Conflict between US and China on global climate change

Developed countries such as the US and EU countries after having polluted for decades are now refusing to sign on to further reductions without developing countries also making considerable commitments. The refusal to sign on to Kyoto was a defining characteristic of the Bush regime but now Obama the Green also refuses to sign on to a Kyoto protocol citing their great green credentials compared to bad polluting Bush. Perhaps some compromise may be worked out but the result could be some nice sounding rhetoric with no teeth. I guess that could be called Kyoto 2.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/07/kyoto-copenhagen-un-climate-change

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in apublic showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to theexisting Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countriesto join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlikeKyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seekinga new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyotocould be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hitback stating that the protocol, the world's only legally bindingcommitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".With only a few days of formal UN negotiations remaining before thecrunch Copenhagen meeting in December, and the world's two largestemitters refusing to give ground, a third way may now have to be foundto secure a climate change agreement. Last night it emerged thatlawyers for the EU are in talks with the US delegation urgentlyseeking a way out of the impasse that now threatens a strong climatedeal.In a day of high international rhetoric, chief US negotiator JonathanPershing said the US had moved significantly in the last year. "Therehas been a startling change in the US position. There is nowengagement. We have had a 10-fold increase finance from the US. Wehave put $80bn into a green economic stimulus package. One year agothere was no commitment to a global agreement."But he forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol."We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to bepart of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement hasto [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto.Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot bestuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from allcountries."Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said richcountries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which allindustrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratifiedin 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirementfor developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as boththeir current and historical emissions are low in most cases. However,China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population isnow the world's biggest polluter."The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to bestrengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, astrengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I[industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," saidYu."We have an agreement. If you take that away [you remove] the basis ofnegotiations. There are specific provisions for parties [like the US]who are not signed up to the Kyoto protocol."China was backed strongly by the G77 group of 130 countries and theAlliance of Small Island States (Aosis), made up of Caribbean andPacific countries which expect to be made uninhabitable in the nextfew generations if a strong climate agreement is not secured."We face an emergency. We want commitments. We did not create theproblem. Any mechanism currently in use is one we want to maintain.National actions are important but they are no substitutes for aninternational framework," said Dessima Williams, a Grenadianspokeswoman for Aosis.The EU, today sided openly with the US for the first time. "We look atthe Kyoto protocol, but since it came into force we have seenemissions increase. It has not decreased emissions. It's not enoughand we need more," said spokesman Karl Falkenberg."We are very unlikely to see the US join Kyoto, but we are workingwith the US to find a legal framework to allow the US to participateand which will allow large emitters [such as China] to participate."The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten thesuccess of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completelynew agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free tochoose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countrieswant to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, toensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreedcuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for theUS to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developingcountries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speedto other countries.The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. Onediplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walkingout."However, lawyers said it would be difficult to terminate the Kyotoprotocol because all parties have to formally agree by consensus toend it. In addition, if no further commitment periods after 2012 areestablished for rich countries, it would be a breach of their ownlegal agreements.___________________________________

Kyoto framework still best

The Canadian Prime minister, Stephen Harper, has allied himself more closely with the US on many issues than the former Liberal Government. Anderson was in the former government. Although the government signed on to Kyoto it did little and in fact emissions grew. So the former govt. took the moral high ground and then in practice made the environment worse. Stephen Harper blows hot air at very high temperatures and his idea of fairness is to not do anything as long as developing countries such as China and India do not sign on to targets even though as the article points out they certainly have quite legitimate complaints and suspicions about the US and Canada idea of fairness.

Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world

Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson

The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.

Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.

The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.

The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.

The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.

We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.

The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.

The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.

An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?

The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.

Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.

The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.

The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.

Australian Election: Labor to win over Howard?

This is from the Times of India. Howard was a big supporter of Bush. Labor will sign the Kyoto agreement as opposed to Howard. The election is Nov. 24.

Poll shows Australian PM heading for defeat
17 Nov 2007,




SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard will enter the final week of Australia's election campaign well behind his opposition rival Kevin Rudd, according to an opinion poll published on Saturday.

A news poll published in the Australian newspaper covering the 18 most marginal seats held by Howard's conservative government showed Rudd's centre-left Labour party ahead 54 percent to 46.

The newspaper said if the results of the poll were duplicated in next Saturday's election, Labour would win between 18 and 25 seats, comfortably ahead of the 16 it needs to gain power.

