【2009.12.07-18 资料收集】哥本哈根气候大会『欢迎认领』

rhapsody

前言：此帖用于收集与哥本哈根气候大会相关的一些外媒报道。由于相关报道数量和篇幅都很大，故集中成一帖，便于查找。

《时代周刊》对哥本哈根气候大会做的一个前瞻性专题（共有33篇文章）：
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1929071,00.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

哥本哈根气候大会需要解决的议题（消息来自美联社）：http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8794528

Issues to resolve for Copenhagen climate talks

By The Associated Press (AP)

A list of key points negotiators hope to clarify before meeting for a decisive U.N. climate conference next month in Copenhagen, Denmark.

EMISSIONS TARGETS — Industrial nations are asked to make specific pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, while developing nations should state how they are reducing emissions growth. Scientists say industrial countries should reduce emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to avoid climate catastrophe. So far their pledges amount to far less. Developing nations want their rich counterparts to commit to cut emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels.

CLIMATE AID — Industrial nations are asked to contribute to a global climate aid fund to help the world's poorest cope with the effects of climate change. An interim deal at Copenhagen would clear the way to mobilize some funds. The European Union estimates euro100 billion, or about $150 billion, a year will be needed by 2020 to fight climate change in the developing world, with euro5 billion to euro7 billion needed in each of the next three years.

AID DISBURSEMENT — Nations must agree on a mechanism for distributing funds both to help the developing world transition to low-carbon energy production as well as to aid poor nations hit by droughts, floods and other climate-linked disasters. Unlike current international funding agencies such as the World Bank, the new body would give developing countries an equal if not greater voice in how money is spent.

TREATY FRAMEWORK — Negotiators must agree on the shape of a legally binding treaty. Developing nations want the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to be extended beyond its 2012 expiration, with expanded emission reductions pledges for 37 industrial countries. The United States rejected the protocol because it excluded obligations for developing countries, and it does not want to join now. It is unclear whether a second parallel agreement is required, whether Kyoto would be scrapped altogether, or whether the Kyoto terms would be cut-and-pasted into a single new document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GlobeScan与汇丰合作做的一个全球性调查，近三分二受访者认为（达成）减少排放的新国际协议是“非常重要的”：
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/hsbc_climate/

London – Nearly two thirds (65 per cent) of people surveyed across the globe believe a new international deal to cut emissions is “very important”, according to the annual Climate Confidence Monitor released today. The 12 country study, commissioned by the HSBC Climate Partnership, sends a clear message to governments preparing to attend the UN climate change summit in December to agree on a policy framework to tackle climate change.

The third Climate Confidence Monitor reveals a global consensus on emission reduction targets. 79 per cent want to see a commitment to “meet or significantly exceed” a 50–80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050. This demand for commitment to reduction targets is highest in Mexico (91 per cent), Brazil (90 per cent), Hong Kong (84 per cent) and China (82 per cent) and lowest in India (75 per cent), UK (71 per cent) and the US (66 per cent).

Despite the deepening of the global recession since last year’s survey was conducted, seven in 10 people (69 per cent) agreed that addressing climate change is at least as important, if not more important than supporting their national economy during the downturn. Respondents to this question were asked to prioritise spending public money on healthcare, crime, national defence, education and supporting the national economy during the downturn.
Lord Stern, adviser to HSBC on economic development and climate change said: “With just over a month to go before Copenhagen, this is a clear call from the global population for a strong and effective deal. Rich and developing countries must act together to create an agreement that will lay the foundations for a future era of dynamic low-carbon growth.”               
        
The Climate Confidence Monitor 2009 also revealed:

Emerging vs Developed Markets: For the third year running, the Climate Confidence Monitor shows that there is a stronger desire for action in emerging economies than in the developed world. In Brazil, 86 per cent and in Mexico, 83 per cent believe it is very important that a deal in Copenhagen is reached. Globally only two per cent of people feel a new climate deal isn’t important at all.
Stephen Green, Group Chairman HSBC Holdings plc said: “We know that the impacts of climate change will particularly affect the emerging markets and clearly the people of those countries are concerned. We look to the Copenhagen meeting to create a framework for a low carbon economy that will allow emerging markets to prosper and create attractive investment opportunities for businesses worldwide.”

Climate Change vs other global issues: In a year that brought media headlines of pandemic flu and economic meltdown, a third of all respondents (34 per cent) believe climate change is one of the biggest issues they worry about today. They were asked to rank climate change as an issue compared to global economic stability, terrorism, violence, pandemic disease, global poverty, natural disasters and social breakdown. In Mexico, 22 per cent of respondents ranked climate change as the number one issue.

Personal commitment to low carbon choices: Commitment to reduce personal impact on climate change by adapting lifestyle choices rose four percentage points from 2008 to 36 per cent this year. In particular, France and Mexico show increases in commitment of at least 15 percentage points in the past 12 months. The most popular steps people are taking to reduce their carbon footprint are recycling, turning off electronic equipment and using energy-saving light bulbs. People living in China, Hong Kong, India and France claimed to be most active in making low-carbon lifestyle choices.

Steve Howard, Chief Executive of the Climate Group commented on this trend: “World leaders must agree a deal in Copenhagen that unlocks low carbon jobs and growth, and enables the rest of us to make smarter, greener choices about the ways we heat our homes, fuel our cars and power our businesses.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBC对哥本哈根气候大会开幕的一个报道见：http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-210639-1-1.html

rhapsody

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/art ... h_for_in_copenhagen

Last month, world leaders announced that they no longer expect to reach a fully binding legal agreement in Copenhagen, but Barack Obama's last-minute decision to attend the final day of the conference signals that the U.S. president now thinks there will be something significant to announce on that date. (And perhaps to take credit for?) Until then, here are some developments to watch. How these debates play out could determine what, if anything, will emerge from this month's gathering.

National Commitments to Reduce Emissions

The issue: The end goal of international climate negotiations, as affirmed by leaders at July's G-8 meeting, is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius by cutting global carbon emissions to half of 1990 levels by 2050. With Western industrialized countries focused on upping the energy efficiency of old cities, and developing countries focused on first moving their populations into new megacities, the debate over how much commitment countries in such different circumstances should make to trim their emissions has been contentious.

Obama recently pledged that the United States would reduce emissions about 17 percent by 2020 as compared with 2005 levels (though the Wall Street Journal is reporting that he might soon announce steeper cuts for 2050); his current pledge reflects numbers in bills now under review by Congress. The president probably can't offer much more without risking that any final treaty would later be rejected by Congress, similar to what happened when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Kyoto climate treaty in 1997.

Rather than absolute carbon cuts, some developing countries, including China and India, have declared goals of reducing the "carbon intensity" of their economies. In other words, they will use less carbon per unit of GDP growth, but as their overall economies grow, so too will carbon emissions, at least for the short term. China has pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by 40 to 45 percent. India has a target of 20 to 25 percent. The targets have been applauded by some as a step forward and pilloried by others as far too low.

The upshot: Most observers think the final numbers coming out of the summit will roughly resemble those put on the table beforehand. That means carbon emissions are likely to continue to grow for the next several years. China's current efforts to rein in emissions will likely mean that, instead of tripling between now and 2020, its national emissions will only double. Gulp.

It's worth noting that any targets that emerge from Copenhagen will likely be short-term first steps, up until 2020. Long-term, the goal of negotiations is to stabilize the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2050. So watch for whether developing countries also make any pledges regarding their "peak carbon years," after which emissions should begin a downturn. The essential question, which will not be fully addressed at this summit, is what steps developing countries can take now to dramatically bend down their emissions curves as they grow in the future.

Show Me the Money

The issue: Once countries make their carbon vows, who will foot the bill? At present, developed countries have proposed providing $10 billion per year through 2012 for carbon reduction and adaptation programs in poorer countries, after which a new long-term financing mechanism -- whose shape is also yet to be determined -- should take effect.

Meanwhile, analysts at the World Bank and in China say much more money is needed, with estimates ranging up to $300 billion per year. (China reportedly would consider upping its reduction targets if more money from developed countries were made available.)

