Difference between revisions of "Mardi Gras"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
However, the funds mainly from the import duties provided enough finances so that the most important developing countries were able to invest in emission reducing measures without harming their GDP growth. So in the end also these countries implemented reduction targets and fulfilled them. <br><br> | However, the funds mainly from the import duties provided enough finances so that the most important developing countries were able to invest in emission reducing measures without harming their GDP growth. So in the end also these countries implemented reduction targets and fulfilled them. <br><br> | ||
=2010 | =2010= | ||
After a spectacular fiasco of Copenhagen 2010 Negotiations following discussions did not bring much results and no one really believed that Cancun, planned for the end of the year, will make any difference. | After a spectacular fiasco of Copenhagen 2010 Negotiations following discussions did not bring much results and no one really believed that Cancun, planned for the end of the year, will make any difference. The sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010. The expectations from media and public all over the world before that meeting to the participants were high after the disaster in the previous conference in Copenhagen. It was mainly expected to agree upon a protocol that commits all participants to reduce its GHG emissions to a reasonable level. The result would be a lower increase of the global temperature under the in 2012, but with tougher limits for the countries.<br> | ||
However, the reality showed that expectations were too high. The draft for the new protocol (LCA) prepared in Bonn (Germany) and Tianjin (China) was not agreed upon. This was even a bigger disaster in the eyes of the observer of this conference and more baneful and alarming for all experts than after the Copenhagen conference. Each delay in the climate negotiations would mean that a reduction of GHG in the atmosphere and thus a reduction of the global temperature increase are more and more impossible to achieve. An achievement of this was only meaningful if all countries in the world limit their GHG emissions. <br> | |||
However nature already started giving humanity some clues on later events. Earthquakes in China and Chile, forest fires in Russia and flood in Pakistan were followed by extremely cold winter in Western Europe and part of Northern America.<br> | However nature already started giving humanity some clues on later events. Earthquakes in China and Chile, forest fires in Russia and flood in Pakistan were followed by extremely cold winter in Western Europe and part of Northern America.<br> | ||
And despite the fact that statements were more populist that anything else, they locked some attention asking to pay attention to 'the climate catastrophe that is already going on'.<br> | |||
Following couple of years were followed by fighting and struggling around climate change. Those years brought new local tragedies in a face of floods, droughts and fires. However they also brought full support to project REDD from EU and some agreement on LCA content amongst leading economies, fixing somewhat "average" options in most. | Following couple of years were followed by fighting and struggling around climate change. Those years brought new local tragedies in a face of floods, droughts and fires. However they also brought full support to project REDD from EU and some agreement on LCA content amongst leading economies, fixing somewhat "average" options in most.<br> | ||
So what happened? Or better: What did not happen, that the most important parties in these negotiations were so relaxed and were not able to attain a consensus? <br><br> | |||
USA was mostly concerned for its own industry. Companies from the EU region were at that time leaders in green technology, so USA did not see an advantage in this. GHG abatement would mean higher costs for the US industry, so their standpoint was not to reduce GHGs. <br><br> | |||
Developing countries -and herein are included the BRICs- were furthermore expecting the first step to be done by the developed countries. Their biggest concern was not to stop their economic growth. Additionally, they expected financial support from developed countries since those had polluted the world since their industrialization which had happened long before their industrialization. <br> | |||
Even though China had been affected by some natural catastrophes, like landslides and floods in 2010, these were not alarming and driving the government to change their climate negotiations behavior.<br><br> | |||
The EU harbored many companies active on the green technology sector (wind turbines, solar power generation, efficiency improvement, etc.). These companies saw a worldwide market once an agreement on UN level would have been reached. So there were heavily lobbying to their governments and the EU representatives in the UN conferences to establish global GHG abatement rules. <br> | |||
In the meanwhile the EU started to implement carbon trading within its region and between the EU member countries. This project was also pushed by the pressure on EU governments by the European citizens. The public awareness in the EU about the necessity of measures mitigating climate change had been high before the meeting in Cancun. However, mainly NGOs were waking up the people and so the governments could feel the rising pressure, that something needs to be done. <br><br> | |||
time China was the 2nd biggest for the EU (after the U.S.). The signs were directing towards China becoming the number one also for the EU. (See also:[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/china/]) | |||
=2014-2018= | =2014-2018= | ||