【2009.12.07-18 资料收集】哥本哈根气候大会『欢迎认领』

rhapsody

...
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. / u%c:Z)U-R! |4T"Q
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。...
tasselchen 发表于 2009-12-21 07:50

感谢楼上的翻译！

rhapsody

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... d-oba_n_398461.html

The final deal at the Copenhagen climate summit, which was convened to develop a comprehensive international response to the threat of global warming, came down to a behind-closed-doors conversation among some of the most powerful people in the world about the difference between two terms: "examination and assessment" and "international consultations and analysis."

Then again, there may not have been a final deal. Late on Friday night, President Barack Obama announced that an agreement had been reached, establishing a minimalist accord that would not set a firm schedule with hard-and-fast targets for reducing emissions. But after Obama held a press conference to declare semi-victory--"this is going to be a first step"--and jetted back to Washington, European officials said nothing was in the bag. And Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G77 bloc of least developed nations, claimed there was no deal. "What has happened today confirms what we have been suspicious of that a deal will be imposed by United States, with the help of the Danish government, on all nations of the world," he said.

This raised the question, was the Obama deal merely a side deal that would be agreed to by some nations but not all? A convenient bypass of international climate negotiations?

In that short press conference, Obama noted that the pact had come together during an evening meeting he held with the leaders of major developing nations--China, Brazil, South Africa, and India. "Each agreed," he said, "to list national actions and commitments with international consultation and analysis under clearly defined guidelines" and aim to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. But it wasn't that simple--or clear--according to a participant in that decisive gathering, Brazil Ambassador Sergio Serra.

The meeting, which lasted more than three hours, was hosted by Premier Wen Jiabao, and first began with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and South African President Jacob Zuma attending. About an hour into it, Obama arrived, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The participants did not deal with numbers or targets for emissions. Instead, the conversation turned to the knotty matter of verification. Throughout the summit, the United States, Europe, and Japan had been pressing China, which has vowed to reduce the pace of its growing emissions, to accept outside monitoring of its performance. China has resisted, claiming it could audit itself. This remained "the most contentious thing," Serra said. "The Chinese were very reluctant to accept any kind of international supervision or international analysis of the performance of their actions."

As the discussion continued, Obama dropped a term on the table: "examination and assessment." This suggested direct monitoring of Chinese emission curbs by outsiders. Chinese officials in the room pronounced it unacceptable."We weren't that happy with it, either," Serra noted. So a new description--"international consultations and analysis"--was worked out. A "consultation" is obviously less intrusive than an "examination." But what does "international consultations and analysis"--soon to be referred to as ICA--mean? Asked this, Serra shrugged and said, "Ehhhh." He added, "The definition will be negotiated by a panel of people. They will decide what it means, like everything else." Obama promised to sell this not-well-defined ICA phrase to the Europeans. He also told Wen and the others that he had been asked by the Europeans to push for the below-2 degrees level.

The resolution of that six-word dispute eased the US-China deadlock that had paralyzed the summit, creating space for an agreement that may not be an agreement--christened the "Copenhagen Accord."

Whether or not that title was presumptive, the draft document released is vague. It contains few specific numbers--beyond "recognizing the scientific view" that a global temperature rise should be "below 2 degrees." It dropped language from an earlier draft calling for cutting global emissions in half by 2050. The agreement urges developed nations to implement reductions they have already pledged--without spelling out those numbers or establish baseline years. Developing nations would establish their own emissions curbs. (All these countries are supposed to declare their reductions targets by February.) The China-friendly verification provision rests on that vague "international consultations and analysis clause." The agreement also incorporates the US-European offer to help mobilize $100 billion a year until 2020 to help poorer nations contend with climate change, and commits $30 billion for short-term funding for related programs, such as deforestation prevention--without providing details about these financial programs. Most important, the draft says nothing about future negotiations and any pathway toward a legally binding treaty incorporating global cuts.

"The result is not what we expected," said Serra. "It may still be a way of salvaging something and paving way to another meeting or series of meetings next year."

