Difference between revisions of "Mardi Gras"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2010) |
(→2010) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=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. It was mainly expected to agree upon main parts of a protocol that should commit all participants to reduce its GHG emissions to a reasonable level. This was supposed to be the protocol succeeding the Kyoto Protocol, but with some tougher limits for the countries, allowing to fix GHG concentration in the atmosphere at the level at or below 450 ppm.<br><br> | 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. It was mainly expected to agree upon main parts of a protocol that should commit all participants to reduce its GHG emissions to a reasonable level. This was supposed to be the protocol succeeding the Kyoto Protocol, but with some tougher limits for the countries, allowing to fix GHG concentration in the atmosphere at the level at or below 450 ppm.<br><br> | ||
However, the reality showed that those expectations were too high. The draft for the new protocol (LCA) prepared in Bonn (Germany) and Tianjin (China) was not agreed upon. Again. 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 possible if all countries would limit their GHG emissions. <br> | However, the reality showed that those expectations were too high. The draft for the new protocol (LCA) prepared in Bonn (Germany) and Tianjin (China) was not agreed upon. Again. 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 possible if all countries would limit their GHG emissions. <br><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> | 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> | 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> | ||