Our dedicated community member boatsie, has been following the proceedings of a group of 195 Nations, who are trying to act like the "adults on the planet",
-- they are trying to reach a consensus, they are trying to "draw a line" with regards to Climate Change.
Here's is boatsie's latest report on the Climate Conference now going on in Durbin, South Africa:
Climate Bullies Control COP17
by boatsie for The Durban Daily -- Nov 26, 2011
Perhaps the 99% is stronger, than even us Americans could have imagined.
Stopping the planet temperature increase within a 2°C Ceiling, is a noble goal, one well worth following.
Maybe even the USA can one day be lead that charge. For a safer, saner, more livable world.
Instead of acting like the skunk at the picnic ... Of course, us Americans need to first demand ... sanity, from our 1% Leaders.
Here's a crash course on the UN Framework proceedings that are commonly know as COP. Think IPCC, but for politicians and diplomats -- instead of science geeks.
Background on the UNFCCC: The international response to climate change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
[...]
What happens beyond 2012 is one of the key issues governments of the 195 Parties to the Convention are currently negotiating. Climate change is a complex problem, which, although environmental in nature, has consequences for all spheres of existence on our planet. It either impacts on -- or is impacted by -- global issues, including poverty, economic development, population growth, sustainable development and resource management. It is not surprising, then, that solutions come from all disciplines and fields of research and development.
At the very heart of the response to climate change, however, lies the need to reduce emissions. In 2010, governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.
Who say's the UN can't accomplish anything? ... "limited to below 2 degrees Celsius"
-- that's saying something.
What is CoP17
The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 7th Session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (CMP7) to the Kyoto Protocol, will be held in the sunny city of Durban, South Africa. [...]
Since the UNFCCC entered into force in 1995, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC have been meeting annually to assess progress in dealing with climate change.
The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP. Successive decisions taken by the COP make up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention.
What is CMP? [Meeting of the Parties]
[...]
Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol are able to participate in the CMP as observers, but without the right to take decisions.
[...]
The African Group will be the next proud host of the Conference with COP 17 / CMP 7 taking place from 28 November to 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa.
OK, what about some of those Reports, to meet a 2°C Ceiling, you need some pretty serious Emission Reduction targets by the participating nations ... to reach such ambitious goals.
Here's such a report, I found from a recent workshop, that discusses the targets:
In-session workshops - Second part of the fourteenth session of the AWG-LCA, Bonn, Germany, 7 - 17 June 2011
Title:
Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed country Parties to the Convention: assumptions, conditions and comparison of the level of emission reduction efforts. Technical paper.
Abstract:
This technical paper presents an overview of the quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by developed country Parties, as well as assumptions and conditions related to the attainment of these targets, and discusses comparison of the emission reduction efforts. This paper is intended to facilitate understanding of these assumptions and conditions. It is based on submissions by Parties and their contributions to the workshop held in Bangkok, Thailand, on 3 April 2011 on assumptions and conditions related to the attainment of quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed country Parties
Framework Convention on Climate Change [the Technical Report -- pdf]
Distr.: General - FCCC/TP/2011/1
3 June 2011
[pg 3]
I. Introduction
A. Mandate
1. The Conference of the Parties (COP), at its sixteenth session, in decision 1/CP.16,[1] recognized that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and that Parties should take urgent action to meet this long-term goal, consistent with science and on the basis of equity. The COP also recognized the need to consider, in the context of the first review under the Convention subsequent to its sixteenth session, strengthening the long-term global goal on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, including in relation to a global average temperature rise of 1.5 °C.[2]
2. The COP, by decision 1/CP.16, urged developed country Parties to increase the ambition of their targets, with a view to reducing their aggregate anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs not controlled by the Montreal Protocol to a level consistent with that recommended by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.[3]
[...]
[pg 10 ... the USA is involved ...]
United States of America
Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020 and related general assumptions and conditions
The target communicated by the United States is in the range of a 17% emission reduction by 2020 compared with 2005, in conformity with anticipated United States energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the secretariat in the light of the enacted legislation. In addition, the pathway set forth in pending legislation would entail a 30% emission reduction by 2025 and a 42% emission reduction by 2030, in line with the goal to reduce emissions by 83% by 2050. The submission of the target by the United States was made on the assumption that other Annex I Parties, as well as more advanced non-Annex I Parties, would associate with the Copenhagen Accord and submit mitigation actions
Assumptions and conditions relating to LULUCF
[LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry]
For the United States the target is economy-wide and will create incentives to reduce net emissions from all sectors that have mitigation potential, including the LULUCF sector. The United States will undertake a comprehensive, land-based approach that takes advantage of the broadest array of mitigation actions
Assumptions and conditions relating to carbon credits from market-based mechanisms
There is no current federal law in the United States that provides for emissions trading or international offsets, but some States provide credit towards emissions for allowances/reductions secured abroad. In addition, any mechanisms in the United States would meet high standards for environmental integrity and transparency.
