2009年12月22日火曜日

COP15 勢力対立

COP15で、勢力が対立した。
先進国対途上国と言う構図のようだ。

先進国:米国、EU
途上国:中国、インド、スーダン、ベネズエラ

米英仏共に中国が抵抗したため協議が進まなかったと言う。
次回メキシコで、中国は、先進国として扱い、本当の途上国と分離
すべきだろう。これができなければメキシコでは決裂となると思う。
温暖化データの偽造疑惑は、インパクトはあったが、「留意」には
負けてしまったようだ。
疑惑が偽造となれば、世界を巻き込んだ詐欺事件となる。
研究者が研究費を増額させるため、政府が税額を増加させるため、
新産業参入企業が利益を増額させるため、もっとも利益を増額させ
たいのは、化石燃料に左右されることを嫌う人達だろう。


Obama Praises Copenhagen Agreement The Associated Press


---先進国、途上国に合意案で大幅譲歩 COP15---
2009/12/21 20:40
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/kaigai/eu/20091219D1C1900619.html

 【コペンハーゲン=古谷茂久】2013年以降の温暖化対策の枠組みを協議する第15回国連気候変動枠組み条約締約国会議(COP15)は、決裂回避を優先して主要国による合意案をまとめた。発言力を強める中国が温暖化ガス排出削減の国際的な検証などに猛反発。米国が説得に努めたが、途上国は「自主検証」を軸にすることになった。先進国が大幅譲歩した色彩が濃いことは否めず、先進国と途上国の力関係の変化も印象づけた。
 「交渉をブロックしているのは中国だ」。18日午前、夜を徹して続く首脳級会合の合間に、記者団の前に姿を現したフランスのサルコジ大統領は厳しい表情で語った。


---【COP15】「最悪の混乱ショー」英閣僚、中国の抵抗を批判---
2009.12.21 01:36
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/europe/091221/erp0912210137001-n1.htm

 ミリバンド英エネルギー・気候変動相は、気候変動枠組み条約第15回締約国会議(COP15)が「世界最悪の大混乱ショー」となり「結果には失望させられた」と強調した。中国などが法的拘束力のある枠組みづくりに抵抗したことを最大の理由に挙げ、中国を名指しで批判した。英テレビに20日出演して述べた。
 ミリバンド氏は、いくつもの国が財政支出を伴う貢献を確約したことなどを評価する一方、「法的合意を望まない中国など少数の発展途上国の、とんでもない抵抗に直面した」と訴えた。
 中国に同調したインドや、協議を転覆させようとしたスーダン、ベネズエラの姿勢も非難した。(共同)


---Numbers put nail in COP15 coffin---
Science, finance tore talks apart
Monday, Dec. 21, 2009
By ERIC JOHNSTON
Staff writer
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091221a1.html

COPENHAGEN - In the end, the COP15 climate conference here was about numbers.

"We need numbers on the table. Specifically, we need developed nations to commit to short-term greenhouse-gas reductions between 2012 and 2020," Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, said just before the 15th Conference of the Parties started Dec. 7.

"We also need short-term financing of climate mitigation in developing countries, and a commitment to long-term financing," he added.

The first set of numbers that formed the basis of the Copenhagen negotiations came from science - a Feb. 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning global warming was unequivocal.

The IPCC report made it clear the safest way to prevent a climate catastrophe would be to take action quickly.

In addition, the IPCC said all nations would have to ensure that global emissions will peak by 2015 in order to keep the Earth's average temperature below 2 degrees C by century's end, although even with 2 degrees as the goal, parts of Africa could see more than a 3-degree rise and massive damage.

The report added that taking action to limit the average rise to 1.5 degrees was best to ensure rising sea levels won't force the evacuations of island states.

These numbers became the basis for negotiations later in 2007 at the U.N. conference in Bali, where parties agreed that emissions reductions for the post-Kyoto Protocol period of 2012 to 2020 would be signed at Copenhagen in 2009.

But many developed nations worried about the huge cost and supply instability problems of switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, a step essential to reducing carbon dioxide concentrations.

At least $30 billion was needed in the short term, various U.N. commissioned studies concluded, while long-term adaption costs were more unpredictable. Figures suggested by the World Bank and private research firms ranged from $100 billion to $200 billion annually for the developing world by 2020.

Thus, negotiators went to Copenhagen with two different sets of numbers, scientific and financial. But well before COP15, the numbers were already causing controversy.