The upshot: Nothing will happen unless there's money behind it, and for some countries, the financial pledge may be as politically difficult as the carbon-reduction pledge. (Sen. John Kerry has proposed that the United States pony up $2.5 billion to $3 billion, roughly equivalent to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.) With many industrialized countries stuck in recessions and struggling with high unemployment, short-term generosity will be difficult.

But the long-term challenge of designing a financial architecture for climate-change mitigation and adaptation efforts will be even trickier. At Copenhagen, get ready to witness the early design stages of, in effect, a World Bank-meets-WTO for carbon: an international system to distribute funds, impose terms, and arbitrate disputes about carbon-reduction efforts worldwide.

Big Brother Carbon

The issue: The dictum "trust, but verify" has been adapted and updated in climate circles as measurement, reporting, and verification, or MRV. Once carbon-reduction promises have been made, what system will exist to ensure those commitments will be kept? An international carbon police?

Trust is a huge issue, especially between countries that have been strategic rivals. Beijing, for instance, doesn't want some global carbon patrol stomping around its factories any more than Americans want Chinese storm troopers fiddling around with their electric grids and meters in the Midwest. And yet, it's not clear that any country would be satisfied simply allowing its peers to self-report data, without some independent watchdog to check that carbon books haven't been cooked.

The upshot: At Copenhagen, expect to hear proposals for an international review board to assess each country's pledges and progress every two years. In the meantime, several technical collaborations are already under way to ensure that developing countries have the tools and expertise needed to track basic carbon emissions.

Networking, venture capital, and yes, brothels

The issue: In addition to officially sanctioned activity and possibly illegal activity (protests and discounted prostitution, respectively), Copenhagen will feature several hundred side presentations and meet-ups organized by green-tech businesses and environmental organizations. After all, only a fraction of the 30,000 people descending on Copenhagen over the two weeks will be professional negotiators. Think of it as a giant green-tech trade conference.

The upshot: Whatever carbon-reduction targets are set, someone has to make it happen. Governments will play a role in incubating some breakthrough technologies and providing financial incentives for green tech. But much of the work will be accomplished by the private sector and NGOs, and by a variety of partnerships. Expect much trading of business cards and beers at Copenhagen, as green start-ups vie for venture capitalists' attention and green-tech suppliers shake hands with distributors.

Mexican Tourism Brochures

The issue: See y'all in 2010! The weather is better in Mexico, we promise! The date for the next U.N. climate conference -- from which, hopefully, a truly legally binding agreement will emerge -- has already been set for December 2010 in Mexico City. We know already that the two-week Copenhagen conference won't, in itself, save the world from global warming. No great surprise. But if the United States and China, which abstained from signing the last global climate treaty, stay at the table, it will be at least a symbolic victory. The substance, to be worked out next year, will likely include making countries' proposed carbon-reduction targets internationally binding and hammering out a long-term financial mechanism to give the planet a clean-tech retrofit.

The upshot: On the one hand, the inevitably inconclusive nature of Copenhagen is to be expected -- neither Rome nor the World Bank was built in a day. On the other hand, how much longer can the planet wait? Keeping global temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius already seems a difficult target, and delay makes that hope seem ever more distant.

rhapsody

Copenhagen summit：Europe turns on US and China over weak emission targets

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... /article6947765.ece

The European Union has rejected the new carbon emission targets tabled by the United States and China and said they were much too weak to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The dispute between the three main players at the Copenhagen climate change summit overshadowed the first day of negotiations and dashed hopes that a deal on emissions was imminent.

The EU called on President Obama to announce a more ambitious target next week, when he arrives in Copenhagen for the last day of the conference on December 18.

But the US insisted that the provisional offer made 10 days ago by Mr Obama was “remarkable” and in line with what scientists had recommended.

Mr Obama has proposed to cut its emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, although he has said this is subject to getting the approval of Congress. The EU has made a legally binding commitment to cut its emissions by 20 per cent over the same period. It has also said it would increase the cut to 30 per cent if other countries committed to “comparable action”.

Washington tonight attempted to demonstrate that it was serious about fighting climate change by formally announcing that green house gases were a danger to American health and paving the way for new regulations to control them. This would technically allow Mr Obama to override Congress and impose carbon cuts but, in practice, he is more likely to use the prospect of regulations as a bargaining chip to persuade enough senators to pass a Bill enforcing the 4 per cent target.

Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s environment minister and the EU’s main negotiator under the rotating presidency, said the targets proposed by the US and China were too low to qualify as comparable action and therefore the EU would not strengthen its 20 per cent target.

“If you analyse the bids they are not going to deliver the emissions reductions that would be keeping the Earth’s temperature [increase] below 2C. The US and China cover half the world’s emissions so it will be absolutely decisive what they deliver.

“It would be astonishing if President Obama arrived here next week and just delivered what was in last week’s press release. I would rather expect the US President will deliver something further.”

Mr Carlgren also dismissed China’s offer to reduce its emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent by 2020. He said the target would result in a huge increase in emissions because of China’s predicted 8 per cent annual economic growth.

Mr Carlgren dismissed the recommendation from Lord Stern of Brentford that the EU should take the lead at the summit by making an unconditional commitment to cut its emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.

“The EU wants to go to 30 per cent but other parties must also deliver and it mostly depends on the US and China.

“We must keep the pressure until the end . We have said 30 per cent as a lever to put pressure on other parties.

“If we were to weaken that pressure by already delivering we would lose that endgame and we would risk having an agreement of too low an ambition level."

Jonathan Pershing, the US chief negotiator at Copenhagen, tried to downplay America’s contribution to climate change.

He said: “The US is responsible for one fifth of emissions which means four fifths come from the rest of the world.” He suggested that the US was making up for its weak short term target by offering an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. Most other countries argue that promising reductions in 40 years time is a political fudge and no substitute for firm action in the next decade.

But Mr Pershing hinted that Mr Obama might be willing to offer more short-term action, possibly in the form of a substantial contribution to a global fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

“The president has put a remarkable number on the table. What we need to now do is see how these negotiations proceed and we look forward to his coming and engaging in the discussion.”

P.S. 该文后边已有80多条评论。




---------------
tasselchen认领

回复  rhapsody


    认领板凳#
tasselchen 发表于 2009-12-20 21:28

rhapsody

地址：http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/n ... uender-1527773.html
提示：点击上边链接；如下图，每次会出现两个国家，让你猜哪一个国的排放更多；点击那个你认为排放更多的国家即可，看你能答对几次！

rhapsody

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro ... isarray-danish-text

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

rhapsody

Copenhagen Summit: wealthy nations accused of 'carbon colonialism'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... /article6950081.ece

Britain and its partners at the Copenhagen climate summit were accused of 21st century "carbon colonialism" today over a draft agreement that developing nations say would discriminate against them.

The so-called "Danish text" was leaked yesterday and prompted an angry reaction from the G77 bloc of developing nations, which warned that its members would not sign an "inequitable" deal when the conference ends with a summit of world leaders next Friday.

The G77's chair, Lumumba Stanislaus Di Aping of Sudan, went on the attack again today, telling journalists that the Danish text "seemed to secure 60 per cent of the global atmospheric space for 20 per cent of the world's wealthiest nations".

Mr Di Aping was especially critical of the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, whom he accused of being desperate to achieve a deal at any price.

He issued an appeal to Barack Obama, who is scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen next Friday, not to join in any attempt to strong-arm developing nations into signing a deal that would leave their countries exposed to the ravages of global warming.

"We humbly ask of President Obama that the new dawn of multilaterialism that he promised should not be simply business as usual – the West prevailing at the expense of the rest of the developing countries," Mr Di Aping added.

European delegates pointed out that the text in question was dated November 27 and had never been formally tabled. "It's a storm in a teacup," one said.

Others said that the G77 was simply trying to head off any deal that would oblige developing nations to commit to carbon emission limits. Under the Kyoto Protocol, they are exempt from any such obligations.

The text also came in for criticism on the floor of the conference, where a Singaporean activist, Amira Karim, won loud applause after attacking it for overturning and subverting normal UN principles. "This imposition without discussion is tantamount to carbon colonialism," she declared.

