President Barroso said: "In Copenhagen world leaders must take the bold decisions needed to stop climate change from reaching the dangerous and potentially catastrophic levels projected by the scientific community. We must seize this chance to keep global warming below 2°C before it is too late. But Copenhagen is also an historic opportunity to draw the roadmap to a global low-carbon society, and in so doing unleash a wave of innovation that can revitalise our economies through the creation of new, sustainable growth sectors and "green collar" jobs. The European Union has set the pace with our unilateral commitment to cut emissions 20% by 2020 and our climate financing proposals for developing countries. We will be ready to scale up our emission reduction to 30% provided our partners in both the developed and the developing world take on their fair share of the global effort." Commissioner Dimas added: "I very much welcome that several major partners including the US and China have recently put concrete emission targets or actions on the table. The scientific evidence tells us that to keep global warming below 2°C, industrialised countries must cut their emissions to 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 while developing countries need to hold their emissions growth at some 15-30% below projected levels in 2020. However, the aggregate offers from developed countries still fall well short of the level of ambition needed, so I urge those countries with weak targets to improve them. Moreover a number of provisions in the current negotiating texts would have the effect of reducing developed countries' targets in practice. These provisions must be tightened up in Copenhagen. Ensuring the environmental integrity of the future treaty is of paramount importance to the EU." ... Given the slow progress made in the negotiations to date, and a lack of consensus about the shape of the eventual agreement, it is now unlikely that the treaty can be finalised in Copenhagen as originally planned. The EU's goal at the conference is therefore to make as much progress as possible towards a full treaty and to reach an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement covering all its key elements as well as a `fast start' deal (see MEMO/09/534 ).
Commissioner Dimas added: "I very much welcome that several major partners including the US and China have recently put concrete emission targets or actions on the table. The scientific evidence tells us that to keep global warming below 2°C, industrialised countries must cut their emissions to 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 while developing countries need to hold their emissions growth at some 15-30% below projected levels in 2020. However, the aggregate offers from developed countries still fall well short of the level of ambition needed, so I urge those countries with weak targets to improve them. Moreover a number of provisions in the current negotiating texts would have the effect of reducing developed countries' targets in practice. These provisions must be tightened up in Copenhagen. Ensuring the environmental integrity of the future treaty is of paramount importance to the EU."
...
Given the slow progress made in the negotiations to date, and a lack of consensus about the shape of the eventual agreement, it is now unlikely that the treaty can be finalised in Copenhagen as originally planned.
The EU's goal at the conference is therefore to make as much progress as possible towards a full treaty and to reach an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement covering all its key elements as well as a `fast start' deal (see MEMO/09/534 ).
The case for changing these trends soon is that the costs of curbing large rises in temperature would otherwise become extremely high or, at worst, prohibitive. The IEA argues that if the aim is to limit greenhouse gas concentrations to 450 parts per million, every year of delay in moving towards the required trajectory adds an extra $500bn of costs to the estimated global cost of $10,500bn. These costs result from the extremely long life of the capital assets used in power generation and the even longer life of CO2 in the atmosphere.The alternative scenario is quite different: instead of the 40.2 Gt of energy-related emissions in 2030, we would have just 26.4 Gt. The gap is huge. A briefing paper from the European Climate Foundation shows that the pledges made in advance of Copenhagen would not close it.* Even on the most optimistic view, current offers fall short by about a third of the reductions needed by 2020 for a pathway to a ceiling of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent....Unfortunately, this does not mean that the right sort of agreement will emerge. The policies we employ must be as effective and efficient as possible. What does that mean? I would emphasise three criteria. First, we need prices for carbon that apply over relevant planning horizons. That price cannot be fixed forever, but must change with events. But it needs to be far more stable than in the European Union's market for permits (see chart). A tax seems more attractive to me than "cap and trade", for this reason. Second, where the abatement occurs must be separated from who pays for it. Abatement needs to happen where it is most efficient. That is why emissions of developing countries must be included. But the cost should fall on the wealthy. This is as much because they can afford it as because they produced the bulk of past emissions. Finally, we need to develop and apply innovations in all relevant technologies. A paper from the Bruegel think-tank argues, persuasively, that merely raising prices on carbon emissions would reinforce the position of established technologies. We need large-scale subsidies for innovation as well.** Tackling the risk of climate change is the most complex collective challenge humanity has ever confronted. Success requires costly and concerted action among many countries to deal with a distant threat, on behalf of people as yet unborn, under unavoidable uncertainty about the costs of not acting. We have reached the point, however, where a broad consensus exists on the nature of the threat and the sorts of policies we need to follow to deal with it. We may not reach a deal in Copenhagen. But the time for decision has come. Either we act soon - or we finally discover whether the sceptics are right. If we fail to act, as seems likely, I hope they are. But I very much doubt it..........
The alternative scenario is quite different: instead of the 40.2 Gt of energy-related emissions in 2030, we would have just 26.4 Gt. The gap is huge. A briefing paper from the European Climate Foundation shows that the pledges made in advance of Copenhagen would not close it.* Even on the most optimistic view, current offers fall short by about a third of the reductions needed by 2020 for a pathway to a ceiling of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent....Unfortunately, this does not mean that the right sort of agreement will emerge. The policies we employ must be as effective and efficient as possible. What does that mean? I would emphasise three criteria.
First, we need prices for carbon that apply over relevant planning horizons. That price cannot be fixed forever, but must change with events. But it needs to be far more stable than in the European Union's market for permits (see chart). A tax seems more attractive to me than "cap and trade", for this reason.
Second, where the abatement occurs must be separated from who pays for it. Abatement needs to happen where it is most efficient. That is why emissions of developing countries must be included. But the cost should fall on the wealthy. This is as much because they can afford it as because they produced the bulk of past emissions.
Finally, we need to develop and apply innovations in all relevant technologies. A paper from the Bruegel think-tank argues, persuasively, that merely raising prices on carbon emissions would reinforce the position of established technologies. We need large-scale subsidies for innovation as well.**
Tackling the risk of climate change is the most complex collective challenge humanity has ever confronted. Success requires costly and concerted action among many countries to deal with a distant threat, on behalf of people as yet unborn, under unavoidable uncertainty about the costs of not acting. We have reached the point, however, where a broad consensus exists on the nature of the threat and the sorts of policies we need to follow to deal with it. We may not reach a deal in Copenhagen. But the time for decision has come. Either we act soon - or we finally discover whether the sceptics are right. If we fail to act, as seems likely, I hope they are. But I very much doubt it..........
i just want a law passed that means that when the Greenland icecap collapses we can waterboard the deniers s l o w l y keep to the Fen Causeway