The United States, along with China, the world's largest emitter, angered developed and developing nations by first refusing to announce an emissions-reduction target and then, under President Barack Obama, discarding the recommendation of the IPCC report by suggesting it might be willing to reduce, but by only 17 percent compared with 2005 levels.

U.S. officials spent much time in Copenhagen attempting to convince the skeptical European Union nations, which had agreed to a 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels.

Island states, meanwhile, angry that U.N. negotiators came to Copenhagen talking about limiting the rise to 2 degrees rather than 1.5 as the IPCC report had recommended for their survival, protested during the first week, stopping the conference in the middle of proceedings.

Demonstrators chanted "1.5 to stay alive" as envoys attempted to deal with the issue.

The most taboo scientific number of the conference, however, was the 2015 peak year for emissions.

After de Boer briefly mentioning the importance of agreeing on this in the first couple of days, nobody wanted to deal with the daunting political task of forcing nations to meet a deadline only six years away.

"Science does not wait, and by next year's COP16 in Mexico, the further effects of climate change will be more visible and will hopefully push negotiators to come to agreements on those issues (they) didn't agree to here," de Boer said.

Or, as he indicated, maybe by then, the reality of what the numbers on global warming mean will convince negotiators they cannot afford another conference of the size and scale of Copenhagen that produces only more arguments on numbers rather than an agreement to do something about them.


---「重要な成果」と評価 中国、COP15で---
2009.12.20 23:46
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/china/091220/chn0912202347005-n1.htm

 中国外務省の秦剛副報道局長は20日、気候変動枠組み条約第15回締約国会議(COP15)について「気候変動に対応するため、国際的に協力する重要な契機だった。各国の努力で、会議は重要で積極的な成果を挙げた」と評価する談話を発表した。
 秦副局長は、同条約と京都議定書で確立した枠組みと原則がしっかりと維持されたと指摘。その上で「特に『共通だが差異ある責任』の原則が維持された」と述べ、途上国の自発的な削減目標に拘束力は課されないと、あらためて強調した。
 また「中国は国際社会とともに、人類が気候変動に対応する歴史的なプロセスを推進するために積極的に貢献したい」と述べた。(共同)


---気候問題、国連主導は限界 COP15決議で米紙---
2009.12.20 11:54
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/america/091220/amr0912201155005-n1.htm

 気候変動枠組み条約第15回締約国会議(COP15)で、米中など主要国が合意した「コペンハーゲン協定」が採択に至らず、協定に「留意する」との弱い内容の決議しか合意できなかったことについて、米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズ(電子版)は19日、国連主導での地球温暖化対策交渉は限界にきたとの内容の記事を掲載した。
 同紙は、参加者の多くが、協定は「温室効果ガスの中長期削減目標、拘束力のある条約の合意期限など不可欠と考える要素がない」として、非常に失望していると指摘。
 さらに、温暖化対策に対する先進国、新興国、発展途上国の利害が本質的に大きく異なるため、1992年から続いてきた国連主導の話し合いの枠組みは「機能しなくなった」との見方が強いとした。
 ウォールストリート・ジャーナル(電子版)も、米国が中国、インド、ブラジル、南アフリカとの間で合意にこぎつけた協定は「冷淡な承認」しか受けなかったと指摘。産業革命以来の気温上昇を2度以下に抑えるとの目標や、途上国向けの毎年1千億ドル(約9兆円)の支援について、具体的な方法が全く言及されていないとした。(共同)


---An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks---
By JAMES KANTER
Published: December 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/world/europe/21scene.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

COPENHAGEN - By early Saturday morning, the atmosphere at the European Union pavilion at the Bella Center had turned funereal.

A group of ashen-faced European negotiators sipped beer from bottles in dim light as crews began dismantling food stalls, television monitors and giant displays of the Union’s blue and gold flags.

Not far away, Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the prime minister of Sweden, which holds the bloc’s rotating presidency, were telling European leaders that to reach a strong global deal eventually, they would have to endorse the Copenhagen accord despite its shortcomings.

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, had an air of grim resignation as he trudged out of that meeting shortly before 2 a.m.

“It’s less than what we wanted, but the process has to go on,” Mr. Cowen said.

And in what appeared to be a sharp reference to the wrangling between China, the United States and African countries that had blocked a more far-reaching accord, Mr. Cowen, as he headed for the exits, shouted: “Certainly it’s not Europe’s fault!”

