iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Bonn Climate Change Talks: Developing Countries Fight With Rich Nations In Stalled Negotiations

Bonn Climate Change Talks 2011

By ARTHUR MAX   06/10/11 11:57 AM ET   AP

AMSTERDAM -- Developing countries said Friday that rich nations are refusing to negotiate an extension of their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, charging that they sought to "maintain their privileges and levels of consumption" at the expense of the poor.

Two-week climate negotiations among 183 nations in Bonn, Germany, which reached their halfway point Friday, were stalled for three days this week in a fight over the agenda. Structured in four bodies, formal talks only began in two of them on Thursday as countries haggled over what should be discussed.

The agenda squabble was more than procedural, however. It reflected deeper questions involving the objectives at the next major climate conference in Durban, South Africa, beginning Nov. 28, and underscored the continued rift between blocs of nations.

The United States and other industrial countries want the Durban conference restricted to refining the few agreements reached last year, rather than return to intractable questions that have shadowed climate talks for years. Developing countries say those questions must be addressed.

One key issue is the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 accord which requires nearly 40 wealthy countries to reduce carbon emissions by a total 5 percent below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012.

Jorge Arguello, head of a 131-nation group of developing countries, said industrial countries are blocking discussion on renewing their Kyoto pledges.

Arguello cited a study released this week that the pledges from developing countries were greater than those from the industrial world.

"It is unthinkable that developed countries are still insisting that the poorest of the poor should suffer the burden so they can maintain privileges and levels of consumption that are unsustainable," said Arguello, who is Argentina's ambassador to the U.N.

Developing countries, which have no obligations under the Kyoto deal, want the commitments by these bound under Kyoto to be extended for a second period, with deeper targets. Wealthy countries want big emerging economies like China and India to accept parallel legal obligations, at least to lower the trajectory of their emissions growth.

Japan, Canada and Australia already have said they will not be part of a second commitment period, nor be legally bound after 2013. The United States never accepted Kyoto.

The pledges, submitted after the last ministerial climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, are universally recognized as insufficient to keep the planet from warming 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 F) higher preindustrial levels. Scientists say anything beyond that raises the risk of catastrophic climate changes, including more frequent and severe storms, melting ice that will raise sea levels and threaten coastal cities, and alterations of agriculture and water access.

Developing countries put forward other agenda demands that tied Bonn negotiators in knots. Saudi Arabia revived its demand to discuss compensation for the loss of oil revenues in a post-petroleum world. Bolivia wanted all discussion of payment for reducing deforestation struck from the agenda, saying forests should not be part of a carbon market and subject to commercialization.

The United States objected to discussions on how to raise $100 billion a year to help poor countries build low-carbon economies and adapt to global warming. Instead, it wanted to continue discussing how to monitor and verify actions by China and others to lower emissions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

AMSTERDAM -- Developing countries said Friday that rich nations are refusing to negotiate an extension of their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, charging that they sought to "maintain t...
AMSTERDAM -- Developing countries said Friday that rich nations are refusing to negotiate an extension of their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, charging that they sought to "maintain t...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 114
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
12:21 PM on 06/14/2011
"Saudi Arabia revived its demand to discuss compensation for the loss of oil revenues in a post-petroleum world".

How about my middle finger, Saudia Arabia? The house of Saud has had half a century to prepare, and has done nothing. Why should we compensate them for robbing us blind for 50 years?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:38 AM on 06/16/2011
Not only the rest of the world, but their own population - robbed of political freedom, and economic development.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
In Financial Theocracy we Trust
11:34 AM on 06/14/2011
All this, and not just this time but the ongoing overall thinking on the subject, leads me to believe that humans aren't all that capable of sitting down and assessing priorities. Is the direction we insist on going one that gives the higher quality of life? I don't see it that way. I see, in many ways, a far lower quality of life verses alternative lifestyles of people on this planet.

There are certain people who do the steering of this now global society and I fail to see that they are even serving their own interest in terms of quality of life. I see it as continuing in the direction it is going because things have developed into a game that has to be won at all costs and it has been a long time since people caught up in it have had the ability to look and see (or care) what the ramifications of their actions are turning out to be.