But even within the G77 the divisions were clear.

The Pacific island of Tuvalu, one of the most vulnerable to possible rising sea levels, fought unsuccessfully to have its own draft text, submitted in June, formally adopted on to the agenda. The resolution would entail massive aid to help vulnerable nations.

The proposal was backed by a string of island nations and by delegations from sub-Saharan Africa but rejected by China and India, the most poweful member of the G77, which blocked a proposal to set up a formal working group.

The key battles being fought out in the negotiations include a decision on whether the Kyoto Protocol should be allowed to lapse when the current obligations it imposes expire in 2012. Developing nations want to stick with it while Western nations including the United States – the world's biggest emitter per capita of greenhouse gases, but which never ratified the Kyoto agreement – want an entirely new agreeement.

The UN's chief climate diplomat, Yvo De Boer, said that he expected "two tracks" to emerge from the Copenhagen meeting: a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and a new agreement bringing in the United States and setting emission limits on developing nations.

Another sticking point is who would hold the purse strings if, as expected, industrialised nations agree to pour tens of billions into "quick-start financing" to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

The United Nations estimates that the fight against climate change may cost about $300 billion (£184 billion) a year in the long term, and the Danish text appeared to hand over responsibility to the World Bank. Developing nations have called for a global climate fund.

A possible compromise could emerge later today when four nations – Britain, Australia, Mexico and Norway – propose a new green fund that would handle the finances in any accord.

A British official said a document to be published later would look at ideas for the fund, which would help developing nations to adapt to climate changes.

P.S. 原文底下有30多条评论

rhapsody

U.S. pushes for emissions cuts from China, developing nations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp ... R2009120904596.html

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 10, 2009

COPENHAGEN -- Two top Obama administration officials arrived Wednesday at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks that opened this week offering both diplomacy and a tough line: The United States is willing to be a full partner in fighting climate change, but the real problem is with China and the developing world.

The day began with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson detailing the many measures President Obama has taken to cut greenhouse gases in the United States, telling a packed audience at the U.S. pavilion in the Bella Center, "We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world."

But two hours later, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, made clear that the United States sees carbon reductions by China and other major developing countries as "a core part of this negotiation."

"Emissions are emissions. You've just got to do the math," Stern told reporters, citing estimates that 97 percent of future emissions growth will come from the developing world. "If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass."

Responding to Stern, China's climate change ambassador, Yu Qingtai, suggested that the United States needed to reexamine its negotiating stance. "What they should do is some deep soul-searching," Yu told reporters.

The sharp exchange of words between the two nations that together account for roughly 40 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions underscores just one of the divisions within the international community on climate.

The small Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, threatened by rising sea levels, tried unsuccessfully Wednesday to get delegates to consider a legally binding new protocol that would have included a more ambitious climate target and mandatory greenhouse gas cuts for both industrialized and major emerging economies. "This is a moral issue," said Tuvalu's delegate, Ian Fry.

While China and India joined Saudi Arabia in blocking the motion, the dispute sparked an impromptu protest just outside the main session by roughly 100 environmental activists, who chanted "Tuvalu!" and "Legal Treaty Now!" U.N. police closed the plenary area in response.

Jackson used soft diplomacy to address the concerns of some of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, meeting with farm women from Africa in a session organized by Oxfam. Constance Okollet, a peasant farmer from eastern Uganda, told the EPA administrator how her village was first destroyed by floods in 2007 and then battered by drought as the residents tried to rebuild.

"From what I saw, she really felt for us and was touched by what we told her," Okollet said. "She said she is going to push and make things work out. . . . Right now there are so many issues coming up with climate change. It is not only myself, or the country of Uganda, talking about the issue of climate change."

But representatives of many developing nations remained unconvinced, concerned that the Americans are quietly negotiating a deal that will not address all the issues of equity that have surfaced in the global warming debate. Several decried a negotiating text authored by the Danes, which leaked out Tuesday, that would demand more from major developing nations.

A more recent version of the Danish proposal, seen by The Washington Post, includes a provision calling on these countries to adopt domestic climate policies that "would expect to yield an appropriate contribution consistent with global emissions peaking as soon as possible, but no later than [2020]." The year 2020 is bracketed to indicate that the date remains under negotiation.

Key representatives such as Luiz Alberto Figueiredo Machado, Brazil's chief climate negotiator, said industrialized countries must commit to significant emission cuts, to providing aid to help developing nations adapt and curb climate change, and to transferring clean technology if they expected countries like his to bind themselves to climate targets as part of an international treaty.

"Major developing countries have shown clearly that they are willing to act in the context of a truly global effort, where everyone needs to do their fair share in the context of their responsibilities," said Figueiredo, whose nation has pledged to cut 36 to 39 percent in projected emissions growth by 2020.

Jake Schmidt, who directs international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview that it is not surprising that Obama officials are "using all their tools" to ensure that key developing countries will make meaningful commitments in a new climate pact.

"This is high-stakes negotiation of the utmost urgency," he said. "You have to try everything to move this issue forward."

Stern, for his part, recognized that he might not receive the kind of accolades bestowed upon him at the start of talks this year, when delegates gave him a standing ovation during his first speech as Obama's climate representative. Engaging in the sort of negotiations that might produce a political breakthrough, he indicated, is not always popular.

"Mostly, we're not worried about standing ovations," Stern said. "We'd like to get a deal done."

rhapsody

Danish leaked text undermining call for new global climate fund

http://www.actionaid.org/main.aspx?PageID=1394

UN and not the World Bank should remain in charge of climate change negotiations

Danish government plans are undermining developing countries’ call for a new global climate fund to be managed by the UNFCCC, says ActionAid after documents were leaked today.

The Danish government appears to be falling in line with other developed countries calling for the World Bank to handle climate finance, according to the latest draft documents.

“The World Bank has a very poor record dealing with development and environmental sustainability,” said Harjeet Singh, ActionAid’s climate change advisor, at the Copenhagen Summit. “It’s ironic it’s being suggested as the way forward.”

“The World Bank is not a democratic institution and in the past, has often favoured rich countries. Where does that leave the least developed countries?” he added.

“We need a new global climate fund to be placed under the authority of the UNFCCC where there is an equitable say in decision-making and where money can be channelled for the specific and long-term needs of countries.”

“If targets for emissions and finance are to be agreed under the UNFCCC then it seems perverse that the UN system goes out the window when it comes to implementation,” said  Frans Mikael Jensen, director of MS ActionAid Denmark.

To make the point about climate debt, ActionAid’s climate debt agents, dressed in red suits, will be on the streets of Copenhagen making their presence felt. Watch out for them!

© Sarah Gillam / ActionAid

附相关图片一张：

rhapsody

La Chine rafle la mise des crédits carbone
LE MONDE | 10.12.09 | 15h00  •  Mis à jour le 10.12.09 | 15h00

http://www.lemonde.fr/le-rechauf ... 278721_1270066.html

Dans les montagnes qui surplombent la ville de Dali, dans la province du Yunnan (sud-ouest de la Chine), une quarantaine d'éoliennes coiffent la ligne de crête, traçant des pointillés blancs sur près de cinq kilomètres. A 3 000 m d'altitude, les pales de ces géants de 48 mètres de haut tournent à plein régime d'octobre à avril, et fournissent de l'énergie en complément des barrages hydroélectriques dont le rendement décline en cette période sèche de l'année. Ce plus haut champ d'éoliennes du pays est exploité par la compagnie publique d'électricité Sinohydro, qui prévoit d'assurer 10 % de la consommation des 300 000 habitants de Dali.

Par rapport à une centrale thermique à charbon, le projet financé par un prêt de 30 millions d'euros de l'Agence française de développement (AFD) va permettre d'éviter l'émission de 50 000 tonnes de CO2. A ce titre, il est éligible au "Mécanisme de développement propre" (MDP) imaginé par le protocole de Kyoto, afin de stimuler l'investissement dans les énergies renouvelables dans les pays en développement et faciliter les transferts de technologies. Ces réductions d'émissions donnent droit à autant de "crédits carbone" monnayables auprès d'Etats ou d'entreprises étrangères, friands de ces titres qui leur permettent de satisfaire les engagements de réduction de leurs émissions auxquels ils ont souscrit.