Announcing this agreement, Obama himself acknowledged a weakness with the proposal: "With respect to the emissions targets that are going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050....There are going to be those who are going to--who are going to look at the national commitments, tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates that even more needs to be done." But he contended that this agreement--by encouraging all the major economies (developed and developing) to commit jointly to emissions curbs--marked a "shift in orientation" and insisted that he remained committed to seeking a binding treaty.

US environmentalists split over whether Obama's move was a triumphant save or an act of self-interest. Environmental Defense Fund head Fred Krupp and League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski high-fived each other in a Bella Center hallway. "Obama has delivered the clear breakthrough we needed on climate change," exclaimed Jeremy Symons, a senior vice president of National Wildlife Federation. By rounding up China and India, Obama has improved the prospects for the climate change legislation pending in the Senate--where foes of the bill have used these nations' absence from previous accords as a justification for opposition. And until a bill passes, Obama can't make good on his modest proposed reductions.

But not all the American environmentalists were celebrating. "This is not a strong deal or a just one--it isn't even a real one," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth US. "The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate."

The Obama agreement was a sly maneuver. The United States sidestepped the official proceedings and found a way to separate major developing nations from poorer ones--while skating past European desires for a more comprehensive and binding agreement. Though European negotiators first declared they were not on board, as the final evening of the summit entered the wee hours, Europe conceded. At a 2:00 a.m. press conference, dour-looking European leaders announced their unhappy support. "This accord is better than no accord, but clearly below our ambition," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "We have to be honest."

Even one of the diplomats who helped broker the deal was not entirely pleased. Asked if this deal made Copenhagen a success, Serra replied, "There is the perspective that with this agreement we may reach a satisfactory and equitable result next year." Then he paused: "The disappointment is still there."

rhapsody

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=3078

Yet, amidst statements of general disappointment over the outcome of the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, some green interest groups are beginning to look ahead.

Morten Andersen
20/12/2009 18:10

Comments displaying disappointment are plentiful from NGOs and scientists in the early aftermath of the UN conference in Copenhagen.

“What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of unclear substance. With the possible exceptions of US legislation and the beginnings of financial flows, none of the political obstacles to effective climate action have been solved,” Kim Carstensen, Leader of global conservation organization WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, states in a press release.

According to WWF’s estimates, the contents of the Copenhagen Accord translates into “three degrees Celsius of warming or more” and “millions of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and a wealth of lost opportunities lie in the difference between rhetoric and reality on climate change action.”

The accord “clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting (…) it’s clearly not enough to keep temperatures on a track below two degrees,” says Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, according to Reuters.

The two degree target is linked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to keeping the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 450 ppm (parts per million).

“Going above 450 parts per million will change everything. It’s not just one or two things. There will be changes in water, food, ecosystems, health, and those changes also interact with each other,” Cynthia Rosenzweig, NASA climate impacts researcher, tells AP.

According to Reuters, Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defence Council says that “part of the dysfunction (of the Copenhagen talks) is that China is feeling its way into a new, more powerful role.”

Under the Copenhagen Accord, the countries that sign on will need to declare their national emissions targets. Their measures will be subject to international consultations, but if a country falls short this will have no consequences as the accord isn’t legally binding.

According to AP, Gregg Marland, who keeps track of worldwide carbon dioxide emission at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA, thinks that “voluntary carbon reductions fall far short of what’s needed to address climate change (…) I don’t see people going very far voluntarily without incentives to do it, and that comes from government.”

WWF states that “on a more positive note, attention will now shift to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from the base up.”

“We are disappointed but the story continues. Civil society was excluded from these final negotiations to an extraordinary degree, and that was felt during the concluding days in Copenhagen. We can assure the world, however, that WWF and other elements of civil society will continue engaging in every step of further negotiations,” says WWF’s Kim Carstensen.

渔音谦谦

【09.12.21 外交政策】How China Stiffed the World in Copenhagen
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/21/how_china_stiffed_the_world_in_copenhagen




How China Stiffed the World in CopenhagenWhy Beijing insists, "Don't look at our books!"

