will be very surprised.

Until that time, be sure to keep believing that the earth is flat.
charles77
Just the Facts Please
02:39 PM on 04/14/2010
Renowned climatologist James Hansen:

“Fourth generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with Presidential and Congressional support.”

“Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs. In our opinion, 4th GNP2 deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material 3 . Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards. Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can "burn" that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case.”

http://www.grist.org/article/Dear-Barack-and-Michelle/
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:10 AM on 04/15/2010
Will it be necessary to "follow" you everywhere and cut and paste myself as well?
charles77
Just the Facts Please
11:42 AM on 04/15/2010
LOL, do what you want.

If you go back to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/the-human-costs-of-nuclea_b_533516.html
you find more people to argue with.

Obama and Dr Chu's plan includes a lot of money for conservation, renewables and nuclear. All or needed.

Conservation can slow our energy growth but not stop it without lifestyle changes that are not going to happen.

You keep talking about the cost of nuclear without seeming to realize renewables cost many times more. And renewables cannot be more than 25% or so without storage we do not have, so that leaves coal or nuclear for the other 75%.
08:35 PM on 04/22/2010
Ya know, Charles, much as I agree with Hansen, given the political/cultural/bureaucratic milieu, 4th gen just won't deploy before 2030 - at best. That kind of timeline certainly seems to be in the Chu/Obama game plan.

Meanwhile, wind energy is cheap enough to deploy and won't even saturate the grid enough to think about storage before 2030, because as we both know, major storage is simply too expensive to be a real option.

And if an east-west smart grid trunk line gets built w/i the next 10 years, it'll move wind energy's saturation point another 10 years downstream - out to 30% of electrical energy rather than 20%. And that's including recharge capacity for electric autos.

The real unknown is eventual cost of roof-top photovoltaics. Too many intriguingly nascent technologies and potential roadblocks to say if it'll remain niche or eventually make real headway. For PV, I suspect the next 10 years will be defining ones, like the 1990s were for wind turbines in Denmark. Luckily, I was there back then to see that industry begin to bloom, while making some small theoretical contributions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:08 AM on 04/13/2010
The typical anthropogenic climate change denier never had a course in science beyond high school and somehow believes two or three far-right wing sites over established science with an unprecedented consensus.
01:14 PM on 04/13/2010
Concensus does not equal science. If that were the case we would still believe the earth was the center of the universe and disease caused by vapors. The fraud is falling apart at the seams. Made up and "lost" data. I am sure the true believers will go kicking and screaming the same as the ones who believed the Piltdown Man. But science will win out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
02:10 PM on 04/13/2010
The church believed the earth was the center of the universe during Galileo's time and not science. Can you see your own error in logic there? Being a denier, probably not!
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
02:32 PM on 04/13/2010
Science IS winning out: per the overwhelming majority of climate scientists man-made global warming is real.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:59 AM on 04/14/2010
My friend realpolitic, if you have about 55mins listening time, you maybe interested in this recently heard on Australian radio from the proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2010 Conference.

Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm

Let me know what you think.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
09:21 AM on 04/14/2010
Aren't you the guy who likes Christopher Hitchens? At least Hitchens has not been wrong about climate change yet, I think.

Tell me which scientific articles so-called skeptics have published that dispute anthropogenic warming and then I will be impressed. There is no community inside science that supports anything other than anthropogenic warming, all else is media creation.
11:04 PM on 04/12/2010
We at the International Forum on Globalization have just released a report to call attention to some of the more notable results of the controversial Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Given the post-Copenhagen confusion, there was an urgent need to set the record straight on the results of the summit, to reinforce the reasons why a UN climate process is so critical, and to point to some possible ways forward to success in Cancún in November 2010.

The report “Safe Passage to Cancun - Getting a UN Climate Deal Back on Track” can be downloaded at:
http://www.ifg.org/IFGsSafePassagetoCancun.pdf

Additional analysis can be viewed at IFG’s home page: http://www.ifg.org/

Some of the main points of the report are:
- The Copenhagen Accords emission cuts amount to maybe half of what science says is needed to avoid climate catastrophe.

- The Copenhagen Accords set a trajectory for a 4 degree Celsius temperature rise. Agreements allowing such high temperature increases are irresponsible, non-governance of our global commons.

- Cancun must achieve more than climate anarchy, where each country does only what it desires, free from any comprehensive framework of agreed rights and responsibilities.

- Nations must set a science-based global carbon budget, then fairly share the remaining atmospheric space.

