COP 23: kommer en kwel

Tot dusver zijn de gevestigde media er stil over geweest.

Door Hans Labohm  16 november 2017

En dus zullen velen het waarschijnlijk niet hebben opgemerkt dat thans de jaarlijkse rituele hoogmis van de klimaatkerk in Bonn plaatsvindt: COP 23 (COP = Conference of the Parties).

De klimaatconferentie van Parijs (COP 21 in 2015) eindigde in euforische stemming, overtuigd als de deelnemers waren dat zij de planeet hadden gered door afspraken te maken over een fikse vermindering van de door de mens veroorzaakte CO2-uitstoot. De beelden spreken voor zich.

Daarna kwam de kater toen een jaar later tijdens de bijeenkomst in Marrakech (COP 22) de VS – de belangrijkste speler in het internationale klimaatbeleid – aankondigde zich uit de overeenkomst van Parijs te zullen terugtrekken.

In Bonn wordt thans geprobeerd de scherven op te ruimen. De opening van de conferentie werd opgeluisterd door een uitzonderlijk ritueel met zang en dans. Zie hier. Maar dat was misschien ook wel het laatste waar de deelnemers zich vrolijk over konden maken. Voor het overige was het weer de gebruikelijke kommer en kwel.

Onder de titel, ‘Climate Song and Dance’, schreef Oren Cas:

Two years after Paris, the UN enviro-crats continue their charade.

Good news is hard to find at this year’s United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany. Diplomats from nearly 200 countries have gathered to review progress made on the “historic” Paris climate accords, signed two years ago. But as the champagne-fueled self-congratulation of Paris recedes into memory, the agreement’s underlying fraud is becoming obvious.

In theory, international discussions, negotiations, and agreements on climate change aim to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and thus lessen the expected warming of the climate. In fact, the Paris accord does not even attempt to achieve this goal, except nominally. Instead, countries can pledge as much or as little climate action as they see fit, and no enforcement mechanism ensures that they deliver on their commitments. A country unhappy with its pledge can simply change it.

Operating in this framework, countries have pledged very little. Back in 2000, before all the clean-energy investments and cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes and landmark international deals, the UN’s projection for emissions this century pointed toward a planetary warming of 3.4°C by 2100. On the eve of the Bonn summit, the UN acknowledged that, with all pledges, projected warming by 2100 still comes out to 3.2°C—and even that miniscule reduction in warming assumes compliance, which is in short supply. None of the major powers are on track to meet their pledges, and developing countries are failing to even get started. Angela Merkel, “climate chancellor” and host of this year’s conference, has been an outspoken critic of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, but her own nation’s emissions are rising. Germany’s environmental ministry believes that the country will miss its targets badly and warns of “a disaster for Germany’s international reputation as a climate leader.”

Lees verder hier.

Onder de titel; ‘Breakthrough eludes climate talks, scientists concerned over US role’, schreef Amitabh Sinha voor ‘The Indian Express’:

With more than half the schedule of climate change conference already over, frustration was beginning to show at the lack of progress on any of the key issues under discussion, including the issues of finance, loss and damage, and ‘pre-2020 actions’. Developing country negotiators lamented the fact that the United States, which has decided to pull out the Paris Agreement, was continuing to block any meaningful breakthrough on these issues and that other developed countries were not helping matters either.

“Other developed countries are hiding behind the United States on loss and damage and finance issues. And, I think they need to be called out on this. They need to be asked whether they would side with (US President) Donald Trump or with the vulnerable countries of the world and meet their responsibilities,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said, echoing what many country negotiators were saying off the record. …

One major disappointment has been over the lack of any headway on issues related to finance, particularly that meant for loss and damages. Developing countries, especially the smaller island nations which also happen to be the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, have been demanding the setting up of mechanisms through which then can access financial help in the event of destruction caused by extreme weather events. This financial help needs to be in addition to the US$ 100 billion that the developed countries are obligated to provide every year from 2020 to help developing countries deal with climate change.

One of the options being discussed is to raise money through taxes on fossil fuel industry. “Countries are looking for money that is additional to the US$ 100 billion, because loss and damage is additional to the mitigation and adaptation needs. The US$ 100 billion was agreed upon long before the issue of loss and damages became part of discussions at these negotiations. The kind of money we are looking at … has to come by levying taxes on fossil fuel industry that has caused climate change in the first place,” Mohamed Adow, International Climate Lead at Christian Aid, said.

But the developed countries, mainly the US, have not been quite agreed to look at this, suggesting instead that insurance might be a good way to deal with the problem. “On loss and damage and finance, they (the US) have been taking a pretty hard line and that has started to cause some real anger,” Meyers said.

Even on the US$ 100 billion commitment, the demand that developed countries spell out the roadmap and enhance the proportion of public finance in their contributions, has largely been stonewalled. “Developed countries have not come prepared to put any new money on the table or make new pledges. So we are not expecting any strong outcome on this. The best we can hope for, we think, is to get some assurance that next year they will demonstrate stronger commitment,” Tracy Carty of Oxfam said.

Lees verder hier.

Ja, volgend jaar beter! Zo niet, dan misschien het daarop volgende jaar. Enz. enz.

Wat is de positie van Nederland in deze zaak? De Nederlandse ODA (‘Official Development Aid’) bedraagt jaarlijks ongeveer 5 miljard dollar, ruim 3% van de totale ODA van alle internationale hulpdonors gezamenlijk. Indien dit ons aandeel in de 100 miljard dollar zou zijn, betekent dit een extra last van 3 miljard dollar per jaar (boven op de 5 miljard die reeds aan ontwikkelingshulp wordt uitgegeven, om nog maar te zwijgen van de vele extra miljarden die jaarlijks aan nationaal klimaatbeleid zullen worden worden uitgegeven). Gezien de commotie over de 1,4 miljard euro die de schatkist misloopt door afschaffing van de dividendbelasting, lijkt het mij onwaarschijnlijk dat dit geld er ooit zal komen.