During the frantic final two days of negotiations at Copenhagen over the weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set a clever trap for Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Having just announced that the United States would establish and contribute to a $100 billion international fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the challenge of climate change, Clinton added a nonnegotiable proviso: All other major nations would first be required to commit their emissions reduction to a binding agreement and submit these reductions to "transparent verification." This condition was publicly reaffirmed by Obama, who argued that any agreement without verification would be "empty words on a page."

Everyone in the room knew that "all other major nations" primarily meant China. From the beginning, China has steadfastly refused to place its commitments within a binding framework or accept outside monitoring and verification of its progress toward any promised targets. But the eleventh-hour U.S. proposal immediately isolated China. The onus was now on Beijing to agree to standards of "transparent verification." If it did not, poorer countries standing to benefit from the fund would blame China for breaking the deal. Clinton's proposal had cunningly undermined Beijing's leadership over the developing bloc of countries.
Chinese officials retreated to their well-worn negotiation mantra, namely arguing that such demands were an insult to China and would be a violation of Chinese sovereignty and national interests. Wen had been outflanked and was angry, even leaving the conference center and subsequently snubbing Obama in a couple of previously planned bilateral and multinational meetings involving the U.S. president.
Which raises the question: Why such an extreme response? As Mark Twain reportedly said, there are three kinds of deceptions: lies, damned lies, and statistics. China has long been engaging in a dangerous game of manipulating important economic numbers and concealing domestic commercial realities. Despite all its progress over 30 years, Beijing is afraid to shine too bright a light in dark places, and even more afraid that outsiders might be allowed to do so. In important respects, the government actually embraces opaqueness as a perceived advantage. The thought of "transparent verification" was seen as the thin end of the wedge, allowing outside experts broad authority to peer into the workings of middle China. It would have caused Wen to feel the distinct pang of panic that guilty men feel when they realize the jig might soon be up.
For two decades, NGOs operating within China have struggled not only with wary officials in Beijing but more trenchantly with local officials for access and information. But teams of international economists, scientists, inspectors, and statisticians roaming China to gather information on carbon emissions and reduction initiatives would have been unprecedented. In promoting China, Beijing projects an image of order and competence to the world. In parts of its wealthier coastal cities, China is that. But these international teams would undoubtedly discover exactly how dysfunctional the heart of the country really is. They would see firsthand and report back how China's 45 million local officials remain the most formidable obstacle to improving transparency in China's sprawling economic structure -- protecting their turf, defending their privileges, arbitrarily enforcing the law, and when it comes to economic performance, blatantly cooking the books.

Indeed, China's economic numbers and statistics ought to be viewed as the most unreliable of any major economy in the world. For example, every quarter, China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) goes through the same ritual. Statistics come in from all over the country. The provinces take about two weeks to compile them, three times as fast as many smaller, developed economies with much more efficient processes for data collection. The NBS sorts through them, "consults" with senior government officials, applies a mysterious methodology to trim them into shape, and then spits out an annual GDP figure, always in the neighborhood of 8 percent, that is then diplomatically endorsed by organizations such as the World Bank andthe OECD.