Les banques et les fonds d'investissements se sont vite postés au guichet pour acquérir des crédits carbone qu'ils revendent ensuite à des entreprises ou proposent sous forme de placements financiers. Pour les sept prochaines années, Sinohydro a vendu ses crédits à la banque néerlandaise Rabobank à un prix voisin de 10 euros la tonne de CO2. Le français EDF qui était sur les rangs n'a pas été retenu.

Jusqu'à présent, peu de pays ont su tirer parti du système imaginé par le protocole de Kyoto. La Chine, elle, n'a pas mis longtemps à en maîtriser la complexité et à en tirer avantage. Plus de la moitié des capitaux générés par les MDP d'ici à 2012 - date à laquelle expire le protocole - devrait lui revenir. Soit environ 10 milliards d'euros. Plus de 2 200 projets sont en cours dont un tiers ont été estampillés par l'ONU.

Dans la course que se livrent les provinces chinoises, le Yunnan arrive en tête. "Il y a deux ans, les acteurs économiques ignoraient tout de cet outil, aujourd'hui, ils pensent tous MDP", affirme Wang Xiali, directeur du centre MDP de la province. Le centre aide les entreprises à monter leur projet, gère sa validation par un bureau de vérification indépendant, et accompagne parfois l'entreprise lorsqu'elle plaide son dossier devant l'ONU. Placer les crédits n'est pas un problème. "Les étrangers viennent à nous", sourit M. Wang, dont les bureaux, où s'activent une douzaine de personnes, sont installés dans un immeuble de Kunming, la capitale provinciale.

Dans le Yunnan, le mécanisme sert surtout à financer de petits barrages hydroélectriques et le traitement des déchets qui, "sans l'argent que rapportent les crédits, n'auraient pas vu le jour", affirme M. Wang. La décharge municipale de Baishuitang, dans la banlieue est de Kunming, en est un bon exemple. Sur la colline de déchets entreposés à ciel ouvert, de longs tuyaux plongent dans les profondeurs des matériaux en décomposition pour en capter le méthane, puissant gaz à effet de serre. Celui-ci est ensuite acheminé afin d'être transformé en électricité dans une petite unité de production dont l'investissement a nécessité 2 millions d'euros.

Les 64 000 tonnes d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre évitées - dont la non-émission a été validée par les Nations unies - ont été converties en 64 000 crédits par an. A raison de 10 euros l'unité, un calcul rapide montre que l'opération peut s'avérer très rentable. C'est d'ailleurs peut-être le principal attrait des MDP pour la Chine. Car les transferts de technologies n'ont pas suivi. Pour une raison bien simple : dans beaucoup de domaines, la Chine n'en a nullement besoin. Dans l'éolien ou le solaire, elle fait déjà partie des leaders mondiaux.

Pékin est du reste officiellement la première à s'en plaindre. De même, elle dénonce les lourdeurs du système onusien qui - bien qu'elle en soit la première bénéficiaire - ne lui permet pas de drainer des capitaux étrangers à la hauteur de ses besoins. La mutation de l'économie chinoise vers un modèle sobre en carbone nécessiterait entre 25 et 170 milliards d'euros au cours des vingt prochaines années, selon différentes évaluations.

Mais, pour l'heure, une question urgente reste suspendue aux négociations de Copenhague. Que deviendront les MDP, si le protocole de Kyoto ne trouve pas de successeur ?

rhapsody

Die Suche nach der Klimagerechtigkeit

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2009-12/klimaschutz-gerechtigkeit

Die Industriestaaten wollen weiter mehr CO2 ausstoßen dürfen als andere Länder. China hält dagegen - und erinnert den Westen an seine Klimaschulden. Von Frank Drieschner

Es tobt eine Debatte um Gerechtigkeit auf der Kopenhagener Klimakonferenz. Und gerecht wird das Ergebnis am Ende sein müssen. Die Welt braucht faire Regeln, die festlegen, wie stark die Länder die Nutzung fossiler Energieträger künftig einschränken. Niemandem darf mehr zugemutet werden, als er legitimerweise von anderen erwarten kann. Was aber ist gerecht?

Die westlichen Demokratien sammeln sich in Kopenhagen offenbar hinter einem Vorschlag, der es ihren Bürgern gestattet, noch im Jahr 2050 pro Kopf mehr CO2 auszustoßen als die Menschen in den Entwicklungsländern. Das mag aus Sicht der Industriestaaten vernünftig erscheinen. Ihr Argument könnte lauten: Wir strengen uns an, aber eine Gleichbehandlung von Industrie- und Entwicklungsländern halten wir für kein realistisches Ziel. Chinas Unterhändler würden Letzterem sogar zustimmen. Nur ist ihre Perspektive eine völlig andere.

Mit strahlendem Lächeln stellte in Kopenhagen ein chinesischer Versammlungsleiter eine Studie der Chinesischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und weiterer hochrangiger Forschungseinrichtungen vor. Verfasst wurde das Papier von einer Gruppe um den Klimawissenschaftler Luo Long. Die Chinesischen Wissenschaftler haben ihre Studie ins Englische übersetzt und in Hochglanzpapier eingebunden. Offenbar legen sie Wert darauf, dass ihre Botschaft im Westen ankommt.

Luo greift einen brasilianischen Vorschlag aus dem Jahr 1997 auf. CO2 ist in der Atmosphäre ein sehr langlebiges Gas. Die Frage stelle sich daher, argumentiert Luo, wie viel Kohlendioxid ein Land pro Kopf seiner Bevölkerung bereits emittiert hat. Und wie viel es – konsequenterweise – noch produzieren darf.

Die Wissenschaftler tragen ihre Argumente in der Sprache der Mathematik vor: These, Beweis, dazu eine Summenformel für den "Schaden für andere, den eine Person verursacht hat". In einem nächsten Schritt bestimmen sie die Obergrenze der gesamten globalen Klimagasemissionen, die mit einer verträglichen Entwicklung gerade noch vereinbar sind (wobei sie großzügige Maßstäbe anlegen). Letzter Schritt: Wer darf noch Kohle, Öl und Gas verbrennen, wer muss sich einschränken?

Man muss den Autoren zugute halten, dass sie ihr eigenes Land streng behandeln. China müsse sich einschränken, schreiben sie. Die entwickelten Länder allerdings wirtschaften der Rechnung der Wissenschaftler zufolge schon lange jenseits von Gut und Böse. Ihr Kontingent haben seit weit überschritten. Selbst wenn die westlichen Demokratien ihre Emissionen ab sofort auf Null reduzierten, sei das bei weitem zu wenig, um die historische Klimaschuld abzutragen. So viel zur Gleichheit aus chinesischer Perspektive.

Was soll man dem entgegen halten? Es läge nahe, diesen Gerechtigkeitsformeln mit Spott zu begegnen. Aber die Thesen der Wissenschaftler werden in Kopenhagen im Namen von 1,1 Milliarden Menschen vorgetragen. Das dürfte eine spöttische Haltung verbieten. Man könnte einwenden, dass zu Beginn des Solarzeitalters nicht mehr die gleichen Notwendigkeiten bestehen wie zu Zeiten der Industriellen Revolution im Westen. Die Technik des Solarzeitalters hat die Welt im Wesentlichen dem Westen zu verdanken. Das aber wäre kein starker Einwand. Geschenkt, könnten die Chinesen sagen, dann halbieren wir eben eure Schulden.

Der Westen könnte weiter argumentieren, der Umbau einer bereits etablierten Fossilökonomie sei schwieriger als der Ausbau einer Solarökonomie in den Ländern ohne fossile Altlasten. Doch selbst wenn die Chinesen großzügig sind, ändert das nichts an ihrem Argument. Geschenkt, könnten sie sagen, wir halbieren eure Schulden ein weiteres Mal. Und dann?