It said one of the seats to fall to Labour under such a scenario would be Howard's own electorate of Bennelong in Sydney's suburbs.

Labour's 54-46 lead in the poll of 3,600 voters is identical to the findings of a separate survey published on Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Australian newspaper said in an editorial that it appeared Howard's Liberal-National coalition was headed for defeat on November 24 after almost 12 years in office.

"After four terms, the coalition appears to have run out of luck and lost the attention of voters," it said.

But Howard told the newspaper that he did not detect a "visceral hostility" towards him or his government among the public.

"I think there are a lot of people who are quite undecided and I think this election is anybody's at this present time, that's my strong view," he said.

Kyoto: A socialist plot

NOTE: Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, some time ago in a fund raising letter had called Kyoto a socialist plot. It is hardly that or even socialist and only a first step towards solving global environmental problems.

Kyoto: a socialist plot (Duncan Cameron)
Rabble.ca February 7, 2007

Stephen Harper was right when he called the Kyoto protocol a socialist scheme. After all it is an intergovernmental agreement to make corporations reduce greenhouse gas emissions, where tardy rich countries have the option of funding emission reductions in poor countries.

But socialism is more than government trumping corporations, and rich giving to poor. And, most importantly, caring for the environment goes well beyond adhering to Kyoto.

In fact, if you really want to protect the environment, the best measures would resemble a full-blown socialist plot. Green goes best with socialist red.

Most environmentalists, let alone Canadians, would not self-identify as socialists. But democratic planning, public ownership, and mandatory regulation of corporate investment and production have to be part of a serious green agenda. For instance, socializing investment decisions, where the community interest takes precedence over the profit-maximization motive, is an old-fashioned socialist goal.

With climate change focusing our attention, it suddenly makes more sense to think about collective input into choices about not just exploiting natural resources, but about how financial resources are allocated.

The great ruling fiction is that adding up my choices, your choices, and everybody else’s choices, produces the best possible outcome for all. Not only does this approach ignore the existing distribution of income, wealth and access to resources, so that some have lots of market choice while others have none, it also neglects the structure of ownership of productive resources — aka, the means to pollute, and create environmental havoc.

The socialist ethic suggests your choices affect me, and concern us, so we need to agree about what to produce, and how much, and drop the fiction that market choices produce optimal outcomes.

The green ethos suggests that we should produce in a sustainable way, so as to achieve environmentally friendly outcomes.

Planning production is where socialists and the environmental movement can feel free to join hands and sing together. Without such a songfest what we are likely to get is green washing where, say, the main energy companies, take on renewable energy as part of their mission of increasing share holder value, and governments subsidize them to produce wind, solar, and tidal energy.

Turning over alternative energy production to big oil, without regard to the need to directly control and reduce the overall environmental impact of current economic practices is classic bait and switch politics.

Show us the bait, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and then switch from the direct regulation approach, to the high cost, and ultimately futile alternative of subsidizing big energy to produce green solutions to problems they are creating daily.

The lowest cost, most efficient way to produce clean energy is to mandate crown corporations to bring alternative energy sources into being. Being under public ownership would facilitate the planned introduction of wind, solar and tidal power. With a federal government guarantee, Crown corporations could borrow the capital they need at the lowest rates going.

Public power at cost was the socialist scheme for hydro-electricity. It is still a good choice for greenhouse gas reduction.

Public ownership, the collective control of green energy sources is the best way to go beyond Kyoto to a truly sustainable future for Canada, and the world.

Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.

Canadian parliament passes motion supporting Kyoto accords

Following the lead of the US, Harper refuses to sign on to Kyoto although so far he has not signed off either. The Conservative argument that Liberals did nothing or at least very little to meet Canadian targets is not without merit!I really do not know enough about the issue to evaluate their claim that it is impossible to meet our targets but I imagine it is possible, especially if we want to spend a lot of money buying emission credits from other countries!

House motion passes supporting Kyoto
Last Updated: Monday, February 5, 2007 | 3:33 PM ET
CBC News
Members of Parliament voted Monday in favour of a motion from Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion that reaffirms Canada's support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government followed party orders and voted unanimously against it, but 161 MPs voted in favour and 115 against the motion. Harper was not present for the vote.

Dion's non-binding motion, which was introduced Feb. 1, demands the government "honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety," and calls on the Tories to create and publish a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Monday's vote on the motion has no effect except that it puts MPs on the record. However, another vote on an opposition bill that would commit the government to Kyoto is expected in a couple of weeks.

Hours before the vote, Dion and Harper engaged in spirited debate over climate change during question period.

Dion urged Harper and the Conservatives to get on side, saying the Liberal motion was counting on the government to recognize that climate change is "the worst ecological threat" that humanity is facing, and that Canada needs to meet its Kyoto obligations with a comprehensive plan to fight global warming.

Continue Article

Dion asked Harper to acknowledge that he was wrong on climate change and that he vote in favour of the motion.

Harper responded by criticizing Dion for making the motion in the first place, particularly when Dion had admitted in recent months that the Kyoto targets could not be achieved.

"He needs to get his own position straight," Harper said to wide applause.

Last Thursday, Dion tabled the motion calling on the Tory government to reaffirm Canada's commitment to the accord, which was signed by the Liberals when they were in power.

The motion came as both parties hammer each other on their environmental record, and follows the recent surfacing of a letter Harper wrote in 2002 that derided the Kyoto accord.

The letter described Kyoto as a "socialist scheme" that is based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and designed to suck money out of rich countries.

Harper has since said he accepts the science of climate change, but that Canada has no chance of meeting its emissions targets under the accord and must set more realistic goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto accord, on April 29, 1998. The Tories have said that the Liberals may have signed the agreement, but did nothing while in power to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Related

Harper Haunted by Letters Past

It is interesting that Harper did not say straight out that he no longer believes the position outlined in his letter. He did say though that he accepted the science and was going to act. THe NDP seems to be co-operating with the Conservatives to at least get stronger environmental legislation passed. The Conservatives were also on the attack against the Liberal environmental record a easy target since the Liberals did little to meet Kyoto targets.


Kyoto letter has come back to haunt Harper, Liberal MPs say
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 | 4:36 PM ET
CBC News
Opposition Liberal MPs demanded Wednesday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain a letter he apparently wrote five years ago in which he derides the Kyoto accord.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion asked Harper twice in question period to indicate whether his position on the issue has changed.

"Canada is unfortunate enough to have a prime minister who is a climate change denier," Dion said in the House of Commons.

"A real leader says he was wrong and says, 'I agree I was wrong and I changed my mind,'" he said.

In the letter, written in 2002, Harper describes Kyoto as a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries.

"Will he admit that the new environmental facade is just an attempt to mislead the Canadian people?" asked Dion.

Continue Article

The letter, on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

Government acting: Harper
Harper, who did not acknowledge in question period that he wrote the letter, replied to Dion: "This government has made it clear in the election campaign that we accept the science and that's why we're acting."

He said the government has acted by introducing Canada's clean air act, proposed legislation to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. It is before a special legislative committee.

Harper added that Dion should give a new name to his dog, known as Kyoto, to reflect "various denials" by the Liberals on important issues.

Harper said Dion could call his dog Clean Air, Fiscal Imbalance, or even The Sponsorship Scandal.

The prime minister said later he believes there should be a world conference on climate change and he would be willing to go to such a meeting.

"We all recognize this is a serious environmental problem that needs immediate action," Harper told the House of Commons.

"Canada's decision to do nothing over the past decade was a mistake and we want to do better."

Environment Minister John Baird came to Harper's defence over the letter, quoting passages from Liberal MPs who had criticized Kyoto.

Baird said the Liberals had done nothing to cut greenhouse gases while they were power.

'Prisoners of past beliefs'
Earlier on Parliament Hill, other Liberal MPs said the past has come back to haunt Harper.

"People are prisoners of their past beliefs," said Michael Ignatieff, Liberal MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

"It's very difficult for a leopard to change its spots."

John McCallum, Liberal MP for Markham-Unionville, said: "That's the real Mr. Harper. Today's Mr. Harper is the one who reads polls."

Conservative MPs, meanwhile, when asked before question period about the letter, dismissed its importance and said they do not think much of Kyoto anyway.

"I hear it's a dog," Tory caucus whip Jay Hill said.

Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer said: "The Kyoto accord itself doesn't do a whole lot — as we've seen with the Liberal record — to reduce greenhouse gases.

"It's a trading system, a transfer of wealth from one part of the world to another."