- Indigenous peoples’ issues are gaining ground but we still need to consolidate protections for their rights.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:50 PM on 04/12/2010
@ shan.. you're welcome! and this is my third attempt to reply..

i'm only against the CO2 war and it's hyperbole..

i would go on but i'm expecting this to be scrubbed too..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:51 PM on 04/12/2010
The only "war" is deniers like you refusing to accept scientific evidence when it's shoved under your nose. Like other deniers, you demonstrate a quasi-religious mind-set: whereas those who accept global warming as real do so because the vast majority of scientific evidence world-wide leads them to that conclusion, you start off with a belief that Global Warming isn't real and basically latch on to anything which appears supports that belief, facts be damned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gun1934
75 years old fisherman
07:25 PM on 04/13/2010
i can say my name is moose--from nosha academy--im a weather scientist with three degrees of cii--foo--456--467--co2 co33--if i tell you the weather is warming youll believe me hahahaha --im just a hick
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:41 PM on 04/12/2010
@ john49..

i accept global warming as real..

i just don't accept the science shoved under my nose that more CO2 is the cause.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
06:13 AM on 04/13/2010
Nice of you to simply say a whole body of science is unacceptable to you. Based on what else besides what the tea leaves tell you?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:35 PM on 04/13/2010
You don't even understand the basic greenhouse gas theory fumes, as evidenced by your repeated - and laughably false - declaration that downward longwave radiation doesn't exist.

Thus it's no wonder you are confused.
03:55 PM on 04/12/2010
There is no more time left for arguing.
Bolivia has no longer glaciers, therefore no water.
We need a zillion white roofs in South America, the Middle East, south west USA, and many other places. Hydrogen fuel cell tech and numerous other sustainable techologies can help.
05:16 PM on 04/12/2010
Absolutely, and great post. Unfortunately, just when the planet needs to make an enormous effort to fight climate change, we also need to make the public aware of the origins of public relations campaigns trying to discredit global warming by saying reputable scientists have any "doubt" whatsoever. The American public is being taken on a ride and they need to know who's paying for anti-climate change arguments.

I also continue to be amazed that debate on climate change splits almost completely on political party lines. Science doesn't work that way. It splits between fact and fiction. If you were driving a car and deciding whether to run a train, and you were told there was greater than a 90% probability that you would be killed, you would take that seriously and wait until it passed. Climate science is no different.

Denying climate change by making the American public believe there is any doubt is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public since the tobacco companies fooled us for years into believing there was "doubt" that cigarettes cause cancer.

It's ironic right-wingers also fail to notice that combating climate change would also make us energy-independent, and should we actually have enough brains to start manufacturing renewable products, such as wind turbines, collectors, or parabolic troughs, we would get a position in the burgeoning world market for these goods. Instead, we're letting China take the lead, and at this moment, we're even being bested by Denmark.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
organicconnect
01:46 PM on 04/12/2010
There is simple things everyone can do to have a positive effect on the climate. It begins with our own practices and local intolerance to bad practices. One example is simply how we treat the soil we use to grow our food. Increasing the mineral content is a simple practice with the dividend of growing more nutrient-dense foods: http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2010/01/soil-remineralization-and-climate-change/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:30 PM on 04/12/2010
"Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change" --James Lovelock
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:40 AM on 04/12/2010
sounds like they're kicking the can down the road..

works for me!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Shan Wells
Sciencey sun venerator + political cartoonist
03:55 PM on 04/12/2010
It's amazing to me, fumes, that no matter how many times we have refuted your arguments with facts, you remain completely and totally committed to denying the reality of our situation. You haven't bent an inch.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Were your parents conservative? Where do you get most of your news? Do you think there is any worth at all to environmentalism?

Thanks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
06:18 AM on 04/13/2010
Fumes says he is liberal, but often seems much more a conservative to me with his strong denial mechanism and uncritical acceptance of misinformation. He fits the description of a denier in that, as you say, he can be corrected countless times, and pretend he is still correct in his assumptions. He stays pure by abandoning the thread.
08:10 PM on 04/22/2010
Can't be that he's working peanuts for the denier wing of Associated Content because at a penny a word, his posts just aren't long enough.

I'd have to give him credit though. Of all the rampant deniers on these pages, he's the only one whose bizarre comments just make me laugh.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:14 AM on 04/12/2010
Too little too late... The world as we know it is 'toast' end of story!

"Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change" --James Lovelock
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change