CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power Understanding the UNFCCC process (The Climate Group)

Published on December 3rd, 2014 | by Sandy Dechert

12

EU Calls For Legally Binding Emissions Cuts At Lima COP20

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

December 3rd, 2014 by  

For a quick summary of the progress of world negotiations on climate change so far, the Climate Group has produced a simple but expressive infographic (below is part of it, click to enlarge).

climate agreements

Understanding the UNFCCC process (The Climate Group)

At Tuesday’s Lima COP20 meeting, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action opened its 13th session. The main event of the day, this ADP meeting started off with the preparations for next year’s Paris agreement.

Co-chair Kishan Kumarsingh opened the main plenary of the Lima COP20 with negotiations on the draft text for the Paris accords, as the parties had requested earlier this year when they met in Bonn. Sophie Yeo of RTCC summarized the events in her customary live blog.

On behalf of the G77+China group, Bolivia ran overtime to express this group’s call for 40% reductions in greenhouse gases on 1990 levels by 2020 from rich countries, a relatively high level.

Australia spoke on behalf of the Umbrella Group.

Switzerland proposed on behalf of Environment Integrity Group that rich and poor countries should self-differentiate.

On behalf of the Africa Group, Sudan raised the topic of “imbalance” from the chairs.

Speaking for “Least Developed Countries” was Nepal.

The Latin America alliance AILAC called for carbon neutrality by 2050.

Belize spoke on behalf of the Central American Integration System (SICA).

Saudi Arabia requested recognition of the “historic right of Arab states to sustainable development” on behalf of the Arab Group.

South Africa spoke on behalf of BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China).

Cuba, on behalf of strongly like-minded developing countries, rejected Switzerland’s notion of bottom-up differentiation, which sets up a conflict with the US and other developed nations.

On behalf of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, Panama spoke of a new market-based mechanism, including REDD, for forest issues.

Elina Bardram making the case for binding targets (EPA/Paolo Aguilar)

Elina Bardram of the EU making the case for binding targets (EPA/Paolo Aguilar)

The European Union made the day’s biggest news at Lima COP20. Dan Collyns, Peru reporter for the Guardian, noted that this group came out strongly in favor of requiring legally binding cuts from all countries by 2015, to be executed by 2020. He quotes Elina Bardram, head of the EU’s COP20 delegation:

“The EU is of the mind that legally binding mitigation targets are the only way to provide the necessary long-term signal, the necessary confidence to the investors… and provide credibility in the low carbon transition worldwide…. We’re not convinced that an alternative approach could provide the same signals that would be sufficient to deliver the global momentum…. We don’t want to get to Paris and realise that the targets and the contributions did not add up to what we needed.”

This action represents the first time a Brussels official has gone on the public record supporting legally binding targets. It contrasts with what the US favors: a “buffet option” (read: “all of the above”?) with some legally binding elements but leeway for individual countries to determine their own emissions reductions. The EU received support from Meena Raman of the Third World Network during a press conference.

Other Lima COP20 press conferences and launches also occurred. Notable among them was a set of ideas from a global consortium including the World Resources Institute and 9 other parties on how to forge an effective 2015 agreement. “The major proposal, by the Agreement on Climate Transformation 2015 (ACT 2015) consortium, provides recommendations that are grounded in political realities and adequately respond to the dangerous and costly impacts of climate change. It is based on intensive analysis by 10 research institutions with outreach to climate negotiators, hundreds of government representatives and other stakeholders convened during 12 workshops over the past year,” WRI writes. “The proposal includes three essential elements and eight core functions necessary for the Paris climate agreement to be successful.”

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

covers environmental, health, renewable and conventional energy, and climate change news. She's worked for groundbreaking environmental consultants and a Fortune 100 health care firm, writes two top-level blogs on Examiner.com, ranked #2 on ONPP's 2011 Top 50 blogs on Women's Health, and attributes her modest success to an "indelible habit of poking around to satisfy my own curiosity."



  • Matt

    “EU calls for” or “EU demands” would have been clear to all.

  • JamesWimberley

    BASICs, no longer BRICs? Has China abandoned Putin (the R in BRIC in Russia) to his own devices?

    • Kevin McKinney

      Possibly related to Russia’s status as a petro-state?

  • Vensonata

    The headline can be read negatively. I thought on reading it, that once again the EU wanted to avoid binding commitments. Wrong. They want binding commitments. The phrase “draws line” is not clear about which side of the line the EU is on.

    • Larmion

      Indeed. To draw a line is usually used to denote opposition to going any further than XYZ. That’s the opposite of what the EU is doing here…

    • Offgridman

      I got the same negative impression from the title also and it caused me to jump right to this article to find out what was going on before catching up on the previous ones. Don’t know if that was a conscious or subconscious desire by the author, but the ‘lead’ is misleading.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Hmm, looks all of you got the opposite impression I got (and the author intended). I think the full phrase that’s implied is “draws a line in the sand,” whereby countries now have to choose to go with this important proposal or oppose it.

      • nakedChimp

        IMHO ‘drawing a line in the sand’ is to be understood as ‘until here and no further’.. completely agree with the others, it has a negative connotation of meaning the lower bound of something.

        ‘The EU is setting the bar high’ would be more appropriate for what is going on here.

        • Joseph Dubeau

          I agree

      • Offgridman

        Maybe it is just a different perspective on the phrase from different sides of the Atlantic.
        For myself it usually meant that you could come as far as the line but no further, or do an activity to a certain point but there is a limit to what will be endured. Have never seen it used before as setting a goal or something to be achieved. That is usually ‘set the bar’ as in a jump to be achieved.
        But whichever, this did turn out to be good news that I was happy to see.

    • JamesWimberley

      Should be “put down a marker.”

    • Will E

      companies and hugh renewable profits will overhaul politic decisions. see Eon utility comp Germany going clean, abandon fossil and nukes.

Back to Top ↑