And as cosmologists are discovering more and more planets I understand that we are simply one of those who ultimately fail to sustain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
12:22 PM on 06/14/2011
The inflorescence of our planet is failing, and hardly anyone notices or cares.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:40 AM on 06/16/2011
Thought I might have leared a new word. But I can't find a dictionary definition for infloresce­nce at www.dictionary.com.

Is it a newer word?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eaarth2
“An era ends when its illusions are exhausted
05:09 AM on 06/14/2011
These pledges one and all, are really worthless. If all these pledges are met, global temperatures will still rise another 3.5 degrees C by 2090- or over 4 degrees since the start of the industrial revolution.

This equals a catastrophe within a decade or two climatically- becoming worse at mid century.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:42 AM on 06/16/2011
Certainly we are heading for catastrophe. On the other hand, 4C is still better than 6C. In fact anything that can be done to at least reduce the temperature we will reach - even if it doesn't prevent catastrophic climate change is worth while.

It's just a shame that we are so incapable of action on a real threat, that we have let it get to the stage that all we can hope for is a small diminuition of the devastation we are causing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eaarth2
“An era ends when its illusions are exhausted
05:55 AM on 06/16/2011
6 degrees could mean the end of our civilization- but 4 degrees will still be catastrophic- if the climate does not do us- then resource wars and fights for land not ravaged by climate change will.

remember this 4 degrees C will turn most of the inland USA into an inferno from May to October- most of the corn and wheat belts will become desert.

4 degrees will eventually melt Greenland- the arctic will be ice free all year- the western antarctic ice sheet will collapse - with the remainder melting.

Sea levels will rise over 20 meters worldwide. Not to mention feedback's that may add to that 4 degree rise.

Jim Hansen says no0w that even 2 degrees C rise is in his words a 'prescription for disaster'.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/27/nasa-climate-chief-labors-targets-a-recipe-for-disaster/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:46 PM on 06/13/2011
what i can find online is that global greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activity globally were 7 BILLION metric TONS in 2000--that obviously was 10 years ago. it stands to reason that this is going to have an effect on the planet's ecosystems. if anyone thinks that we can keep pumping this amt of greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere year after year--increasing every day, and it will NOT have a major negative effect on the planet--they are just plain insane and not worth listening to. intelligent, reasonable, EDUCATED people know what is happening. the nations of the world need to work this out asap. if not--to quote george w bush's comment on the usa economy in 08: "this sucker is going down."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
10:00 AM on 06/14/2011
It's around 8.5 GT today, measuring just the carbon, or 31.3 GT if you include the oxygen.

(1 GT = 1 billion metric tonnes; 1 metric tonne = 1000 kg, or 2200 pounds, or 1.2 tons)
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
09:51 AM on 06/12/2011
So what does NASA's revelation the other day that their 10 year satelite study of global temperatures shows no increase in temp? Doesn't that throw a wet towel on all this rent seeking? I haven't seen anything from the alleged scientific community regarding this data available at NASA's web site. Looks like the one worlders are going to have to move on to another global struggle to pitch their tent at.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
10:16 AM on 06/12/2011
I could take your claims seriously if you could cite the page on nasa.gov that corroborates your false assertions. Of course, you cannot do that because your assertions are false.

Watch, now he'll tell me to use Bing and find it myself.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
11:47 AM on 06/12/2011
Won't even waste my time doing that. Enjoying the irony of the one worlders implode on 1/2 truths and basement dweller arguements. or you could look it up yourself as the AGW crowd is pretending it doesn't exist!
01:00 PM on 06/12/2011
I watched. He did.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
09:11 PM on 06/13/2011
Taylor has shown only cursory familiarity with temperature, and none with climate modeling or climate science, particularly attribution, which is what he would need to learn about to be able to accurately speak about the topics of his 'blog.

"Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined" he says. Well, yes, and all climate scientists know that's because of aerosol emissions, which makes his proud "discovery" a confession of his ignorance. Yes, James, we know that already and we know why that happened.