Am Ende gibt es nur eine Chance, den Konflikt aufzulösen: Sollte sich die Solartechnologie schnell genug entwickeln, könnte es in einigen Jahrzehnten keinen Grund mehr geben, die schmutzige Fossiltechnik anzuwenden. Dann wäre die gewaltige Masse der chinesischen Verschmutzungsrechte wertlos. Und die Schulden des Westens auch.

P.S. 原文底下有近20条评论

rhapsody

Copenhagen: the lessons we are being forced to learn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth ... orced-to-learn.html

It's one of the tiniest and least well-known countries of all, but this week it has effectively held the world to ransom, halting formal negotiations at the giant Copenhagen climate summit.

Tuvalu – a scattering of nine islands across several hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean – is, with just 26 square miles of land, the fourth smallest nation on earth, while its 12,000 people make it the third least populous. But this week it has been roaring all the same. And one of the main reasons for that lies in another geographical fact; it is also, after the Maldives, the second lowest lying country on Earth. Which means that if the seas go on rising with global warming it will be one of the first nations to be wiped off the map.

Thus it was with sheer survival in mind that the Tuvalu delegate rose twice on successive days, on Wednesday and Thursday, and caused proceedings to be suspended in both of the two main negotiating processes in Copenhagen's cavernous concrete Bella centre. The details of his intervention are complicated (I'll try to explain later), but they symbolised an entirely new development in international relations that has emerged this week , the revolt of potential victims against the world's biggest polluters, whether industrialised or developing countries.

Up to now, big United Nations' negotiating conferences have boiled down to a confrontation between North and South, the wealthy industrialised countries of temperate climes versus the poorer – of the dirt poor – ones, mainly straddling the tropics. That division is still evident in Copenhagen, but the new one is increasingly being superimposed as most of the countries cramped into the crowded, cacaphonous conference centre have come to suspect that they could be bypassed in a big polluters bargain.

The development has come as a surprise to a meeting that started in a more optimistic frame of mind than any I can remember in four decades of similarly tricky negotiations. The mood arose because of the success of the Danish hosts and other countries – with Britain and Gordon Brown to the fore – in creating momentum in the weeks before it opened.

By the evening before the centre started filling with 15,000 people from 192 nations – Polynesian delegates with flowers in their hair jostling with activists dressed as polar bears, face-marked Maasai with smooth-suited financiers – every single major polluter had put an offer on the table of controlling the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are heating up the planet.

Industrialised countries announced how much they were prepared to do to cut emissions by 2020 to try to keep global warming beneath two degrees centigrade, the level which, scientists have judged, climate change risks becoming catastrophic. Even more unexpectedly, the rapidly industrialising developing countries – like India, China, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa – all offered targets for moderating the growth of their pollution, a distinction they are allowed by international agreement since they emit much less pert head and still need to develop.

Indeed, measured against what the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says will be needed to keep beneath the two degree level, the developing countries appear to have done better than the rich ones. An analysis published yesterday in the conference journal, Eco, concludes that every one of their offers falls within the range of what is required, with Brazil and Indonesia exceeding it: by contrast only two of the rich country pledges – by Norway and the EU – do so.

Be that as it may, the United Nations Environment Programme and Britain's Grantham research Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, have jointly published a study concluding that the best offers on both sides already amount to up to eighty per cent of the minimum needed. Much of the difference, it added, could be made up of measures to reduce the felling of forests and to reduce pollution from shipping and aviation.

And Yvo de Boer – the top UN official in change of the negotiations – reported "encouraging" progress among rich nations on agreeing on another key element – a $10 billion a year emergency fund to help poor countries cope with the potentially devastating effects of climate change.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark – who will chair the summit of some 115 heads of governments when they arrive next week – said that "without exception" they backed "an ambitious agreement to halt global warming."

Connie Hedegaard, his Minister for Energy and Climate added: "I have never seen anything like it when it comes to political willingness," describing a deal as "do-able". Gordon Shepherd of the WWF International put it more colourfully: "We are within spitting distance, but it's a very long spit!"

Before long, however, the spitting began in earnest, as the revolt of the potential victims got under way. It was targeted at the very goal of the emerging agreement, the two degree limit, since new science is increasingly showing that this would not be enough to prevent low-lying countries like Tuvalu from being inundated or catastrophic harvest failures and other climatic disaster striking many of the poorest and most vulnerable nations. The potential victims, who make up much the majority of the countries in Copenhagen, became convinced that nothing over an 1.5 degrees increase would save them.

On Tuesday evening the growing pressure exploded. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the Group of 77, which represents developing countries, announced that the two degree target "exposes over 100 countries to suffering and devastation", leading to the disappearance of low-lying island nations and "certain death" for Africa. And he added that the $10 billion a year fund would not be enough "to buy the poor nations the coffins."

The dispute is fundamental because the amount of greenhouse gases already in the air condemns the world to an increase of at least 1.5 degrees. Meeting the victims' demand, therefore, would mean either stopping all emissions immediately, which would be impossible, or reducing them much faster than expected and finding a way of getting carbon dioxide out of the air. There is no way that the main polluters, whether industrialised or industrialising, will agree to that.

This confrontation overlays another, this time along the traditional lines of North versus South. The science makes it clear that worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases will have to be cut in half by 2050 if even the two per cent target is to be met. Rich countries have accepted that their own emissions will have to be reduced by 80 per cent if that is to be achieved, involving an unprecedented transition to low carbon economies.

But, even if they achieve this, developing countries will have absolutely to cut their emissions by then, rather than just reduce their rate of growth as at present. And population growth makes this almost impossible to do: studies suggest that it will mean cutting their already small per capita emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 per cent.

They will not agree to try without a promise of massive financial help, running into hundreds of billions from the North. So far there is no sign of this. Even the $10 billion emergency fund is mainly being taken from existing aid budgets – all of Britain's contribution comes from this source – though the poor countries clearly need additional finance.

There is also a third more technical split, which is where tiny Tuvalu's protest came in. Most countries want to keep and improve the existing Kyoto Protocol, which is a legally binding treaty, but the very name of it is anathema in the United States. Tuvalu caused proceedings to be suspended while the issue of what, if anything, should succeed it is sorted out.

This caused huge irritation among developed nations since time is running out as the meeting nears its halfway point. Many of the major issues that the leaders will have to approve have yet to be resolved and top US officials were last night predicting a train crash.

But some of the original optimism still remains. The negotiations are stepping up a notch with the arrival of minsters from around the world: energy secretary Ed Miliband turned up yesterday. And heads of government hate to be associated with failure and so are likely to be ready to make a deal. But this also has a downside; if the talks do fail, it will be hard to muster the political will again.

Meanwhile negotiators from Tuvalu and other small islands discovered that their nations had been left off a giant globe hanging in the main hallway of the centre. Last night they gathered beneath it to protest against being "wiped off the map". They intend to go on objecting try to stop that happening in the real world, too.

P.S. 原文下边有20条评论

rhapsody

Zwei Grad sind nicht genug

http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E11 ... ommon~Scontent.html

13. Dezember 2009 Der Vertreter der Eingeborenen des Amazonasbeckens trägt seine Gesichtsbemalung, den Perlenschmuck und die schmale, schwarzrote Federkrone, als er sich in der Tür zum Tagungsraum irrt. Plötzlich steht er in einer Gruppe von kahlgeschorenen Offiziellen des Himalaja-Königreichs Bhutan in kompliziert gewickelten Seidengewändern, Kniestrümpfen und kleinen schwarzen Slippern. Erschrocken verlässt der Amerikaner den Raum im Rückwärtsgang.

Es sind wirklich alle gekommen nach Kopenhagen, von den Gipfeln, aus den Tälern, von den Inseln und aus den Wüsten. Nicht nur die Regierungen: Auch Wissenschaftler, die Ansagen machen, und Nichtregierungsorganisationen, die das Tempo vorgeben. Gegenüber den Büros der Bundesrepublik Deutschland residiert, ebenso groß, der World Wild Fund. Ihr Panda blickt auf unser Neuschwansteinposter, auf Augenhöhe. Aus Science-Fiction-Filmen kennt man solche Szenen: dass sich die ganze Menschheit zusammentut, um einen Meteoriten oder den Angriff einer Ufoflotte abzuwehren. In Kopenhagen ist es jetzt soweit: Alle sind da, mit ihren Sorgen.

