Reuters 16 Oct 09;
(Reuters) - U.N. climate talks on expanding the fight against global warming have largely stalled, making the outcome of a major climate summit in Copenhagen in December uncertain.
With less than 60 days to the Copenhagen meeting, negotiators face serious differences in finding a way to get the United States and large developing nations to sign up to a deal that leads to big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Following are efforts to expand or replace the Kyoto Protocol climate pact.
MONEY
No money, no deal. Developing nations, who say wealthy countries are largely to blame for climate change to date, want cash to help them green their economies. Money to adapt to rising seas and greater extremes of weather is also essential, they say.
Without cash and clean-energy technology, they see no point in taking anything more than voluntary steps to curb the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions.
Rich nations have so far failed to put significant sums on the table and instead talk of "fast-start" cash in Copenhagen for initial adaptation and technology transfer programs.
Details on larger and longer-term funding would come later but there remains disagreement on whether this should be mostly public money or raised through carbon markets and levies on shipping and aviation fuels.
The United States says its hands are tied until the Senate passes a climate bill. The European Union will likely have clarity on funding after a leaders' meeting in a few weeks.
TARGETS
Rich nations have also failed to put final emissions reduction targets for 2020 on the table. Collectively, the figures offered are far below the 25-40 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020 the U.N. climate panel says is needed to help limit the growth of carbon pollution in the atmosphere.
Many rich nation's targets are also conditional on the outcome of Copenhagen or the actions of big developing nations, such as top greenhouse gas polluter China.
Developing nations want rich countries to adopt tougher targets to show they are serious in fighting climate change.
KILL KYOTO?
Just as contentious is the legal framework of a broader climate pact to succeed Kyoto from 2013. The European Union says Kyoto hasn't worked and that most rich nations will fail to meet their 2008-12 emission targets. The U.S. wants a new agreement that focuses on binding domestic action and wants all nations to put their emissions reduction steps into a registry.
Developing nations want Kyoto to remain since there's nothing better to replace it. They fear wealthy states are trying to dodge tough emissions cuts by 2020 and point to a history of broken promises on financing and failure to meet past emissions cuts.
MEASUREMENT
Rich nations want all countries to provide regular and detailed reports on their efforts to cut emissions and to agree on ways to check, or verify, these steps really lead to greenhouse gas reductions.
But the G77 bloc of developing countries say they should not be part of a universal measurement, reporting and verification system, saying richer nations should be held to a tougher standard. More broadly, developing nations say they shouldn't be treated the same way as rich countries in terms of how their efforts to fight climate change are treated in a new pact.
Analysts say the rigid split in actions by rich and poor nations under U.N. climate treaties is no longer valid, pointing to China, India, Indonesia and Brazil being among the top greenhouse gas emitters. Getting them to agree to binding steps to cut emissions is crucial.
(Reporting by David Fogarty; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
What "Plan B" for Copenhagen might look like
David Fogarty, Reuters 16 Oct 09;
(Reuters) - Negotiators are already talking about "plan B" for the Copenhagen climate talks in December, with uncertainty growing that nations will be able to agree in time on a tougher and broader U.N. climate pact.
While that might sound bad, some analysts say that none of the major players is talking about "no deal," just a deal that will take a little longer to agree on.
Following are possible scenarios for the Dec 7-18 Copenhagen talks.
PLAN A: BROADER CLIMATE PACT
The U.S. Senate passes its climate bill before Copenhagen, allowing Washington to offer a 2020 emissions reduction target and substantial funding for poorer nations for climate change adaptation and green energy technology.
Developing nations agree to formally include their emissions reduction actions into a new climate deal. They also agree to report regularly on how these efforts lead to a substantial reduction in the growth of their emissions and to open up such efforts to independent scrutiny.
With these steps, other rich nations toughen their 2020 emissions reduction targets, pledge near-term climate financing and agree on the need for substantial longer-term financing, how that money will be raised and how it will be managed.
PLAN B: SEAL THE DEAL IN 2010
In reality, the U.S. Senate might pass the climate bill in the first part of 2010, allowing President Barack Obama's administration to bring a 2020 target and financing pledges to the table during a major U.N. climate meeting in Bonn in June.
At worst, nations would have to wait until annual U.N. climate talks in Dec 2010.
In addition, developing nations say they have concerns about the legal nature of a broad climate pact, particularly over efforts to set aside or radically overhaul the Kyoto Protocol.
Copenhagen might instead yield an agreement deciding on the political essentials and add conditional offers by China, India and other big developing nations based on what the United States was prepared to do once the legislation passed.
Global conservation group WWF says the essentials would include: a clear indication of the sources and methods of funding and to ensure the money comes from predictable revenue streams; clarity on the bodies managing the money and the level of developing country representation; and immediate funding.
Failure to at least agree on this could lead to just a broad political statement at the end of Copenhagen on what the structure of a new agreement should be.
PLAN C: U.S. SENATE SAYS NO
The U.S. Senate votes against the climate bill, but other nations reluctantly go ahead with many measures to fight climate change anyway hoping the United States will formally join the global effort at some point.
In the worst-case scenario, negotiations start to resemble failed trade talks that repeatedly stall. Nations instead work on bilateral clean-energy and carbon offset deals that fail to achieve major reductions in the growth of emissions.
(Sources, WWF, The Nature Conservancy, E3G)
(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Ron Popeski)