Incredibly, provinces rarely fail to hit economic targets set for them by Beijing each quarter despite few changes in policy. Inaccuracy is also perpetuated by the fact that local officials are praised and promoted according to their capacity to meet centrally issued targets, while central officials themselves have limited means with which to verify local figures. Beijing is completely aware that these numbers are wildly inaccurate despite aggressively defending them after release. For the sake of its image and reputation, Beijing still wants to assure outsiders that it remains in charge even though in important respects it is not. It would not want a team of independent experts seeing for themselves the deception, dysfunction, and lawlessness that takes place throughout China under the watch of unaccountable local officials.
This lack of transparency strikes at the heart of China's credibility in any global climate-change agenda. Wen would not want foreign experts reporting to political masters in America and Europe that Beijing's capacity to compel local officials and locally managed, state-controlled enterprises -- some 120,000 companies and countless other subsidiaries -- to implement climate-change initiatives is extremely poor. This would simply strengthen suspicions that decentralized China cannot actually honor future commitments despite promises that it intends to.
Then there is the further problem of cheating in current and future carbon reduction schemes. Developed countries must feel confident that incentives offered to developing countries to cut emissions (in both absolute terms and emissions relative to economic growth) can be verified. Indeed, earlier this month, the U.N. body in charge of the Clean Development Mechanism, a proviso under the Kyoto Protocol allowing developed countries to purchase carbon offsets for funding "clean energy" developments elsewhere, suspended approvals for dozens of Chinese wind farms over suspicions that China had held back the building of planned wind farms and deliberately lowered previously allocated subsidies to make the wind farms eligible for funding -- industrial policies that would disqualify these farms from benefiting under the scheme. China has so far received carbon credits worth more than $1 billion, which is almost half of the total issued under the U.N.-run program.
China's government has vigorously denied that it is attempting to illegitimately manipulate the scheme. But the point is that there is no system for independent and external verification; nor is Beijing proposing to allow one. Meanwhile, China had previously pledged that up to 15 percent of its energy would come from renewable sources by 2020 and special efforts would be made to close dirty power plants, impose world-class vehicle-efficiency standards, and proposed various other measures to cut emissions. Again, developed countries suspect that China will receive plaudits and concessions from any future carbon emissions regime without actually keeping its promises.
Alas, given the desperation to announce a "deal," Obama backed down. The so-called Copenhagen Accord merely compels developing countries to self-report their emissions every two years and allow outside scrutiny of the data. China is off the hook for the moment, but whether this is enough to satisfy the U.S. Congress when deciding whether to approve any future binding agreement is another matter.

rhapsody

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro ... e-change-mark-lynas

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

P.S. 如下边截图可见，这篇文章在截图的时候已有超过600条评论（被“顶”超过200次）！

rhapsody

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=3085

After the UN climate talks ended on Saturday, European carbon markets on Monday suffered from the aftermath of the climate deal.

Rie Jerichow
22/12/2009 12:00

The Copenhagen climate accord did not set targets that would boost the demand for carbon permits. On the European Climate Exchange in London carbon-dioxide allowances for delivery in December 2010 on Monday declined as much as 8.7 percent to 12.40 euro Bloomberg reports.

"It would be foolish to be anything other than dispirited by the outcome of the Copenhagen COP," the International Emissions Trading Association says in an e-mailed statement, though adding that "expectations had been allowed to rise too high".

According to Reuters, Trevor Sikorski, Carbon Markets Research Analyst with Barclays Capital is even more discouraged.

"This is a very disappointing outcome that is even below our modest expectations. The news are bearish ... I see nothing here that should drive investment in the carbon commodity and low carbon technology," he says.

"International offset markets were hoping for detail on how the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) would be expanded, perhaps including sector-specific benchmarks and an expansion of the market's size. The heavy industry must wait longer for clarification of emission liabilities and international abatement mechanisms ... This will likely perpetuate carbon market uncertainty post 2012,” says Meg Brown, global markets analyst with Citigroup according to Reuters.

Investors in low-carbon or no-carbon energy technology, such as solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power, say the prices for carbon permits must be much higher than the current levels to make their systems cost-competitive with coal, oil or natural gas, Reuters reports.

rhapsody

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=3086

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also urges richer nations to contribute to a multi-billion dollar fund to help poorer countries cope with global warming which will become operational in January.

Associated Press
22/12/2009 14:30

The UN secretary-general on Monday urged all countries to formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord to start tackling climate change and step up work toward a legally binding treaty in 2010.

Ban Ki-moon also urged richer nations to contribute to a multi-billion dollar fund to help poorer countries cope with global warming which will become operational in January.

Robert Orr, the UN policy coordination chief, said the document will shortly be opened for signatures from all countries.

"I urge all governments to formally sign on to the Copenhagen accord by registering their support" through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ban said.

"The faster we have all the signatures, the more momentum we can give it," he said.

Ban said the UN will seek to streamline the negotiating process, which was strongly criticized, ahead of the next UN climate conference in Mexico City in 2010.

He said he had already discussed ways to improve negotiations with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and is willing to discuss the issue with other world leaders, opinion makers, and civic leaders.

Ban said he will encourage world leaders "to directly engage in achieving a global legally binding climate change treaty in 2010."

The UN chief also urged countries to contribute "to ensure that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational as soon as possible."

Under the accord, developed countries will finance a 10 billion-dollars-a-year, three-year program starting in 2010 to fund developing nations' projects to deal with drought, floods and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy. It also set a "goal" of mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 for the same purposes.

rhapsody

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausl ... nde_aid_465424.html

Die EU will nach dem „großen Fehlschlag“ von Kopenhagen in Zukunft eigene Wege gehen. Eine „Koalition der Gleichgesinnten“ soll das Klima retten. Blockierer wie China und die USA hätten dann weniger zu sagen.

Die europäischen Umweltminister einigten sich darauf, vor den anstehenden UN-Klimakonferenzen in Bonn und in Mexiko Allianzen mit klimabewussten Ländern wie Japan oder Australien zu schmieden. Umweltminister Norbert Röttgen (CDU) sprach von einer „Koalition der Gleichgesinnten“. „Wir müssen Verbündete finden, die die nächsten Konferenzen gemeinsam mit uns beschreiten“, sagte er bei einem Treffen am Dienstag in Brüssel.

Mehr Druck auf USA und China

Röttgen wies darauf hin, dass Europa künftig mehr Druck etwa auf die USA oder China ausüben müsse. „Es kann kein einfaches ´Weiter so´ geben, dass Europa den anderen nur mit Argumenten begegnet. In Kopenhagen sind nicht nur Sachfragen gestellt, sondern auch Machtfragen entschieden worden.“

Die politischen Spitzen von 193 Staaten hatten sich am Wochenende in Kopenhagen statt des geplanten Klimaabkommens auf einen unverbindlichen, schwammigen Kompromiss geeinigt. Er war im Wesentlichen von China und den USA ausgehandelt worden. Nach Protesten vor allem des Sudans und Venezuelas war das Dokument dann im Plenum nur „zur Kenntnis“ genommen worden. Nächstes Zieldatum für den Weltklimavertrag, der am 1. Januar 2013 in Kraft treten soll, ist jetzt Dezember 2010.

Der amtierende EU-Ratspräsident und schwedische Umweltminister Andreas Carlgren sagte, aus dem Scheitern der UN-Konferenz müsse gelernt werden. Hauptgrund sei der mangelnde Wille vor allem der USA und Chinas gewesen. Sie und ihre Verbündeten hätten durchsetzen können, dass sich die Staats- und Regierungschefs auf den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner einigten. Aber gerade deshalb gebe es keine Alternative zu den Vereinten Nationen. „Das UN-System ist trotz all seiner Schwächen das System, das die Interessen der kleineren Länder schützt.“ Erste „strategische Schlussfolgerungen“ wollen die 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten nun beim informellen Treffen im Januar in Sevilla ziehen.

Allianz mit Japan, Australien oder Korea

Röttgen warnte, die Alternative sei, dass einzelne Länder aus Machtpositionen heraus für den Rest handelten. „Das ist nicht die Ebene völkerrechtlicher Geltung, transparenten Handelns, Verhandelns und Kompromisses und eine Weltordnung, wie ich sie mir vorstelle.“ Auch wenn es „mühselig und langsam“ gehe, müssten die UN jetzt aber auch Ergebnisse liefern. „Legitimität ohne Ergebnisse lässt sich auf Dauer nicht durchhalten.“

Europa müsse an seiner ehrgeizigen Klimaschutzpolitik festhalten. „Einmal des Klimaschutzes wegen, aber auch weil unser Kapital in einer technologischen Spitzenstellung und politischer Glaubwürdigkeit besteht.“ Notwendig seien aber auch Allianzen mit Verbündeten, „die wie wir wirksamen Klimaschutz wünschen und aktiv betreiben“. Als Beispiele nannte Röttgen Japan, Australien oder Korea.