Mit Vorschlaghämmern

Da ist Ugyen Wangda aus Bhutan. Er zeigt die Bilder von zwei Gletscherseen, dem Thorthorni und dem Baphstreng Tro. Der eine liegt etwas höher; es trennt sie eine natürliche Fels- und Eismauer, die einst über 70 Meter maß. Heute ist sie nur noch 22 Meter hoch. Der höher gelegene See wird sich bald in den tiefer gelegenen See ergießen, der dann überlaufen wird ins Tal. Dort liegen ein Wasserkraftwerk, Dörfer und ein Heiligtum, die erste Hauptstadt des Königreichs. Alles würde versinken. Wie verhindert man die Katastrophe?

Man müsste das Becken des oberen Sees so erweitern, dass der Wasserspiegel nicht steigt. Aber Felsen über zwei Meter Höhe könnten nicht mit dem Vorschlaghammer zerkleinert werden, erklärt uns Herr Wangda. Und es werde dauern: Geröll werde in Körben abtransportiert, große Brocken mit Seilen bewegt, alles per Muskelkraft, wie beim Bau der Pyramiden von Giseh. Und: Buthan hat über zweihundert solcher Gletscherseen, die das Leben in den Tälern bedrohen.

Dafür hat Bhutan keine Industrie. Sie haben auch ihren Wald noch nicht verkauft. Sechzig Prozent des Königreichs, so befiehlt es die Verfassung, müssen von Wäldern bedeckt sein. Im Moment sind es siebzig Prozent. Dieses bitterarme Land könnte zehn Prozent seines Holzbestandes schlagen und verkaufen. Oder auch nicht, davon würde dann die ganze Welt profitieren, denn Wälder binden Treibhausgase.

In Kopenhagen geht es unter anderem auch um die Frage, wie viel Geld Bhutan dafür bekommen soll und von wem. Sie würden sich gerne "Micro hydro power houses" bauen, Mühlen zur Stromerzeugung. Doch das sei kompliziert, stöhnt Minister Daho Nado Rinchen, allein der Papierkram. Und wird das nicht immer so weitergehen mit dem Klimawandel? "Wir haben zum ersten Mal einen Tiger in fünftausend Meter Höhe gesehen. Niemand hielt das für möglich, aber wir haben ihn gesehen. Ich meine, wie hoch soll das arme Tier noch klettern müssen?"

Eine Wissenschaftlerin der Universität Stanford steht auf: Schön und gut sei der Plan mit den dezentralen Wasserkraftwerken, aber habt ihr ("you guys") auch eine Genderanalyse vorgenommen? Kurzes Tuscheln auf dem Podium. Der junge Energiefachmann in wallender Robe mit dem schönen Vornamen Karma nickt: "Ja Madam, haben wir. Umweltfreundliche Stromversorgung ist gerade für Frauen und Kinder eine große Verbesserung. Unsere Genderanalyse fiel daher positiv aus."

Vorlagen für den Glücksrat

Bhutan ist das erste Land der Welt, in dem das Bruttosozialprodukt durch ein Bruttoglücksprodukt ersetzt wurde. Auch darum ist der Saal voll besetzt. Jedem leuchtet dieses Konzept ein, das im Übrigen nichts Esoterisches an sich hat. Jede politische oder wirtschaftliche Entscheidung muss in Bhutan von einem Glücksrat begutachtet werden, der darüber wacht, ob sie mit Tradition, Umwelt, Entwicklung und der politischen Kultur des Landes übereinstimmt. Im Anschluss an die Präsentation lädt das Königreich, eines der ärmsten Länder der Welt, in rührender Großzügigkeit zum Imbiss, großes Gedränge von Journalisten und Aktivisten um Lachshäppchen und Muffins.

Es gibt poetische Momente in Kopenhagen und jene anderen, wenn es knirscht, weil sich die Machtachsen verschieben und etwas zu wirken beginnt. Denn drei unumkehrbare, unabweisbare historische Entwicklungen wirken sich hier aus: Die Wirtschaftskrise hat erwiesen, dass die G-8-Länder schon ihre Gelddinge nicht mehr alleine regeln können, geschweige denn sonst ein Problem. Der Klimawandel schreitet schneller voran, als selbst die pessimistischsten Vorhersagen es für möglich hielten; es kracht auf den Gipfeln, in den Tälern, tief im Meer und in den Wüsten. Und die Wissenschaft ist heute in der Lage, diese Schäden und Belastungen gut zu bemessen und zu beziffern, weltweit und in Echtzeit.

Noch etwas kommt hinzu: die Digitalisierung. Kopenhagen ist eine wissenschaftliche Tagung, ein politischer Gipfel und ein Festival, alles zugleich, und alle sind permanent online. Neben Text und Browser haben die meisten auf ihrem Schirm auch noch mehrere Chatfenster offen, ununterbrochen. Geheim bleibt hier nichts.

Chinesische Handzeichen

Wie in Kopenhagen Weltgeschichte geschrieben wird, bemerke ich, als mitten in der Pressekonferenz des smarten chinesischen Vizeaußenministers He Yafei plötzlich das Klicken aus Dutzenden von Fotoapparaten aufsteigt wie eine Wolke Insekten. Als ich aufblicke, sehe ich, dass He damit begonnen hat, beim Reden mit der rechten Hand sparsame Bewegungen zu machen: ausgestreckter Zeigefinger, abwehrende Handfläche nach außen, Einordnung mit der Handkante. Und jedes Mal flippen die Bildjournalisten aus. So kann man bestens die trockenen Berichte illustrieren: China sagt, China fordert, China möchte. He Yafei macht sich, fuchtelnd, ein Vergnügen daraus.

Die Chinesen sind weltweit die stärksten Emittenten von Kohlendioxid. Das Klima verträgt aber eigentlich überhaupt kein Kohlendioxid mehr, es ist längst zu viel. Wenn die Chinesen einfach weitermachen - was sie könnten, wer wollte ihnen schon etwas vorschreiben -, kippt das Weltklima in sehr kurzer Zeit, da sich die ungünstigen Prozesse bekanntlich immer wieder selbst verstärken und das Unheil nicht linear, vielmehr exponentiell voranschreitet. Sie haben in Kopenhagen die Chance erkannt, eine moralisch höherstehende Position einzunehmen. Sie haben ein einmaliges Reduktions- und Umrüstungsprogramm auf erneuerbare Energien und nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aufgelegt, im nationalen Alleingang und rechtlich verpflichtend, eingeschrieben in ihren zwölften Fünfjahresplan. Die Chinesen möchten, anders formuliert, den Westen nun auch an symbolischem Kapital übertreffen und übernehmen sogar noch die Rolle des Sprechers der Drittweltstaaten.

Gemeiosam mit Tuvalu

Manchmal wirkt das komisch. In Kopenhagen sorgt das bedrohte Archipel Tuvalu für Schlagzeilen. Die Bewohner Tuvalus kommen nämlich mit einer Erwärmung von zwei Grad nicht aus, das ist ihr Todesurteil. Sie bestehen auf 1,5 Grad als Ziel, sie drohen, dass sie den Gipfel verlassen werden, Aktivisten des Zusammenschlusses "350.org" skandieren "Tuvalu" wie einen Schlachtruf. Auf einem Pressebriefing zu Beginn der Woche aber hatte der chinesische Chefunterhändler treuherzig erklärt, China sei - bei gewissen Unterschieden - mit Tuvalu durchaus zu vergleichen, beide seien Opfer des Westens. Ein Brüller: der Inselstaat hat gerade mal so viel Fläche, wie die Schanghaier Stadtverwaltung braucht, um ihre Aktenregale aufzustellen. Aber niemand lacht, das Argument bleibt ja gültig: zweihundert Jahre lang hat der Westen alles alleine verpestet und den Gewinn daraus gezogen.

