|
|
|
||||||
 
Reflections on the UN climate change conference
|
 |
|
I was sent by KAIROS, as part of the World Council of Churches’ delegation, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that took place in Bali from December 3-14, 2007. The intention of this UN conference was to get all countries to agree to a roadmap that would pave the way for an international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009. Also taking place in Bali were negotiations among the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol whose commitment period runs from 2008-2012. Canada signed on in 2002.
The post-Kyoto negotiations were directed at achieving an agreement regarding specific emission targets for developed countries by the years 2020 and 2050 based on the fourth assessment report put out by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in November 2007. The panel was comprised of 200 of the world’s top scientists in their respective fields. The report presented a bleak and ominous warning about climate change and its relationship to carbon-based economies. In view of this science-based report, there is no country that can now deny the need for immediate national and international action.
There were at least five issues in Bali that took center stage.
- By what means would developing countries have access to technology that would help them to revert to more sustainable form of development?
- What were the responsibilities of developed countries in financing the ability of poorer, at-risk countries to adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change?
- How to overcome the resistance of some developed countries, namely Canada and Japan, to agree to hard targets for emissions reduction of 25-40% by the year 2020. This was the range recommended by the IPCC report.
- How would emissions from deforestation and forest degradation be handled? This was especially relevant to countries with fast depleting tropical forests, such as Indonesia and Brazil.
- How would responsibility for emissions reductions be allocated to developing countries, especially China and India? Some countries, such as Canada, were resistant to any agreement that would not include hard targets for such countries.
There was a great divide between the developed and developing countries, especially with reference to the U.S., Canada and Japan who continuously blocked the progress of the Bali process.
The developing countries insisted that the developed countries should carry the brunt of the financial burden because climate change is a consequence of their historical emissions. They also pointed out that on a per capita basis poorer countries’ emissions are still lower than any of the developed countries. They further argued that they should have entitlement to continue to develop in order to alleviate the extreme poverty of their citizens.
This would mean that the developed countries would have to reduce their emissions deep enough to allow their development to continue. They insisted that their ability to move to a sustainable model of development was contingent on assistance from the developed world by the way of access to effective technology provided by developed countries and take place over a longer time.
In the end, there was an agreement, and while the outcome was less inspiring than it could have been, there was some progress. In the one forum, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), countries ultimately found agreement for a “Bali Roadmap.” That means that a working group was set up to negotiate an agreement that is now scheduled to be completed by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Unfortunately, the U.S. and Canada succeeded in blocking any reference to binding targets and also to including any detail on the topics to be part of the working group’s agenda. The bulk of any future agreement has yet to be decided.
In the other forum, which only includes countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (and therefore not the U.S.A), Canada also tried to block the inclusion of text on binding targets. However, it backed down at the eleventh hour. The final text, though it does not commit to hard targets, at least recognizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report calling for global emissions to peak in 10-15 years, and for industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions to levels at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
According to Climate Action Network (of which KAIROS is a member), “with Canada’s current national objective set at 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 (or stabilization at 1990 levels by 2020), the Government of Canada must now act to substantially strengthen its regulatory framework and implement a comprehensive climate change plan if it plans to live up to spirit and intent of Kyoto.” It will be critical for the citizens of the Canada to pressure our government to work for a sustainable climate regime and to live up to its Kyoto commitments.
The highlights included the profound educational experience these global gatherings offered, the talented and creative people I met there, witnessing the commitment for justice of the hundreds of people that struggled to influence the proceedings in positive ways, and the beauty of Bali and its people.
But perhaps the most important moment was the presentation of the youth delegation on the last day of the convention. Four young people ranging in ages 7-15 stood before the thousands of government officials to demand their right to inherit a healthy, sustainable planet. One spokesperson, a young South-Asian girl, gave an impassioned plea to these leaders to save our planet, and to do the right thing for their children and their grandchildren. It was a moving moment that deserved the standing ovation it received.
On a more negative note, it was difficult being a Canadian in Bali because the Harper government, as represented by the Minister of the Environment, John Baird and his negotiating team, was very uncooperative in moving the process forward.
I was also concerned about the centrality of using market mechanisms as the sole means and incentive for emissions reductions. Indigenous groups were very vocal in that their prior experience of market mechanisms was neither helpful to them nor to the intended outcomes. Many of the negotiations seemed to be more about market opportunities rather than a sincere effort at tackling climate change. I also felt troubled at the way indigenous issues were marginalized, and how these groups were excluded from active involvement in areas of decision-making that directly impacted their survival and way of life.
I think religious groups need to use their moral authority by actively calling on their governments to pursue policies that will assist people to live more sustainably on the planet while at the same time ensuring human rights and demanding corporate responsibility. Religious groups should be insisting that their governments use the tools of government regulations and policies to hold corporations accountable for their industry, to assure the rights and contributions of indigenous populations, and to support programs and technology that can help us to move from fossil fuel based economies towards the use of more sustainable and renewable energy resources.
For more information contact:
Dorothy McDougal, Coordinator for
Ecological Justice
Email: dmcdougall
kairoscanada.org .
Phone:
416- 463-5312 x222; Toll Free: 1-877-403-8933
Top
of page |
|