Mr. Reinfeldt said President Barack Obama had been “very constructive” at the talks, creating a basis for the accord by smoothing over the dispute with China over an international monitoring system for emissions.

Still, the Swedish leader hinted that the Europeans had been caught badly off guard.

Mr. Reinfeldt said he had gotten his first signals that a deal had been struck while still engrossed in meetings.

“We had very tough negotiations two and a half hours after I read on my mobile telephone that we were already done,” he said.

If there was a rush by the Americans to announce the deal, he said, it appeared to have been because of bad weather in the United States.

“He was in a hurry home, he said, because they were closing the airport in Washington,” Mr. Reinfeldt said of Mr. Obama. “There was a snowstorm coming in.”

Ed Miliband, the British secretary of state for climate and energy, acknowledged Europeans’ disappointment in the talks’ result but said he was “absolutely not in the blame game.” Rather, he said, negotiating strategies needed to be examined.

Delaying discussion of the toughest issues until the final moments of the conference came close to dooming the chances of an accord, Mr. Miliband said. “My biggest frustration at this conference is not talking about substance, apart from the last day, frankly,” he said.

Mr. Miliband said the months of jockeying leading up to Copenhagen had resulted in some benefits.

“The process has been a nightmare, but the substance of the last year means you have ambitious targets from lots of countries,” he said.

He noted that Brazil, South Africa, India, China and Japan were among the nations that had proposed limits on their emissions before the talks.

“The success of this process has been the fact that it has concentrated minds and has made all the major players put numbers on the table,” Mr. Miliband said.

But he added: “I would have preferred a much more comprehensive agreement. I think going forward there are some difficult issues if emerging economies don’t want to be part of a legal treaty - which they obviously don’t - about what is the framework in which you operate. We do want a legal treaty, and we will be campaigning for it, but I think there are some difficult issues there.”

Jo Leinen, a German member of the European Parliament who led the chamber’s delegation, said Saturday that the talks “demonstrated the highly unsatisfactory and inefficient method of U.N. conferences” and that “deep reform of the decision-making in the framework of the United Nations” was “an urgent necessity.”

For European industry - which has long complained that policy makers in Brussels, by passing binding limits on emissions, have been moving too far ahead of the rest of the industrialized world - the result in Copenhagen could scarcely have been worse, according to one of its top representatives.

“Our major economic partners only repeated their limited mitigation commitments,” said Philippe de Buck, the director general of BusinessEurope, a powerful lobby group representing European industry.

“Therefore the Copenhagen accord has not brightened the prospect for a global level-playing field in the future,” said Mr. de Buck, adding that “we strongly regret” that result.

He suggested that industries based in Europe would increasingly move their operations to less regulated parts of the world.

Representatives of the renewable energy industry were also bitterly disappointed at what they considered Europe’s marginalization at the talks.

“The E.U.’s strategy of leading by example failed and left them without influence,” said Christian Kjaer, chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association.

China and the United States “managed to get India, Brazil and South Africa on board” before departing Friday, “leaving it to the remaining 188 countries to work through to Saturday morning on accepting or rejecting the empty accord without changes,” Mr. Kjaer said.

Apisai Ielemia, the prime minister of Tuvalu, a small island state that could disappear under water if sea levels rise dramatically, said he was “gravely concerned” with the way the conference had gone.

Mr. Ielemia said the decision came down to “backroom deals by a select few.”

Tuvalu had pushed strongly for a global agreement that would ensure temperatures would peak at 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above average pre-industrial temperatures.

Instead, in the accord in Copenhagen, there was a reference to limit temperatures to a peak of 2 degrees Celsius and no specific timetable to achieve this.

In the past, Pacific islands like Tuvalu have worked in tandem with their larger neighbors Australia and New Zealand at United Nations conferences. But they appeared to be sharply at odds in Copenhagen.

In an apparent reference to noisy campaigns led by some nations at the front lines of climate change during the two-week conference, Tim Groser, the New Zealand minister of trade, criticized the “extremist negotiating culture” of some delegates.

Yasmine Ryan contributed reporting.


---A great step forward: Obama's verdict on climate change pact--
President's intervention was failure, say critics
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009 20.49 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-summit-pact-obama-verdict

Barack Obama returned to a snowbound Washington at the weekend clutching a deal that was cast as a step forward by his administration but decried as a waste of paper by critics on both sides of the climate change debate.

