Category: Peru

Peru, Top 20 Polluters

Lima climate change talks reach global warming agreement :”Socialism masked as Enviromentalism” “Climate Change is Crap” Tony Abbott Tony Abbott

COP20 president and the Peruvian minister of environment, Manuel Pulgar, claps after approving the proposed compromise document.

Deal would for first time commit all countries – including developing nations – to cutting emissions

International negotiators at the Lima climate change talks have agreed on a plan to fight global warming that would for the first time commit all countries to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan, agreed at United Nations talks on Sunday, was hailed as an important first step towards a climate change deal due to be finalised in Paris next year. The proposals call on countries to reveal how they will cut carbon pollution, ideally by March next year.

“As a text it’s not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks.

However, negotiators acknowledged they had put off the most difficult decisions for later.

And with 2014 on course to be the hottest year on record, campaigners warned the plan was far too weak to limit warming to the internationally agreed limit of 2C above pre-industrial levels, or to protect poor countries from climate change.

“It’s definitely watered down from what we expected,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

They also warned negotiators had left too many contentious issues unresolved before the deadline for reaching a deal in Paris. “The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch up,” said Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid’s senior climate change advisor.
Advertisement

But after a difficult negotiation – which over-ran by two days– officials said they were satisfied with the outcome.

“It was contentious along the way but it fundamentally accomplished what we wanted it to,” Todd Stern, the US State Department’s climate change envoy, said.

The five-page text agreed on Sunday – now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action – represents the embryonic phase of the deal due to be delivered in Paris.

As sketched out in Lima, all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries would pledge action on climate change.

Wealthy countries would help developing countries fight climate change, by investing in clean energy technology or offering climate aid.

Countries already threatened by climate change – such as small island states which face being swallowed up by rising seas – were promised a “loss and damage” programme of financial aid.

The all-inclusive nature of the emissions cuts constitutes a break with one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks – that wealthy countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

“I think for the first time ever the world can contemplate a global deal applicable to all and Lima has helped that process,” the UK’s energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said.

If all goes well, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US, will as part of the agreement formally pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as will India, Brazil and other rising economies.

But much remains uncertain about the prospects of a strong deal emerging from Paris – not least because of the problems that arose during the negotiations in Lima.

The Lima negotiations had opened on 1 December amid a spirit of optimism following an agreement last month between the US and China to cut carbon pollution.

But it soon became apparent that the US-China deal on its own would have no effect on bridging the perennial dividing line of climate negotiations – the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The talks over-ran by two days because of clashes over which countries should carry the burden of fighting climate change.

There were also disputes over climate finance. Wealthy countries were accused of failing to live up to their earlier promises of mobilising billions to help developing countries fight climate change.

But after a day of brinkmanship on Saturday – with Stern warning of a “major breakdown” – the deal was done.

“We got what we wanted,” Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister, said.

But much now remains to be done if the broad outlines agreed at Lima are to materialise in a full-fledged climate deal.

The US, China, and the European Union have already come forward with pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.

Under the plan, countries are due to come forward by March 2015 with their proposed emissions reductions targets.

The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C.

But much remains vague or poorly defined. The countries put off decisions about the legal structure of the agreement, and deferred decisions about ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries.

The biggest issue left unresolved for Paris is the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The draft text retains language of “common but differentiated responsibilities” that has over the years given developing countries a pass on cutting emissions. That language remains in the text although with a rider “in light of different national circumstances”. Stern acknowledged to reporters the issue was likely to come up again at Paris.

And the text adopted on Sunday no longer makes it mandatory for countries to provide detailed information about their prospect reductions targets.

Campaigners said that would make it increasingly difficult to be sure the deal would manage to keep warming within the 2 degree threshold.

0:00
/
0:00
Peru

The world’s worst-performing industrial nation on climate change in a report by the think tank Germanwatch.60% of Australians think Direct Action is inadequate but he wont listen.
Julie Bishop will need to fight to rescue Australia’s standing after a dire first week at the Lima climate talks. AAP Image/Alan Porritt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GYe2UzxOxrs

Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop will have a lot of explaining to do when she arrives here in Lima, Peru, ahead of her address to the UN climate summit tomorrow.

It will take all of her diplomatic skills to avoid Australia suffering further ignominy at the negotiations, having already been named the world’s worst-performing industrial nation on climate change in a report by the think tank Germanwatch.

Australia has also scooped no fewer than three Fossil of the Day Awards for blocking progress at the talks (as judged by Climate Action Network, which includes 800 international environmental and climate justice organisations) in the first week of the meeting.

Global public opinion on climate change seems to be way ahead of Australia’s leadership. Australia has declined to pledge any money to the Green Climate Fund, unlike many developed countries including New Zealand and Norway, both of which are part of the negotiating group led by Australia.

One of the “fossil” awards was given to Australia because it, along with Belgium and Ireland, is among the only developed countries that have not so far contributed to the Green Climate Fund, designed to help developing countries reduce their carbon emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

Representatives of 14 Australian aid, development and environment campaign groups, including Oxfam and World Vision, have called on the Australian government to reconsider its refusal to contribute to the fund.

“Twenty-three countries have now pledged US$9.95 billion of the fund’s initial $10-15 billion target, including some developing nations,” the article said.

While the United States has pledged US$3 billion (A$3.6 billion) to the fund, and Japan roughly half that, Australia has not contributed to it at all.

Australia has defended its lack of support for the Green Climate Fund, saying that it will instead support climate change measures through its overseas aid budget, much of which goes to neighbouring Asian and Pacific countries. But critics point out that Australia’s last budget contained cuts to foreign aid, and the stance was deemed worth of another fossil award.

Australia picked up its other fossil award for its stance on loss and damage related to climate. It said that loss and damage should be considered as part of the issue of climate adaptation, rather than as a standalone part of the Paris Climate Agreement, to be finalised in December 2015. This is in direct contrast to the stance of those countries most likely to be affected by climate change, including many of the world’s least developed nations. Once a typhoon or a storm surge causes huge damage, you cannot adapt to it.

Australia has already suffered severe loss and damage from climate change from a longer and more severe bushfire season, more severe flooding and hurricanes. Australia has resources to cope with this. The Philippines clearly does not have the resources to cope with many more severe typhoons.

Bishop moves in

Despite Australia’s disappointing stance so far, some commentators hold out more hope for the rest of the Lima talks with the attendance (at her own insistence) of Julie Bishop. She will be there with Australia’s Trade Minister Andrew Robb – a climate change sceptic – as her apparent chaperone, at the request of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Nearly six out of ten of Australians think Tony Abbott’s Direct Action policy has left the country with an inadequate response to the problem of global warming, according to a recent Fairfax poll.

Robb’s inclusion is being seen as a signal to those within Australia’s Coalition government who favour more ambitious emissions-reduction targets. The message is that Abbott remains opposed to ramping up his climate policy, even as the rest of the world positions itself to do so.

Abbott, Barrier Reef, Peru

Julie Bishop lobbies nations with heritage sites to block Great Barrier Reef danger call : Scientists have little or no say in advice to this government.Bishop is Abbott’s messenger.She is also our Foreign relations minister doing an exceedingly bad job.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will head off a push to blacklist the Great Barrier Reef.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/video/id-1nMHV0cTqJL9Fax1iE6rDOo1St6po2DL/Expert-says-Bishop%27s-reef-claims-defy-science
Julie Bishop lobbies nations with heritage sites to block Great Barrier Reef danger call

Steven Scott

37
Expert says Bishop’s reef claims defy science
Expert says Bishop’s reef claims defy science

FOREIGN Minister Julie Bishop will declare the Great Barrier Reef is not “in danger” as she today heads off an international push to blacklist the national icon.

Ms Bishop will warn world leaders to back off, arguing a push to list the Australian icon will put their own heritage sites in the firing line.

The Foreign Minister believes a successful ruling against Australia would set a precedent activists will use to list key world heritage sites across the world.

“Every country that has an environmental icon that activists seize upon would be at risk,” she said.

In a bid to prevent UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee declaring the Reef “in danger” next year, Ms Bishop plans to lobby each country on the committee that the ruling would set a precedent for their own nations.

Ms Bishop will hold meetings with other world leaders on the sidelines of a climate change summit which begins in Lima, Peru today.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will head off a push to blacklist the Great Barrier Reef.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will head off a push to blacklist the Great Barrier Reef.

Her message suggests major tourist attractions including Peru’s Machu Picchu and the US’s Yellowstone National Park could be threatened as a result of a negative listing for the Reef.

Ms Bishop will argue Australia has provided a “textbook case” on how to address environmental threats with its policies to protect the Reef and should not be punished by an “in danger” ruling that would have “significant implications” for Queensland’s tourism, coastal development and mining.

“There is no justification for an ‘in danger’ listing by the World Heritage Committee,” Mr Bishop told The Courier-Mail.

“It would send a message around the world that even if you meet all of the criteria set out by the World Heritage Committee, there is still a risk that they will place an area on the ‘in danger’ list.

“It would have significant implications for Australia but it would also set a very dangerous precedent for countries who don’t have the opportunity to take the action that Australia has.”
Bishop takes Obama to task on reef
Bishop takes Obama to task on reef

The World Heritage Committee will meet next June to decide whether to formally declare the Reef “in danger”.

UNESCO has been investigating threats to the Reef from development since 2012 and has called for a ban on new port developments in Queensland until 2015.

Ms Bishop said Australia had already addressed all warnings about the Reef by banning the dumping of port dredge waste, limiting agricultural run-off and targeting the crown of thorns starfish.

She will tell world leaders our steps in emissions reduction should be taken into account.

She will also seek support from others not on the committee, including the USA, and warn a negative ruling about the Reef could have implications for other marine ecosystems not on the World Heritage list, such as the coral reefs off Honolulu.