The EU aviation CO2 charge: Prompting the evolution of bilateral trade & economic agreements?

On Friday, the BBC reported that "the EU has directed Indian carriers to submit the emissions details of their aircraft by 31 March. But Mr Singh told parliament that "no Indian carrier is submitting them in view of the position of the government"".

I have been arguing for years now that bilateralism in not only trade but all 4 "freedoms" (capital, goods, services and labour) may be an option given the systemics and dynamics in the world, which include:

1) The failure of the Doha WTO talks which has been leading many countries or regional blocs towards bilateral agreements which cover not only trade but other economic areas as well.

2) The willingness to bring immigration inside the WTO agenda and bilateral agreements (India comes to mind)

3) The pressures placed on the US and EU markets (especially the Euro zone of the EU) due to China's WTO membership.

The Indian government has pointed out that there is no international agreement on charges of aviation CO2 emissions. Time for bileteral deals on all matters trade, economic and beyond to lick in?

Food for thought!

Time to rethink global trade (and save the Euro & the US economy as well as Earth)?

Whereas more and more ("national") economies are becoming Services economies (ie with Services yielding 65-70% or even more of GDP) most of international trade is still in manufactured goods. So whereas "intellectual products" such as film, TV content, music, even porno (by the way, its main global "manufacturing" cluster is in California too, much like the Silicon Valley and Hollywood) and Services such as finance, telecoms, insurance, and of course tourism, provide valuable export revenue to some economies, the world superpowers of exports are driven by manufactured goods!

Be it "complex products", for consumer or business use, as is the purported German key to exporting success, or innovative tech products (America's niche) or low price - low quality manufactured goods (as is the case for China, at least for now, will it follow Japan's example and upgrade, gradually, into quality products?), manufactured goods are the bread and butter of trade. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy and others are being advised to adopt the German approach to manufacturing quality/complex goods as a way of solving their competitiveness and balance of payments issues!

Side Note: But, as I have asked in previous posts (see eg here), what would happen to the world market prices for complex goods if the PIIGS and other Eurozone members decide to follow Germany's example (thus increasing supply of such goods in the Eurozone, the EU and globally)?
So, manufactured goods of all origins, sizes, qualities, prices, etc are travelling around our planet everyday in the process of what we call global or world trade, the No. 1 world sport of our era, more crucial than football (aka soccer), basketball, even rugby or cricket! The one that makes or breaks economies as we are seeing in recent months (hence a "Rollerball" of sorts, if you recall the movie, especially the original, starring James Caan).

But does all this trade (and transport) "jazz" make sense? In addition to burdening the planet's environment?

Some would say that it is transport that has become too cheap in recent decades, thus allowing for "irrational" transport and trade to occur, in the name of Ricardo (David (see Wikipedia) not Ricky). But cheap transport is not necessarily the problem, is it, unless of course one believes that markets and the prices they set provide the best allocation of resources, but I am not a believer in that worldview. Are you?

So should there be a central planning body, global, that determines which manufactured products should have a "right" to be transported across the "7 seas" (via air, sea, etc or comb0 thereof) ie a right to burden the planet's eco-system (eco not econ; well that one too, actually)? Does one have to believe in global warming to agree that shipping of many types of goods across thousands of miles/kms or nautical miles is simply irrational use of resources?

No, I am not proposing the establishment of such a central trade/transport licensing body. Of course not. Unless China takes over the whole world, of course. In which case it won't matter what I or you think, anyway!

A few years ago, a few well known leaders, 2 from South America and 2 from Europe, if memory serves me right, had the brilliant idea to strap a "globalisation levy" on (believe it or not) passenger air transport!!! The European Commission's Services were even forced to look into it. Why on earth charge the movement of people instead of goods? To promote tele-conferencing? Or virtual sales aka e-commerce? To bring the travelling salesmen a break (see the movie Up In the Air with George Clooney as an excellent case study)? Not likely!

But the problem still exists and calls for a solution.

End of Part 1

(Not to be completed over 6 seasons)

Read next part

Global Warming, World Affairs, the EU, the US and leadership

Here are some thoughts, a tad radical maybe, food for thought, on the dynamics of our times:

1) EU: -30% not even as a conditional EU offer to the US, China, et al? Hm!

2) Here is a radical strategic scenario for the EU (EU2020 etc):
EU2020 Scenario: The EU adopts a -30% emissions target and stops trading with those who do not match the cut! I know, radical.

3) IMO EUropeans need to adopt a sustainable, simpler, healthier lifestyle anyway! Maybe all the way to a "Fortress Europe" (economic+environmental)? Just brainstorming!

4) How radical would this scanario be: The EU uses only solar and wind energy, no CO2 emitting energy, no nukes and EUropeans adopt simpler lifestyles (anyway). Radical, but the times we live in ....

5) Let's look at it from a wider point of view: The West: Our industrial lifestyles in the West have proved unhealthy, thus Europe, North America and others need to revise many aspects of life.

6) Why all this (the above)? Among other things, because the industrial era brought many good things but many bad ones as well, thus it is maybe time to audit the "basket" and revise models and lifestyles.

EU Leadership?

7) For the EU to assume a leadership position in world affairs, it must IMO be a thought leader, instead of a "world bureaucrat"

8) What sort of leadership has the EU shown in the 9 years of the Doha Round of WTO world trade talks and the COP15 - Climate Change talks in 2009 (leading to the results of the Copenhagen Coneference in December 2009)? With Obama now stuck in the US, there seems to be a certain leadership vacuum in world affairs and the EU could/needs to rise to the occasion and lead the world in thought and in "do as I do" throwing in a negotiation assets its 0.5 billion population - consumers - lifestyles and the economic weight of the "rich" EU in order to be a leader in world affairs. Bold?

The US:

9) In the US, the GOP (+ Fox) sem to have checkmated Obama and the Dems and thus US policy making, home and abroad, may be frozen until .... Jan 2013?


The world:

10) Meanwhile, the Director-General of the ILO (International Labor Organization) Juan Somavia calls for the same policy decisiveness that saved banks to save and create jobs

Make Love not CO2?

Philosophical (applied):

Make Love not CO2: I wonder what is the carbon footprint of each (safe) act of intercourse!

My actual point is that IMO too many people engage in personally and collectively "eco-damaging" activities, many times substitutes of the joy of sex (and the joy of thinking - conversation).

My point re sex is part of a philosophy against materialism and material capitalism and for intellectual and physical satisfaction/joys as opposed to the joys derived by status symbols and other materialist activities and ways of life. Against materialist capitalism and for "intellectual" capitalism (as in production and consumption of intellectual/non-tangible products as opposed to material ones, including many "eco-hostile" culinary pleasures).

And a radical rethink of the pros and cons of the 200 years of the industrial era.

Can the EU lead humankind in sustainability (eco etc)?

Prompted by global warming, humanity must, anyway, revise its ways of life towards simpler, healthier, less materialist, carbon and nuclear free ways of life - lifestyles.

The EU could lead the way in climate change by leaving the WTO + using its internal market to "convince" others to cut CO2 w/o nukes

Towards more sustainable "American way(s) of life"

Philosophy (applied):

IMO, the challenge for the average American is to cut his/her carbon footprint while maintaining the roots of the American "way of life"

But that bring up a very interesting philosophical, sociological etc question:
What are the essential - genuine rather than the superficial elements of the so called American way of life today?

Echoes of the constitutional rejection of the French carbon tax

The French Constitutional Council's decision regarding the French carbon tax that was going to enter into force Jan 1 now forces the French government to introduce new carbon tax bill on Jan 20.

The decision is not against a carbon tax. It points out the inconsistencies and selective targeting and rejects the rationale for most exemptions to the tax. Also argued that inequalities re the tax existed in the law. It particularly pointed out, inter alia, that the emissions of 1018 most polluting sites were exempt from the tax (refineries, cement companies, etc), the emissions of air transportation plus those of public passenger transportation.

IMO, the French Constitutional Council's carbon tax decision serve as a reminder to policy - law makers everywhere that policies (no matter what policy area), laws and taxes have to have consistency and "regulatory quality".

Echoes of the Copenhagen COP15 - Echo 2: "Nuclear generates 2/3 of EU "carbon free electricity""!!!

Following the "minimalist" (!) "Copenhagen Accord" of which the members of COP15 "took note" of anyway, many commentators have wondered whether the absence of a non legally binding agreement on CO2 emissions, the effects on the price of carbon in the European "markets" for trading schemes, etc, were/are actually going to play in the hand of the nuclear energy option, instead of wind, solar and other alter sources of energy.

Yesterday's (Dec 22, 2009) press communique by the European Commission of the EU is quite telling (pls note the parts I have made bold):

"IP/09/1990
Brussels, 22 December 2009

Green light from the Council for the Commission to negotiate a broad Nuclear Partnership Agreement with Russia.

The Council of the European Union adopted today a mandate authorising the Commission to negotiate a partnership agreement for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Russian Federation. Russia is one of the main global suppliers of nuclear materials and equipment. It is also a key supplier of nuclear fuel and related nuclear fuel cycle services to nuclear power plant operators in the EU.

"This is an important step, which will give a new impetus to EU-Russia relations in the energy sector. It is in the interest of both sides to reach a comprehensive agreement on nuclear cooperation, and I am pleased that these negotiations can now start. Such an agreement creates a stable and predictable legal framework both for the governments and the industrial operators, aims at corresponding levels of safety and security standards, and facilitates legitimate nuclear trade between the Parties ", said Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs.

Several EU Member States are operating reactors of Russian design and further reactors are planned. Besides the importance of Russia as a nuclear supplier to the EU, nuclear safety, nuclear liability and non-proliferation are also important aspects of our bilateral relations."

The next part of the communique is even more interesting, IMHO:

"Recent developments, such as the latest EU enlargements and the renewed interest in nuclear energy as a way to reduce CO 2 emissions from energy generation, have made it necessary to negotiate a broad partnership agreement with Russia in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy."

Note the excerpt:
"...the renewed interest in nuclear energy as a way to reduce CO 2 emissions from energy generation..."

Whose is this "renewed interest", I ponder!

The communique's next sentence says:
"...Nuclear energy is an important component of the EU energy mix, generating almost one third of the electricity in the EU and two thirds of EU carbon free electricity. .."

So:
Nuclear energy generates almost 1/3 of the electricity in the EU and 2/3 of "EU carbon free electricity".
Ponder on this rationale again: nuclear generates "carbon free electricity" (2/3 of it in the EU)


Then:

"...Many countries both within and outside the EU are currently developing this source of energy. Currently, 146 nuclear power plants are operating in the EU. In Russia, there are 40 nuclear power plants operating or under construction; furthermore, 44 installations are planned up to the year 2030. ...."

No comment!!

And the press communique concludes:

"To date the Community has concluded nuclear co-operation agreements with four major suppliers of nuclear material, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. Co-operation agreements were also signed with Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Japan (a major EU client). Recently the Community concluded an agreement, limited to research and development, with China. Agreements with Canada and Australia are in a process to be renegotiated."

Oh my!

EU Environment Council agreed on the need for further work on the combined effects of chemicals,

The Commission welcomed the conclusions of today' EU Environment Ministers Council that agreed on the need for further work to be carried out on the combined effects of chemicals, in particular on endocrine disruptors ─ chemicals that interfere with development, reproduction and hormonal functions.

Recent studies in Denmark have highlighted the potential dangers related to the impact of several chemicals acting together.

These studies have shown that children, particularly toddlers, may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of endocrine disrupting substances present in food, food wrappings, toys, articles of clothing and healthcare products.

Commissioner Dimas said that many studies indicated that a combination of chemicals can cause serious effects and that this was a matter that needed to be addressed.

The Commission would look at the issue of 'combined effects' in its fourth report on the implementation of the Community strategy on endocrine disruptors next year, according to Commissioner Dimas.

The Commission will also complete a report on how combined effects of chemicals are dealt with across different pieces of EU legislation and how they could better be addressed.

Echoes of the Copenhagen COP15 - Echo 1

The following post is rather philosophical and "brainstormish" in kind, but hey, it deals with ... echoes.

Both the UK's PM Gordon Brown, who attended 4 of the 11 days of COP15 in Copenhagen, and Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for energy and climate change, have been quite outpoken regarding the results of the Conference that brought together delegates from 193 UN member countries (including some 120 country leaders).

In an opinion article in the guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009 20.30 GMT, Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for energy and climate change, attributes the failure of COP15 to agree a) on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or b) on 80% reductions by developed countries on vetos by China. He acknowledges what he considers the achievements of the Conference and argues that "... we should also mobilise all the countries that want a legal treaty to campaign for it".

Now, he adds that there is a wider question, too: ".. about the structures and nature of the negotiations."

And he asserts,, echoing the views of his PM, said to be expressed in a video at the 10 Downing Street's site tomorrow, that: "We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way. We will need to have major reform of the UN body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted."

Now here are my comments:

1) Whereas I "hear" Mr. Miliband's point re COP15 blockers, IMO there are alas inevitable comparisons with those who block a deeper EU.

2) I am not sure what structure or choice of structures Mr. Miliband has in mind. It has come to my attention that some are speaking of a separate body, to the UN, that deals speficially with Climate Change issues, independent of the UN. I am thus tempted to be reminded of the World Trade Organisation (153 members) and the alleged by many inability of the Plenary meetings in the Ministerial Conferences of WTO on Doha or the periodical meeetings of permanent delegates or experts or national delegates in specific committees in Geneva to make the WTO "work" towards a result on Doha.

Towards a Global Government:

Many conspiracy theorists argue that Global Warming is used as an excuse to set up the body and instruments (eg the aid to be given to less developed and developig countries to adapt to a reduction in CO2 emissions) that will lead to, in effect, a Global Government (or governance).

Well, I do not know whether such "conspiracy" exists or not, but IMO, the time is coming if not having come already, for a World Democratic Body (eg in the form of a World Parliament of elected members, plus a Senate (a la USA) or Council (a la EU) and a President (a la USA or a la EU) and cabinet (maybe a la European Commission) to be responsible not binding instruments for one specific area where global (Global Warming) or near global (world trade) but in all those where "subsidiarity" dictates that solutions/laws/agreements are best not at the national or regional (eg EU, African Union, Mercosur, etc) level, but the World level.

IMO these areas are many, they have become many due to the developments around the world in recent decades (developments of various kinds, political, technological, cultural, economic, social, general systemic, etc) and the existing systemics.

Many, very many, will disagree, speak of national sovereignty, national interests, some may even say that this should be needed in the future but not now. Well, IMO a world government will be needed at some point or another. Either now, to deal with avoiding the effects of global warming and creating a level playing field for businesses (especially small ones) and people around the world, or later, but in order to deal with the crisis and the effects on the global warming or other problems of global dimension.

Some may be even tempted to argue that the next Mayflower(s) will not be ships but spaceships, taking people to a New World outside this planet. But more on such futurist (?) considerations in Echo 2 or 3.

Echo 1, Version 1: December 21, 23:30 pm CET

The text of the "Copenhagen Accord"

Draft decision -/CP.15

Proposal by the President

Copenhagen Accord

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen,
In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,
Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,
Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,
Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work,
Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We
emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as
documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response
measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide
emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including
those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National
Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement , reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest
degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to
enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved
access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 . 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and
accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating
entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to
establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by
2015, including in light of the Convention.s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

COP15 fail: BUSINESSEUROPE in favor of legally binding agreement because companies need predictability

European business is disappointed by the limited outcome of Copenhagen summit, according to BUSINESSEUROPE (*) which points out that companies need predictability to develop the new green solutions on which a future low-carbon economy will depend.

BUSINESSEUROPE welcomes that the Copenhagen Accord reinforces the political commitment by international leaders to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and, what is IMO very noteworthy, believes that it now has to "quickly lead to a legally binding agreement because companies need predictability to develop the new green solutions on which a future low-carbon economy will depend"

It strongly regrets, however, that the EU's major economic partners only repeated their limited mitigation commitments.

It notes that "therefore the Copenhagen Accord has not brightened the prospect for a global level-playing field in the future. On the contrary, European companies have to pay for their emissions under the EU Emission Trading Scheme and are as exposed to carbon leakage as they were before Copenhagen. More predictability should have been given on the future of private financing schemes like the Clean Development Mechanism"


(*) BUSINESSEUROPE (formerly UNICE: Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe) has 40 member federations from 34 countries, including the European Union countries, the European Economic Area countries, and some central end Eastern European countries.

-----
Note: The author was a permanent delegate at BUSINESSEUROPE (then UNICE) from 1991-1994, representing (and employed by) its member from Greece.

Trying to put together the pieces of the Climate Change "Accord" 4:20 am CET Dec. 19

Below is my attempt to compile as many of the elements and parameters of the so called "Copenhagen Accord" (sic), approved by about 20+ countries out of the 193 present in the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. None of the elements are necessarily accurate, alas.

* 120 countries leaders attended the COP15 (a record for COPs) even for a few hours (eg Obama)
* It appears that Pres. Obama reached a deal, initially, with China, India, South Africa and Brazil. It is not legally binding.
* The EU is not satisfied with the "accord", not sure whether it was present when it was drafted. It seems that after the initial agreement between Obama and the other 4, a group of 20+ countries, including the EU, worked on it.
* It seems that the EU is going to go for its existing target (I think -20% compared to 1990 levels) by 2020 w/o an accord, and is willing to go deeper (I think to -30% of 1990 levels) by 2020 provided there is an agreement.
* The "accord" sets an upper temperature limit of 2 degrees Celsius.
* A +2 degrees over pre-industrial era limit does not solve the problem for the small island country of Tuvalu and some more such countries which are said to sink below sea level should temperature reach +1.5 degrees.
* The US pledges 100 bn USD by developing countries to others but starting from 2020.

* The fast start aid, 30 bn for 3 years, 2010-12, has so far contribution pldges from:
1) The EU, around 10 billion (athough I have read a report that the European Parliament in adopting the EU budget for 2010 noticed that European Commission and Council have not budgeted this money and it may have to come from extra contributions by EU member states)
2) China about 11 billion
3) The US only 3-4 billion (!!)

* China broke with its allies in the developing nations' group of "77 and China" by embracing the accord with the US.
* Obama's ability to commit is said to be partly blocked by the fact that carbon capping US legislation is "stalled" in the US Senate
* A target that mentioned in some draft texts of reducing world greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 seemed not to be in the accord.
* Many of the delegations that were not part of the drafting of the "accord" are crying "foul".

* Another meeting is planned for 6 months from now in Bonn, Germany.
* It seems that the "accord" envisages countries submitting targets next month
* It seems that there is an end-2010 date for turning this non legally binding "accord" into a legally binding one and, if I understood N. Sarkozy's statements correctly, the President of Mexico has been mandated to try to draft such a document.

This for now, 4:40 am CET, Dec. 19, 2009.

5 am CET/Copenhagen time (11 pm EST), the Plenary seems back in session.

"If the climate was a bank they would already have saved it."

I do not agree with the ideology, policies and politics of Venezuela's old style Socialist President Hugo Chavez but I have to say that his comment at the COP15 Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference holds, alas, water: "If the climate was a bank they would already have saved it."

According to The Economist, bank bailouts around the world have cost the equivalent of 5% of world GDP.
According to a study conducted for the UK government, Climate Change financing would cost 1% of world GDP per year.

EU leaders' letter to the G20 leaders on Climate Change

President Barroso of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Sweden, Reinfeldt, which holds the rotating Presidency of the EU Council, wrote today to the leaders of the G20 regarding the decisions that the European Council took last week in order to add momentum to a deal on climate change in the in-going Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference (which concludes in 3 days).

It was alsi announced that the European Commission President will go to Copenhagen earlier than planned to meet key players and push for an ambitious deal on Climate Change.