Oh, and about the headline of his article, the past ten years are the warmest decade on record. Whether he can find a trend within that period is really not relevant, but considering that the Sun had an extended lull during that period, and considering that the following year tied for the warmest ever, and considering that the Sun's output was not unusually high in 2010 so the Sun does not explain that away for him, he's either lying or hasn't done his homework, in which case pontificating as though he had is dishonest in itself.
09:42 AM on 06/12/2011
What these 'developing nations' are up to is the same as a lot of the 'climate scientists' - they're just demanding their next meal ticket from the rest of us by trying to guilt trip us with the usual crap about CAGW and how we, in the 'developed world', are all to blame for the supposed climate change problems.

Firstly, there are no climate change problems caused by humans - we know that now. Secondly, we're ALL developing nations - it's just that we're more developed than they are and they're jealous about it - so they take the perceived moral high ground to try and squeeze a load of aid money out of us.

I say, stop the overseas aid budgets (the majority of which gets frittered away or stolen by the local dictatorship), disconnect with the IPCC and their flawed and threadbare 'science', stop the eco-lunacy that will cripple our economies, and leave the rest of them to their own devices.

Any by the way, they should also stop commandeering huge swathes of agricultural land and once-forests to grow crops for biofuels - which does very little except push millions into poverty and starvation, and increase food prices for the rest of us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:19 PM on 06/13/2011
Well, since it is we in the 'developed world' who are solely responsible for all but the very last few percent of the 38% increase in CO2 they kind of have a point, sport.

"there are no climate change problems caused by humans"

A triumph of unsubstantiated blind faith over physical reality.

"push millions into poverty and starvation"

finished off by a great example of disingenuous concern trolling.

I give it a 6.5 out of 10.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
12:33 PM on 06/13/2011
I do not know that.

Bzakey: "Firstly, there are no climate change problems caused by humans - we know that now."

Must have missed that 'blog post. What that on Anthony Watts', or Chris Monckton's, or Benny Peiser's, or Joe D'aleo's 'blog? Or perhaps, somebody with no reputation instead of those disreputable frauds?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
08:46 AM on 06/12/2011
Since the Oil Companies funded the Climate Change Denier Movement, they will of course need to accept responsibility at some future date.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
11:40 AM on 06/13/2011
Oil companies researched climate change as far back as 1985. They have always said that AGW may exist (that's all that the N.A.S. states, too).
What they are denying is that raising taxes on the low and middle class will cure the rise in temperatures.
Each and everyone of us must accept responsibility as we have been wasting energy and releasing copious quantities of CO2 for over a century. We keep the oil companies in business. Through buying products from oil companies we are putting our stamp of approval on all that they do.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:35 PM on 06/14/2011
wsmith3023: "They have always said that AGW may exist (that's all that the N.A.S. states, too)."

Yawn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
11:44 AM on 06/13/2011
Any scientific theory that is not tested by deniers is no longer a theory but a religious tenet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:21 PM on 06/13/2011
And they have tested it by the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks method, also known as the Gish Gallup.

Nothing has stuck.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
02:08 PM on 06/13/2011
But the theory of greenhouse gas warming *has* been tested by deniers, using what's known as the throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks method, also known as the Gish Gallup.

The result: nothing has stuck.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:56 PM on 06/11/2011
The joke is on the wealthy countries. Green energy is cheaper in the long run, and the cheapest energy for billions of people around the world. Solar pv is down to 5 cents per KWH. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-per-kwh-solar-2009-12
This American
An end to all this nonsense
11:22 AM on 06/11/2011
We are attending a long, drawn out funeral. The AGW movement self-immolated with the climate gate emails and the nearly co-incident Copenhagen debacle. This article garners only 14 comments in 12 hours. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkotg74HS1U
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
11:27 AM on 06/11/2011
Extreme weather events understandably get more attention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/floods-droughts-extreme-weather-us_n_864046.html
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:58 PM on 06/11/2011
Dream on. Humans emit 100-300 times the CO2 and junk of all the volcanoes in the world combined. You find a spelling error in a AGW document and you conclude it's all one big lie. As if the money to lie was not in the hands of the fossil companies. Grow up.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
09:53 PM on 06/11/2011
What on earth are you responding to ?
10:49 AM on 06/11/2011
I'll bet they are fighting - there's a lot of Mercedes, private jets, and swollen Swiss bank accounts at stake here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
11:04 AM on 06/11/2011
That's true. They're quite dependent on oil sales in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia. Likewise for coal in West Virginia, Wyoming and Utah. Lots of swollen Swiss Cayman Island bank accounts on the line there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
11:51 AM on 06/13/2011
Many US States are totally dependent on oil sales.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
12:03 PM on 06/13/2011
The US government makes a trillion dollars a year in the petroleum business. That's more profit than all 500 American Oil Companies combined.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
09:48 AM on 06/11/2011
Overall, it would be less expensive for the United States to shoulder more than our share of this "burden" now, and maybe even catch up with China in solar panel manufacturing, than continue to make things worse for ourselves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/floods-droughts-extreme-weather-us_n_864046.html
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
09:57 AM on 06/12/2011
So take a stand and invest! The GOV should not be picking winners and loosers in any industry, that is not their job. If you are a true believer invest your money in GREEN. It gets oldl about how the bad old oil industry is funding the so called deniers when the greens don't get behind their movement with their own money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
11:05 PM on 06/13/2011
Agreed. The Government must put a cap and trade system or find some other way of pricing carbon, that sends the (missing) signal to the market, and allows the market to make appropriate investment decisions.

In the meantime, Government funds should go to research - but not in such a targetted way as picking winners.

Another thing that is important is for the Government and all citizens to ignore the denial coming from those who mistake the Heartland institute for NASA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
08:26 PM on 06/10/2011
For argument sake lets say we truly have a problem with man-made climate change.

Let's take one fossil fuel -coal.

Between 1980-2000 the industrial world and the developing world each burnt between 46-48 quadrillion BTU's per year of coal. By 2007 the industrial nations had actually reduced their usage of coal but the developing nations were consuming over 80 quadrillion BTU's of coal. Conservative estimates have the fast developing nations over 160 quadrillion BTU's of coal around 2035!

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

2010 China consumed 48% of all coal burnt on the planet.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON --------
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
02:41 PM on 06/10/2011
As usual, it's never really about "science" only money in the would-be co2 regulatory scam.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:02 PM on 06/11/2011
The money is in fossils fuels, the riches corporations on earth and in history. You think the scientists are plotting to take over the world? Sure, carbon trading was a bankster derivative scam, but human caused climate change is real. Humans emit 100-300 times the CO2 and other junk as all the volcanoes in the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
09:23 PM on 06/12/2011
The level of warming ignorance never seeks to amaze, human co2 is less than 4% of total input. It's the phony accumulation narrative that addresses this fact.

The co2 can't be defined either.

Get a clue.
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
02:17 PM on 06/10/2011
Interesting problem. Here we have a bunch of industrialized nations that have developed on environmental exploitation. We burnt all kinds of fossil fuels to get where we are today, a rich nation with relatively low poverty rates. Who are we to deny the developing nations the same? I can imagine how it sounds: "Look, India, we got wealthy cutting trees and burning coal, oil and gas. But you can't do the same. Sorry, you're relegated to poverty."

I know what I'd say if I were the Indian government. Starts with F and ends with You.

Developing countries must take the lead and must carry the biggest burden when it comes to reducing emissions. America, first and foremost, needs to step up. Then let's worry about the developing nations.
01:50 PM on 06/10/2011
CLIMATEGATE 101: "Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil Jones

Here I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming:
Denial: http://bit.ly/m6xySt
Oceans: http://oi52.tinypic.com/x3e0es.jpg
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
Authority: http://oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg
Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
03:06 PM on 06/10/2011
Nope, still no cogent, logical argument to make about the science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
12:38 AM on 06/11/2011
Climategate never happened. The only purpose of your lies is to make the science look uncertain. But the science has been increasingly certain for the last 50 years.
10:52 AM on 06/11/2011
Wow! The observations are clear: CO2 is not an important driver of climate. The science is clear around that as well. The complications arrived when the alarmism was seen as a great political opportunity for some heavy hitters, and for funding by some minnows such as the folks in the Climategate emails.