Daher geht es auf diesem Zukunftsgipfel auch um unsere Vergangenheit. Max Webers Einführung in die Aufsätze zur Religionswissenschaft, der Stolz darüber, dass sich bei uns entwickelt hat, was sich nirgends sonst entwickelte, Städte, Handel, Industrialisierung und der Rest, all dies hängt jetzt in der Luft, messbar und darum in einer Rechnung bezifferbar.

So ist zur Rettung des Planeten zweierlei nötig: dass die armen Länder darauf verzichten, sich mit fossilen Brennstoffen zu entwickeln, und dass die reichen zahlen. Die Verpflichtung der EU-Länder wirkt peinlich geizig: Man verlangt einen Entwicklungsverzicht der armen Länder bis 2050, stellt aber Geld nur für drei Jahre in Aussicht. Was die Reduktionsziele des Westens angeht, ergeben sich noch andere Fragen. Ist es, fragte ein chinesischer Beamter, denn gar kein Unterschied, ob man Energie verbraucht, um die Klimaanlage eines Fitnessstudios zu betreiben, oder ob Bauern ihr Essen kochen?

Eine verhuschte EU

In der ersten Woche sah der Westen in Kopenhagen schwach aus. Die amerikanische Delegation verteidigte sich matt damit, die Vorväter hätten ja gar nicht gewusst, dass sie das Klima schädigen. Die EU gab sich verhuscht, als wäre sie das Rote Kreuz der ganzen Welt, eine Art größere Schweiz mit etwas mehr Minaretten. Keine historische Analyse, keine symbolische Geste, alles nur mittelmäßige Reaktionen und "fahren auf Sicht", was wirklich fatal ist, wo es so viel um Eisberge geht.

Dabei ist es nicht so, dass Europa es nicht verstünde, sich zu kümmern. In einer ruhigen Ecke des Konferenzzentrums gibt es einen zwei Meter tiefen Pool mit gefiltertem, sauberem Wasser, in dem herrliche, ferkelgroße Koikarpfen leben. Eine Tafel belehrt, dass die Wassertemperatur auf konstant 22 Grad gehalten wird, damit die Fische sich nicht vermehren, und dass die Tiere eine spezielle Diät einhalten. Das Futter werde täglich um halb eins serviert, manche Kois hätten einen Wert von hunderttausend Dollar. Direkt daneben sitzen Repräsentanten der lateinamerikanischen Indios und mühen sich, eine Resolution zu schreiben, in der sie um ihr Überleben bitten.

An der Würstchenbude

Man braucht gute Nerven in Kopenhagen, so wie Frau Ammanda. Gleich ob der Botschafter von Mexiko oder der indische Chefunterhändler in der Schlange vor ihrem Wagen stehen, die freundliche Fünfzigjährige mit der Perlenkette bleibt bei der Sache, und das ist in ihrem Fall die Wurst. Einige Würstchen sind schon sehr dunkel, andere noch halb gefroren, das verlangt die ganze Frau - und es dauert. Egal, die Schlange hat immer gute Laune. Subsaharische Afrikaner scherzen mit Polen, Inder mit Vietnamesen, Belgier mit Russen.

Es ist dies vielleicht der fröhlichste Ort dieser ganzen ernsten Klimakonferenz. Die Würstchen, sicher ein Nebenprodukt der Raumfahrtforschung, sind rosa wie ein Schweinchen im Disneycartoon, aber sie trösten. Der Andrang lässt nicht nach, vierhundert Hotdogs in vier Stunden sind normal. Den beiden Jungen aus Zimbabwe schärft sie ein: "Wenn es euch nicht schmeckt, kommt ihr wieder, okay?" Die beiden lachen. Da sie so was noch nie gegessen haben, wissen sie kaum, wie man gute von schlechten Würstchen unterscheidet. Da fehlen ihnen, wie man in Kopenhagen sagt, schlicht die Benchmarks.

Text: F.A.S.
Bildmaterial: AFP, Daniel Pilar

rhapsody

Copenhagen climate conference: ocean acidification could leave one billion hungry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth ... billion-hungry.html

More than one billion people could suffer food shortages because of ocean acidification unless climate change is tackled, Hilary Benn has warned.

As the world struggles to reach an agreement on global warming, the UK Environment Secretary said pollution is having a particularly damaging effect on the two thirds of the world covered by oceans.

He explained that carbon dioxide is being absorbed at a faster rate than at any time in the previous 21 million years, causing ocean acidification.

The process dissolves the shells and skeletons of key marine life and is in danger of destroying whole ecosystems.

“Why should we worry about this?” he asked “Because there is marine life that is affected by that change. In particular animals and plants that have a calcium carbonate skeleton and that other marine life feed on. When you think that one billion people depend on fish as their principle source of protein this is something we should worry about.”

Mr Benn’s comments follow a UN report that warned ocean acidification is an “underwater time bomb”, which cannot be reversed in less than tens of thousands of years. It is predicted 70 per cent of cold water corals could be exposed to corrosive water by 2100.

The report was released at the Copenhagen climate summit in order to put pressure on world leaders to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being released by cars and factories as part of a new deal on global warming.

The oceans provide half of the world’s natural resources, including food, and absorb a quarter of annual carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr Benn warned that Britain would be particularly badly affected if acidification continues to take places at current rates.

Britain is the third most vulnerable country to the effects of acidification, after Japan and France. This is partly because its waters are host to one of the world’s most productive fisheries, and partly because the seas around the British Isles are both cold and especially saline, which makes them particularly prone to acidification.

rhapsody

http://www.economist.com/science ... m?story_id=15106331

Seeking compromise

Dec 15th 2009 | COPENHAGEN
From Economist.com

Slow, if any, progress is being made at the Copenhagen climate-change talks

THE Copenhagen climate conference is supposed to be making a fresh start, as ministers and heads of government prepare to arrive in the Danish capital in the coming days. Instead, it has endured a fresh stall. The meeting was to focus on two sparkling new texts that are notable at least for their concision. The draft statement for one of the two main “tracks” of discussion (on long term co-operation) has shrunk from 179 pages at the beginning of last week to six.

But on Monday December 14th progress on the substantial discussions stuttered, more or less, to a halt as poorer countries, grouped as G77 and China, walked out temporarily. By the time things had started again some of the sessions were facing their first late-night negotiations. There will be a lot more.

The problem was not specifically over the strength of the measures being called for, though that is a point of difference between the most vulnerable countries and the more developed ones. Last week the Alliance of Small Island States called for global warming to be limited to 1.5ºC over pre-industrial levels, something which many other poor countries support. Most richer countries, by contrast, are working on the basis of a limit of 2ºC. This seems one of the easier issues to resolve as many studies relating emissions to temperature agree that limiting a rise to 1.5ºC is in all practical ways impossible.

Some of the poorer countries appear to be using the 1.5ºC figure as a useful bargaining position from which to press for bigger emissions cuts from the rich world. The cuts proposed so far, although larger than might have been expected a year ago, are unlikely to limit global warming even to 2ºC. In addition, many poorer countries are seeking to extract more money from rich ones. A “fast start” package of $10 billion a year, over the next few years, which is being put together by rich countries is seen as grossly insufficient by poor-country negotiators, who talk of transfers of “5% of GDP”. On all this the new slimline text which is supposed to frame an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol is magnificently reticent: “To be elaborated: a long-term goal for financing.”

The overall shape of the Copenhagen agreement is proving to be the main bone of contention. One proposal is that rich countries should remain subject to Kyoto-level emission cuts, which are due to expire in 2012, until 2020. Poor countries are adamant that richer countries should be held responsible with a binding protocol. But the rich countries that signed up to Kyoto (mostly European ones) are refusing to agree to do this unilaterally because they would get nothing in return from America, which is not party to Kyoto, or from any developing countries, on which makes Kyoto makes no demands.

A compromise that is contained in the draft text, suggesting that richer countries would cut emissions, but without the binding nature of Kyoto, may offer some way to get beyond this impasse. But there are plenty of other ways for things to go wrong once the heads of government turn up. One concern is the question of what, if anything, poorer countries will be bound to do themselves. The current text requires that developing countries act only when rich countries pay them to do so. It seems highly unlikely that an agreement will be reached without further requirements of some sort. It is up to the conference to work out what they might be.

rhapsody

BBC：中国在燃煤的同时发展绿色能源
http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-211934-1-1.html
法国世界报：中国工业产业现代化（绿色长征）
http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-211936-1-1.html
P.S. 这两篇报道不仅是图文并茂而且还是声影并茂，两篇都有视频报道，后一篇还有两段采访的音频

diwent

“中印网友vs欧美网民气候辩论”
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=10332

≡Global Times Hot Issues Debate≡
First Debate
Responsibility of Climate Change


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Topic &Affirmative&Negative:
Debate topic： Developed countries should take MORE responsibility than developing countries in dealing with climate change.

1) Affirmative:
Developed countries should take more responsibility than developing countries in dealing with climate change.

2) Negative:
Developed countries shouldn't take more responsibility than developing countries in dealing with climate change.

2. The rules of the debate:

Rules of Debate Contest:

1) Insulting words are forbidden;
A) First time: warn;
B) Twice: cancel the debater's qualification;
C) If any debatesr insult others seriously, we'll directly cancel his qualification;
2) Only contents on the debate topic are permitted;
3) Members who are not debaters are not allowed to post in "Debate contest thread", if there is any, we will delete;

Procedures of Debate Contest

1) Debate host starts a thread with debate topic, and briefly introduce the debate contest, and announces the beginning;
2) Debate under moderator's controlment for two hours;
3)After two hours, freely debate phrase;
4) Announce the best debaters;

diwent

环球网“中印网民vs欧美网民气候辩论”翻译贴
http://bbs.huanqiu.com/banwuzhuanqu/thread-285385-1-1.html

rhapsody

谢谢楼上提供的资料！

tasselchen

回复 3# rhapsody


    认领板凳#

tasselchen

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... /article6947765.ece

The European Union has rejected the new carbon emission targets tabled by the United States and China and said they were much too weak to prevent catastrophic climate change.
欧盟已经拒绝了由中美提出的新的碳减排目标，并说这个目标太小对于防止灾难性的气候变迁不会起到什么作用。

The dispute between the three main players at the Copenhagen climate change summit overshadowed the first day of negotiations and dashed hopes that a deal on emissions was imminent.
在哥本哈根气候变迁大会的这三个主要角色间的争端使得会议的第一天蒙上阴影，并且感觉到达成碳排放协议的希望将要泡汤。

The EU called on President Obama to announce a more ambitious target next week, when he arrives in Copenhagen for the last day of the conference on December 18.
欧盟请求奥巴马总统在下个星期的12月18日会议的最后一天到达哥本哈根时，宣布一个更大的目标。

But the US insisted that the provisional offer made 10 days ago by Mr Obama was “remarkable” and in line with what scientists had recommended.
但是美国坚持认为10天前由奥巴马先生提出的临时的协议是‘卓越的’并且是由科学家一致推荐的。

Mr Obama has proposed to cut its emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, although he has said this is subject to getting the approval of Congress. The EU has made a legally binding commitment to cut its emissions by 20 per cent over the same period. It has also said it would increase the cut to 30 per cent if other countries committed to “comparable action”.
奥巴马先生已经提仪在2020年时碳排放量将在1990年的基础上减少4%，尽管他也说这仍有待于美国国会的批准。欧盟已经做出了一个具有法律约束力的承诺在同样的时期减少碳排放量达到20%。并且还表示如果其它的国家提交‘类似行动’，碳排放量将提高到30%。

Washington tonight attempted to demonstrate that it was serious about fighting climate change by formally announcing that green house gases were a danger to American health and paving the way for new regulations to control them. This would technically allow Mr Obama to override Congress and impose carbon cuts but, in practice, he is more likely to use the prospect of regulations as a bargaining chip to persuade enough senators to pass a Bill enforcing the 4 per cent target.
华盛顿今晚尝试着证明他们对于对抗气候变迁是严肃认真的，他们已经正式宣布温室效应气体对于美国人的健康是一个威胁，并且为制定新控制温室效应气体的法规做好了准备。这可能在技术上允许奥巴马先生越过国会程序，强制减少碳排放，但实际上他似乎更可能去把可能产生的规章作为一个讨价还价的筹码去说服足够的议员们通过强制减少4%碳排放的议案。

Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s environment minister and the EU’s main negotiator under the rotating presidency, said the targets proposed by the US and China were too low to qualify as comparable action and therefore the EU would not strengthen its 20 per cent target.
瑞典环境部长Andreas Carlgren和欧盟轮值主席的主要谈判代表说由中美提出的减排目标太低而不能成为类似行动，因此欧盟将不会增加20%的减排目标。

“If you analyse the bids they are not going to deliver the emissions reductions that would be keeping the Earth’s temperature [increase] below 2C. The US and China cover half the world’s emissions so it will be absolutely decisive what they deliver.
‘如果你分析这些他们不打算去实施的减排提议，这些可能保证地球温度升高低于2度。中美两国的碳排放量占了世界总量的一半，所以他们如何实施减排是绝对关键的。’

“It would be astonishing if President Obama arrived here next week and just delivered what was in last week’s press release. I would rather expect the US President will deliver something further.”
‘如果下星期奥巴马总统到来后仅仅只是传达上星期新闻发布的内容，就太令人吃惊了，我更愿意期待美国总统会带来更进一步的提议。’

Mr Carlgren also dismissed China’s offer to reduce its emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent by 2020. He said the target would result in a huge increase in emissions because of China’s predicted 8 per cent annual economic growth.
Carlgren先生也同时驳回了中国的关于到2020年平均每个GDP的碳排放量减少40-50%的提议。他说这个目标将导致巨大的碳排放的增长，因为中国每年的经济增长预计为8%

Mr Carlgren dismissed the recommendation from Lord Stern of Brentford that the EU should take the lead at the summit by making an unconditional commitment to cut its emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.
Carlgren先生认为来自Stern of Brentford勋爵的欧盟应当领头提交一个在2020年无条件减排30%的承诺是不合理的。

“The EU wants to go to 30 per cent but other parties must also deliver and it mostly depends on the US and China.
欧盟想要达到减排30%但是其它的国家也必须达到，而几乎就要靠中美两国。

“We must keep the pressure until the end. We have said 30 per cent as a lever to put pressure on other parties.
‘我们必须要保持施压直到最后。我们已经说对其它所有国家，30%是一个必须达到的标杆。’

“If we were to weaken that pressure by already delivering we would lose that endgame and we would risk having an agreement of too low an ambition level."
‘如果我们减少这个压力，实施一个较低目标的协议，我们将要失去这最后的机会。’

Jonathan Pershing, the US chief negotiator at Copenhagen, tried to downplay America’s contribution to climate change.
Jonathan Pershing，美国哥本哈根主要谈判代表试图去低调处理美国对于气候变迁的‘贡献’。

He said: “The US is responsible for one fifth of emissions which means four fifths come from the rest of the world.” He suggested that the US was making up for its weak short term target by offering an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. Most other countries argue that promising reductions in 40 years time is a political fudge and no substitute for firm action in the next decade.
他说：‘美国只对于1/5的碳排量负责，4/5的碳排放来自世界其它的国家。’他建议美国用到2050年减排80%的提议来弥补过低的短期目标。大多数的国家认为这个40年的减排许诺只是一个政治的幌子，无法替代下个十年切实的行动。

But Mr Pershing hinted that Mr Obama might be willing to offer more short-term action, possibly in the form of a substantial contribution to a global fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
然而Pershing先生暗示奥巴马先生可能乐于提出更短期的行动，有可能是给一个帮助穷困国家适应气候变化的国际基金里提供重要捐献的形式。

“The president has put a remarkable number on the table. What we need to now do is see how these negotiations proceed and we look forward to his coming and engaging in the discussion.”
‘总统已经提出一个意义非凡的数字，我们现在需要做的就是看看这些谈判将如何进展，我们期待着他的到来加入讨论。’

P.S. 该文后边已有80多条评论。翻译待续。。。