Copenhagen - Climate Change: the advantages of a political agreement over a legally binding one

An ambitious political agreement re Climate Change would probably be better than a less ambitious legally binding one, the latter would be "policed quite effectively by world public opinion". I fully agree with this point of view, as expressed by Graham Watson, Member of European Parliament (Liberal Democrats, ALDE) in "Graham Reports from Copenhagen;
Update Monday 4th December PM". in his blog www.grahamwatsonmep.org

Inter alia, Mr. Watson writes:

"...This must be the first time world public opinion has mobilised so effectively, putting pressure on the government leaders to act ....

... Will the commitments be legally binding? It may be better if they are not, since in that case they will be less ambitious. A political agreement would probably be policed quite effectively by world public opinion."

I believe that Mr. Watson's rationale is right on the mark.

The EU offer at the UN Copenhagen Summit as decided by the European Council

The heads of state and government of the 27 member states of the European Union (EU), at the European Council meeting (10-11 December, they usually have 2 every semester) decided re the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference:
a) to offer a 30% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 if other major polluters agree to more significant cuts than already offered
b) a pledge of $3.6 billion aid to under-developed and developing countries in order to help them ease the economic effects of their cuts in CO2 emissions.

Some (radical centrist) thoughts on Climate Change and the upcoming Copenhagen Conference

Greenpeace has today accused the EU leaders meeting at the 2 day European Council whay while they back global climate funding for developing countries, they fail to put their money where their mouths are.

The EU leaders agreed that developing nations would need 100 billion euro (150 billion US dollars) worth of help annually by 2020 to cope with climate change and to deal with the consequences of global warming. But they did not agree how much of that money the EU would contribute as well as how the burden would be divided among the 27 member states.

It was argued, by some, that the EU might want to keep those things as "closed cards" for the negotiating tables in Copenhagen.

My first thought was:

Is the essence of solutions to climate change lost in details and negotiation strategies and mandates?

A few minutes before I read the Greenpeace press communique, I was "discussing" via text with a friend on whether GDP is the best measure of progress or wealth.

IMO the whole socio-economic framework of the industrial era has to be re-thought - new era, new fundamentals, new indicators.

Economics and economic indicators have much to do with reality today? Virtual economics in a virtual world? I know, I know, I could be exaggerating, but what if I am not? And the climate change challenge is facing us all, starring in our eyes.

So on GDP vs happiness : I am reminded of the popular aphorism that money does not buy happiness but makes misery more bearable. But are there better ways to do this eg Thinking? See below.

Now, in addressing climate change:

Should the philosophy of progress via industrialisation be challenged and urgently replaced by other philosophies - models?

IMO the solutions are:
1) to make it uber fashionable in developed countries for ppl to lead low carbon footprint lives
2) to convince the developing countries that industrial and other #CO2 "rich" growth is not real growth - progress

Next generations will fry or freeze cause our era lacked the #philosophers needed to show world opinion there's a better way of life

Make Love not CO2 !!

If we do not make radical changes in our way of life, our grandsons will be visiting St. Tropez in ... Sweden !!!

The Hardball - Emergency Option:

Should WTO free trade be put on table of climate talks? In other words, should "free trade" be frozen until climate agreement reached that will save the planet? Because in a Sahara or Ice Age like planet, what kind of free or international trade will there exist, anyway?

Thus:

A major trend shift towards consumption of intellectual rather than industrial + other tangible products can help save our planet


Aside:

After all, thinking is a zero carbon footprint activity that can lead to satisfaction and happiness, a cool workout for one's mind's muscles everyday!

Greepeace criticises EU leaders over commitment to climate change funding

According to Greenpeace, "EU leaders back global climate funding for developing countries but fail to put their money where their mouth is"

At a press communique today, Greepeace adds: "At the EU summit today, European leaders backed funding for climate action in developing countries in preparation of global climate talks in Copenhagen in December. But while Europe has put its weight behind global public funding for the developing world of up to €50 billion per year by 2020, it lacked the nerve to commit to the EU’s share of the funding"

EU's position on climate change negotiation

Does the EU indeed have a strong negotiating position for the Copenhagen Conference on climate change?