Copenhagen diary: Thursday 10 December 2009
The hot topics at Copenhagen today
Some wandering of attention today to the world outside the conference itself - first, to President Barack Obama in Oslo, picking up his Nobel peace prize. And some pondering too of the significance of the Russian announcement that President Dmitry Medvedev will attend Copenhagen on the final two days.
Will this be the moment that the two men sign a new nuclear arms agreement - on the sidelines of Copenhagen? That could prove a distraction from the climate politics... perhaps a welcome one if it's all going badly.
Mr Obama used his Oslo to reiterate his position on climate change, putting this in terms of global security:
"The world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance."
In reply, Ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, representing the G77 bloc of developing nations and China, urged Mr Obama to bring more than carefully crafted words with him next week.
He wants a return to the Kyoto Protocol as part of an agreement at Copenhagen, describing this as "an equitable and just deal that would save the planet".
Early, leaked, texts doing the rounds variously look a little more and some a little less like a Kyoto-style framework, which the US dislikes.
Mr Lumumba also urged the US to help free up $200bn in special drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, he said, could be used to address the threat of climate change.
This is an idea that gained some support today with an intervention by the American billionaire George .
There's much talk today of "splits".
The first hangs in the air after Tuvalu succeeded in getting the talks suspended for much of yesterday afternoon by calling for major emerging economies such as China to start setting emissions reduction targets.
This goes against the G77 mantra up until now - that the developed world is responsible for climate change, so should bear the burden of cuts. The Tuvalu move was blocked by China, India, Saudi Arabia and other large developing countries.
Then there are the EU splits. The EU has said it wants to lead on climate change, but is divided internally on the two key issues for Copenhagen - emissions and finance.
At the EU summit today and tomorrow in Brussels, ministers will discuss whether or not to raise their offer of emissions cuts from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020, to 30% - contingent on an ambitious deal emerging.
Britain is calling for the 30% figure, Poland and others are resisting.
The EU is split too over how much each country should pay towards a fund to help developing nations adapt and move to low carbon economies.
Can the EU agree on these two key issues ahead of next week's wider conversations in Copenhagen?
Most EU ministers appear to be bringing forward their travel plans to Wednesday 16 December - which could prove a lively day, with rumours of possible protests inside the conference hall...
Comment number 1.
At 10th Dec 2009, coltek wrote:Could you possibly ask your "scientist" friends at this conference the following questions:-
1, What were the CO2 levels during the Medieval Warming Period?
2, If they were high, where did it come from?
3, What evidence is there of higher sea levels in this period?
4, Apply the same but opposite questions to the following "Little Ice Age".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 10th Dec 2009, jauntycyclist wrote:...So I started looking into who the primary architects were behind Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, the GBA, the Kyoto Protocol, and the various conventions on biodiversity and conservation.
I was amazed to find that the same names kept appearing. In fact the same person is listed as the chief author of all those documents I just listed. He also headed the UN Reform Committee, authored the UN report on Global Governance, was the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN (#2) in charge, president of the UN 'University of Peace' and the leader of the Baha'i movement in North America. His name is Maurice Strong.
So I read every book, speech and lecture I could find authored by Mr Strong. I was absolutely astonished by his worldview. .....
soros is a member of the club of rome. he is just a 'usual' suspect.
maybe the express should be the paper of the day?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10th Dec 2009, jauntycyclist wrote:is it true christmas trees have been banned there?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 10th Dec 2009, jauntycyclist wrote:has NN ever interviewed maurice strong? would seem an odd omission not to talk to the architect and challenge his views?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10th Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:A circus. Keep the money in each country where the citizens can see that the money is being spent on alternative energy sources and technologies. This is nothing more than the coal and oil businesses forcing the elected handmaidens to insure that they can have the right to pollute. Wrong ideas, wrong process and wrong results. If these funds were put in one international account to fund the development of new clean energy sources it would have a much matter result. This just maintains the big business of coal and oil. Some crumbs will be thrown to the poor but the real result will be the continuation of coal and oil as the primary energy sources and thus little to curb climate change.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Dec 2009, mimpromptu wrote:Susan
You've put all the points very clearly here. That's great.
I don't know whether they should settle on the 20% or 30%, they could always go for 25%, for example.
Overall, I think they will come up with a favourable statement for the need for something to be done towards reduction of CO2 emissions, etc. and I don't think that the current squabbles will have much effect on the agreement. After all they didn't meet to sing in unison but to discuss things looking for the best possible solution.
Monika
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th Dec 2009, mimpromptu wrote:Plus, it looks like a positive and promising move on the part of Dimitry Medvedev to come to Copenhagen and have a chat with Barack Obama and probably with a few other World Leaders.
mim
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 11th Dec 2009, barriesingleton wrote:FIRST READ-THROUGH OF OBAMA'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH.
Oh dear. Obama clearly feels the hand of The God of Abraham on his shoulder, as he Tony's his 'humble' way into 'history'.
He has not yet spoken of his 'destiny' - as far as I know - but clearly it IS his destiny to fix the world, and against such glory, the premature gathering of a Nobel Prize-or-two (rather as a powerful magnet gathers particulate iron from dust) is of sundry account.
If only he had politely refused it! Now THAT would have been humble. But then, Tony led the way (in this wilderness) and HE never turned ANYTHING down. I told you, at the outset, we had got ourselves another Tony.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)