Peking empört über Kritik

Derweil nahm im Streit über die Schuld am Scheitern der Gespräche in Kopenhagen der Ton zwischen China und Großbritannien an Schärfe zu. Die britische Regierung wolle mit ihren Äußerungen Zwietracht unter den armen Ländern säen, sagte eine Sprecherin des chinesischen Außenministeriums. Die Erklärungen britischer Politiker folgten einem politischem Plan, der zu nichts führe. Die Sprecherin reagierte damit auf einen Bericht in der Zeitung „Guardian“, die Großbritanniens Umweltminister mit den Worten zitierte, China, der Sudan, Bolivien und andere linksgerichtete Staaten Lateinamerikas hätten die Gespräche in Kopenhagen für ihre Zwecke missbraucht.

rhapsody

http://www.lesechos.fr/info/fran ... er-son-economie.htm

Le Premier ministre français a proposé, hier, une multiplication des coopérations pour aider la Chine à réduire ses émissions de gaz polluants.

Y. R., Les Echos
DE NOTRE CORRESPONDANT À PEKIN.

En pleine mission de réconciliation à Pékin, le Premier ministre français, François Fillon, s'est bien gardé, hier, de formuler la moindre critique directe à l'encontre des autorités chinoises que de plus en plus de dirigeants occidentaux accusent pourtant d'avoir largement participé à l'échec du sommet de Copenhague sur le climat. Le chef du gouvernement français a préféré, au fil de ses rencontres officielles et des cérémonies de signatures de contrats commerciaux, d'un montant total estimé par Matignon à 6,3 milliards d'euros, mettre en avant le potentiel de coopération des deux pays pour une « économie décarbonée » dans le domaine des transports, de l'aménagement urbain et de l'énergie.

Parrainant, dans la matinée, l'officialisation de la création de la TNPC, la coentreprise créée par EDF et le chinois CGNPC pour construire et exploiter deux réacteurs nucléaires de technologie EPR à Taishan, François Fillon a ainsi salué une coopération nucléaire permettant à la France et à la Chine « d'être au premier rang de la responsabilité écologique mondiale ». Pékin, qui tente de casser sa dépendance au charbon dont la combustion assure encore 75 % de la production d'électricité du pays, explique que l'accroissement de son parc nucléaire associé au développement de champs d'éoliennes, de centrales solaires et de barrages hydroélectriques, lui permettra de réduire progressivement la croissance de ses émissions de CO2.

Cherchant à s'imposer en partenaire privilégié de cet effort, Paris a annoncé, hier, la création dans une université de Canton d'un cursus de formation d'ingénieurs nucléaires chinois parrainé par des industriels français ainsi que plusieurs projets de réduction de gaz à effet de serre subventionnés par l'AFD, l'Agence française de développement.
Appel du pied

Reconnaissant plus tard, devant une assemblée d'entreprises françaises et chinoises, qu'il aurait souhaité un texte plus ambitieux à Copenhague, François Fillon a rappelé que l'ensemble des signataires de l'accord « allaient devoir préciser de façon transparente les mesures qu'ils prendront pour respecter leur engagement ». Pour certains observateurs, cette référence à une « transparence » des engagements était un clair appel du pied aux autorités de Pékin, qui refusent pour l'instant catégoriquement de voir leurs « efforts » contrôlés par des institutions internationales.

antifake2

这些文章都非常好，特别是卫报的这个，网友评论很多。http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro ... e-change-mark-lynas

不知道哪些翻译完了哪些没翻译

rhapsody

这些文章都非常好，特别是卫报的这个，网友评论很多。

不知道哪些翻译完了哪些没翻译 ...
antifake2 发表于 2009-12-23 23:34

只要没人领的，就是还没译的。。。

波默默妞

认领卫报的那篇~~

rhapsody

认领卫报的那篇~~
波默默妞 发表于 2009-12-25 20:35

如果楼上指的是本帖25楼那篇，那个已经有人译出来了，见下帖10楼：
http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-213344-1-1.html
P.S. 如果楼上对25楼那篇有兴趣，建议楼上可以挑原文后边的一些评论译出来

Valery

回复 33# rhapsody

我来挑一些评论来翻译一下吧~~~~只是贴在哪里？

rhapsody

回复  rhapsody

我来挑一些评论来翻译一下吧~~~~只是贴在哪里？
Valery 发表于 2009-12-26 21:14

贴在这个后边就行：http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-213344-1-1.html
P.S. 或者楼上想在外媒版另开一帖也行