[pg 7 by comparison here's the EU's targets]
European Union and its 27 member States
Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020 and related general assumptions and conditions
Target of 20%/30% emission reduction relative to 1990 The 20% emission reduction target by 2020 is unconditional and supported by legislation in place since 2009 (Climate and Energy Package). The European Union would move to a 30% target as part of a global comprehensive agreement for the period beyond 2012, provided that all Parties contribute their fair share to a cost-effective global emission reduction pathway, where other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities
Assumptions and conditions relating to LULUCF
[LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry]
LULUCF is not included for the 20% target, but it is included for the 30% target. Preliminary estimates of the contribution of LULUCF to the 30% target range between –0.7% and +2.1% of 1990 emissions
Assumptions and conditions relating to carbon credits from market-based mechanisms
The European Union in the context of the AWG-LCA is more ambitious in the use of market-based mechanisms compared with such use in the context of the Kyoto Protocol: for example, inclusion of international aviation, higher CDM quality standards, supplementarity defined, recognition of early action, no carry-over of assigned amount units, a single base year of 1990, annual compliance cycle, higher penalties for non-compliance in emissions trading sectors, taking into account of direct and indirect effects of biofuels on land-use change.
That "Emission Reduction Targets" Report had some decent Charts too:
larger
larger
So we have the reductions targets -- but do we have the political will, to make them actually happen?
Do the nations of the world, have such will? If only the United States and the EU would actually lead ... the planet, instead of exploit it.
Kyoto Protocol: Can Durban Deliver?
25 Nov 2011
CDKN: There is muted hope and frustration in equal measure in the lead-up to CoP-17/CMP-7 in Durban. Hope that the Durban conference will resolve the vexed question of ‘legal form’ of the Bali ‘agreed outcome’ and provide Kyoto with a new lease of life, and frustration that the politics as they are emerging may make this unachievable. This divisive issue is slated to take centre stage at the Durban conference.
A majority of countries across the developed -- developing country divide have coalesced in favor of a legally-bindinginstrument to crystallise mitigation and other commitments that will chart the world through to a 2°C or even 1.5°C world. The EU, among others, has indicated that they are willing to offer the Kyoto Protocol a lifeline to ensure its survival for a (transitional) commitment period conditional on the adoption at Durban of a deadline-driven roadmap towards a ‘global and comprehensive legally-binding agreement’ under the FCCC.
Brazil, China and India, among others, have challenged the link between Kyoto’s survival and a roadmap under the FCCC. Extending Kyoto in their view is a legal obligation not a bargaining tool to wrench further concessions from developing countries. These countries are, if at all, only willing to consider a mandate for a new legally-binding instrument after the completion of the review of the long-term global goal slated for 2015. The United States, nervous about the gathering momentum in favor of a Durban mandate, has in any case made it clear that any new legally-binding instrument, if and when it becomes necessary, must incorporate symmetrical mitigation commitments, at least in form, for all significant emitters. Needless to say the BASIC countries will find such symmetry in the legal character of mitigation commitments unpalatable. [...]
So there you go, the US is offering global gridlock, not planetary leadership ... as per usual.
Meanwhile in some parts of the world the people don't have time to lose.
The effects of Climate Change are very real, in many locales.
Africa: COP17 - Inspiring the Global Climate Justice Movement
Nnimmo Bassey -- 3 November 2011
Interview
It's unlikely we'll get 'an equitable outcome' from COP17, but it will be 'a great moment to intensify campaigns against the business-as-usual manner' in which climate negotiations have been conducted so far, writes Nnimmo Bassey.
[...]
NNIMMO BASSEY: While there is a generally low level of expectation from the Durban Conference of the Parties (COP17), we see it as a great moment to stand with impacted peoples and the environmental justice movement and call for a climate tackling regime that understands the depth of the crises and the fact that the impacts are already manifesting. We will push for polluting countries to cut emissions at source and not through offsets and related market mechanisms that help polluters profit from the damage they do. We will push for legally binding emissions reduction targets to ensure that temperature increase is kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
[...]
It's unlikely we'll get 'an equitable outcome' from COP17, but it will be 'a great moment to intensify campaigns against the business-as-usual manner' in which climate negotiations have been conducted so far, writes Nnimmo Bassey.
[...]
PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you give any recent examples where you have seen the on-the-ground impact of climate change for Africa? You recently wrote about flooding in Nigeria. What other evidence is emerging and what has been the impact.
NNIMMO BASSEY: The droughts and famine in the Horn of Africa is a very clear example. The tragic consequences are all avoidable if the countries involved had developed and built resilience and coping mechanisms. Rain failure occurred over a period of three years, but the governments and institutions kept blind eyes to that. Analysts saw that due to the warming of the Indian Ocean, rain that ought to fall on the land is now mostly falling on the ocean. This is a clear signal of more disasters to come.
Crop loss and poor harvests are clear evidence already noticed in some areas.
Desertification is impacting at least 13 states in Northern Nigeria and this is expanding. Coastal erosion due to sea level rise is a reality.
In some places like Africa, the effects of Climate Change are life-shakingly REAL.
The effects of Climate Change are soon to become very real, in many locales in the USA too, no doubt ... if last year's fires, floods, and droughts, and tornadoes, were any sort of leading indicator.
Just give it time ... and a few more years of foot-dragging Framework sessions, by the industrial nations.
There's no telling what kind of Planet we will end up with, at this rate.
Maybe some day, the COP conferences, will get the air time and discussion they deserve. Of course, us Americans need to first demand ... some planetary sanity, from our 1% Leaders.
As if cutting back on GHG emissions were our only rational choice. Because actually, it is.