At the end of another of his interventions on the world stage that are becoming a hallmark of his presidency, Obama said the Copenhagen talks amounted to an "important breakthrough" and they had laid the foundation for international action "in the years to come".

But he also accepted it was a partial victory, saying the pact was "not enough", the road ahead would be hard and there was a long way still to go.

David Axelrod, his chief adviser, took to the airwaves this morning to defend the outcome of the 31-hour negotiations in similar vein: it was not perfect but it was a start. "Nobody says that this is the end of the road," Axelrod told CNN. "The end of the road would have been the complete collapse of those talks. This is a great step forward."

Politico, a Washington-based political news website, said the agreement was "more notable for what it doesn't accomplish than what it does, an inconvenient truth Obama ruefully acknowledged".

The last time Obama imposed himself into a gathering of world leaders in Copenhagen in October, when he lent his weight to Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics, it ended in humiliation. This time the outcome was not so ignominious, and the administration could and did claim credit for some, albeit non-binding, results.

Critics were quick to disparage Obama's achievement as a meaningless compromise. Friends of the Earth US dismissed the agreement as a sham. "This is not a strong deal or a just one - it isn't even a real one," said the group's president Erich Pica. He blamed the US for the absence of concrete results saying it was the main polluter behind the climate crisis yet it had failed to put enough money on the table to help poor countries cope with its consequences.

On the other side of the debate, Club for Growth, a campaign for small government and low taxes, hailed the agreement as an ironic triumph. Its head, Chris Chocola, said a binding deal would have destroyed 30 million American jobs, but he was relieved when Obama described it as a meaningful pact. "When politicians call something 'meaningful', that means it isn't," Chocola said.

The question for the White House now is how the Copenhagen agreement will affect its ambitions to present Congress with a wide ranging energy bill that would enshrine a cap-and-trade system for reducing emissions through bartering. Opponents of cap-and-trade, such as the Club for Growth, are likely to be emboldened in their efforts to frustrate the administration, pointing to the absence of a firm commitment internationally to set emissions reduction targets. Against that, the White House will argue there is enough of a global mandate to merit pressing ahead with its legislative plans.

The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said it was time for America to move quickly to develop a unilateral strategy in which the Senate would pass an energy bill setting a long-term price on carbon "that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some UN treaty."

In an editorial, the Washington Post saw grounds for limited optimism that the Senate would act. It said that the Copenhagen agreement was weak and inadequate, but "this outcome, however imperfect, should prod the US Senate to take up climate-change legislation. Even if China hadn't moved, reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy and tacking domestic pollution are strong enough reasons to pass a bill."

The Post also noted that Copenhagen had given a glimpse of a new world order in which the US and China would increasingly shape international diplomacy. This so-called G2 of the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases had the fate of any climate change treaty in its hands.


---COP15「決裂回避」を与党評価---
2009年12月19日12時29分 読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/eco/news/20091219-OYT1T00399.htm

 国連気候変動枠組み条約第15回締約国会議(COP15)で、主要国が政治合意したことについて、民主党の輿石東参院議員会長は19日午前、「決裂しなかったことは評価できる。早くから議論を主導した鳩山首相やオバマ米大統領のリーダーシップが大きい。政府として今後も積極的に取り組んでもらいたい」と述べた。
 社民党党首の福島消費者相は同日朝のTBS番組で、「地球温暖化防止で、これだけの世界のトップリーダーが集まって議論することは歴史的意味がある」と強調した。
 首相は就任直後の9月、温室効果ガス対策について「2020年までに1990年比で25%減」という高い目標を掲げた。それだけに、民主党内からは「会議が決裂していれば、首相の手腕が問われかねなかった。今後に課題が残るとはいえ、政権運営にも弾みになる」(幹部)との声も出ている。
 一方、公明党の斉藤政調会長(前環境相)は19日午前、「米国や中国が入らない可能性を残す合意に至ったのは、本当に遺憾の極みだ。枠組み作りは失敗したと言わざるを得ない」と指摘した。自民党の鴨下一郎政調会長代理(元環境相)は「現政権が示した25%の削減目標が評価されなかったということだろう。仕切り直しとなる会議の京都開催を引き受けるなど、日本としてのイニシアチブを示すべきだ」と注文をつけた。

0 コメント: