Tag-Archive for » COP15 «

segunda-feira, janeiro 25th, 2010 | Author: admin

Four formerly developing countries took the reins during climate talks in Copenhagen: China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. It could herald a redistribution of global clout, some experts say.
Global climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, last month represented the latest sign that global power is shifting in ways that could give major developing countries a greater say in the global economic and environmental order.
That’s the view several analysts offer as they take stock of December’s dramatic talks in the Danish capital. The final deal was not struck among the more than 190 nations attending. Instead, much of it was crafted by the heads of state of about 30 countries, with key details ironed out at the last minute between the US, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil.
The geopolitical landscape is shifting, said former US Sen. Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, based in Washington.
“Copenhagen was a place where a lot of that played out,” added Mr. Wirth, speaking at a United Nations Foundation conference on green investing in New York Thursday.

The Copenhagen 5
The key players in the last-minute horsetrading in Denmark contrast strikingly to those involved in last-minute talks over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. In Kyoto, Japan, the core deal was struck between the US, Japan, and the European Union, explains Elliot Diringer, vice president for international strategies at the Pew Center for Global Climate Change in Arlington, Va.
The difference partly reflects the differences between the respective agreements. The Kyoto Protocol covers only industrial countries. The Copenhagen political agreement aims to include developing countries. While they aren’t expected to take on absolute cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions against a given base year, the way industrial countries are – at least for now – they are expected to substantially reduce their emissions below a so-called business-as-usual trajectory.
But the difference also suggests that the economic gap between developed and developing countries – one measured as much by greenhouse-gas emissions as by standard economic statistics – has narrowed significantly.
At Copenhagen, five world leaders – four from countries outside the usual post-World War II power brokers – nailed down the final details. That “may encapsulate the kind of shift that we see” in other arenas, Mr. Diringer says.
One of those arenas involves international finance. During the current economic crisis, world leaders recharged the International Monetary Fund’s fiscal aquifer with $1 trillion. Hard bargaining by countries such as China, India, and Brazil in the run-up to that decision translated into receiving a 47 percent share of the voting rights in the body.
“And that is likely to rise to 50 soon,” said Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, during a press briefing last week in Washington.
At a time when such institutions are becoming increasingly involved in a range of issues, including climate, “developing countries are demanding a much greater say,” he said. That’s more in line with what one might expect from a Copenhagen 5 than the G-8 group of industrial countries, he added.

The new world order?
It’s not yet clear how solid any new alignment is, says Sarah Ladislaw, an energy and national-security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The China-India-Brazil-South Africa bloc at the climate talks did something new, she says. The four countries were not negotiating on behalf of the larger bloc of developing countries, as they might have in the past, she adds. Instead, they were negotiating based on their own interests as developing countries with rapidly growing economies.
That led to cracks in the firewall that the Kyoto pact establishes between developed to developing countries – a firewall that allows for no shift in status from developing nation to developed nation, says Ms. Ladislaw.
Further divisions appeared in the fragile developing-country bloc when the US offered to take part in setting up a $30 billion “fast start” fund over the next three years to help developing countries adapt to global warming and grow on a more climate-friendly path. Countries with the most to lose from global warming urged support – if sometimes grudgingly – for the final agreement, while five developing countries refused to support it.
The key question now is whether Copenhagen 5 become the nucleus for future climate negotiations.
“India always has a little bit of a problem playing second fiddle to China, and Brazil and South Africa have separate interests as well,” Ladislaw says. More will come clear after a meeting between the four coming up next month, she adds.

The Christian Science Monitor

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
segunda-feira, janeiro 25th, 2010 | Author: admin

The deadline for agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord may have been dropped, but the pressure to agree to the Accord and to announce commitments to create cleaner energy sources and reduce pollution is still on.
The US Climate Action Network (USCAN) is making it easier for all of us to follow all of the countries’ commitments through a useful chart of their pledges, how their 2020 targets compare to their 1990 pollution levels, their per capita CO2 emissions, and other information. The chart also lists those countries which reject the Copenhagen Accord.
Currently, Brazil, South Korea and South Africa have made formal commitments. Respectively, they have committed to 36-39%, 20% and 34% reductions from “business as usual” scenarios. Ghana has also committed to the Accord but hasn’t announced its specific reduction pledge.
Compared to 1990 levels, these commitments mean Brazil will have a 1.9-6.4% increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, South Korea will have a 48% increase, and South Africa an 87% increase.
A United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) spokesman has also listed Australia, France, Canada, Papa New Guinea, and Maldives as countries that will sign onto the Accord.
The information on the chart comes from different media sources: The New York Times, Bloomberg, AFP, etc.
Cuba is the only country that has announced it will not sign onto the Accord. We can expect to see many more commitments in the coming week or so.

CleanTech

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
terça-feira, janeiro 19th, 2010 | Author: admin

Virada de ano e nos deparamos ainda com as discussões sobre o clima no mundo. O fracasso da enorme reunião em Copenhague com países bastante emissores de Dióxido de Carbono (CO2) negociando com países que inclusive correm o risco de desaparecer devido ao aumento do nível dos oceanos, e com países chamados de “emergentes”, dentre os quais se inclui o Brasil. Dentre as negociações entre quem deve pagar a conta, e diminuir as emissões de CO2, e os que não tem como pagar nada, e muito menos reduzir as emissões, o Brasil aparece ora como estrela, ora como vilão.

Como vilão porque está entre os maiores emissores de CO2 do mundo, principalmente com atividades de queimadas e desmatamento que precisam ser controladas. Entretanto, a estrela que brilha é a da grande capacidade de renovar sua energia. Além de ter energia elétrica em sua maior parte renovável, devido às hidroelétricas, o Brasil está substituindo gradativamente o combustível fóssil por etanol. Consome-se hoje mais etanol do que gasolina no país. Esse é um feito invejável em todo o mundo e vem sendo atacado com certa regularidade, tendenciosamente, ou por ignorância sobre nossas condições de produção de cana-de-açúcar, por grupos, inclusive tidos como defensores do ambiente. O ataque principal é dirigido ao desmatamento e diminuição das áreas de plantio de alimentos.

Nessa hora o bom mesmo é observar alguns dados relativamente simples. Dos 851 milhões de hectares em uso no Brasil, tem-se que a Amazônia detém 42,3%, os pastos contribuem com 24,7%, as colheitas anuais com 5,8%, as colheitas perenes com 1%, e a cana-de-açúcar com apenas 0,8%. Vamos olhar com mais atenção estes números.

As pastagens possuem uma média nacional pouco inferior a uma cabeça por hectare, resultando em aproximadamente uma cabeça de gado por hectare de pastagem, ou seja, cerca de 170 milhões de cabeças de gado no Brasil. Se aumentarmos essa densidade para 2 cabeças por hectare, algo tecnologicamente e perfeitamente factível segundo a Embrapa, teremos à disposição cerca de 80 a 85 milhões de hectares para cultivar o que for necessário.

É importante frisar que não estamos falando em plantar apenas cana, ou desmatar um hectare sequer de floresta. Simplesmente dobrando a densidade de cabeças de gado nas pastagens existentes pode se chegar a uma área próxima de 10 vezes a área plantada de cana no país. Tudo isso sem competir com alimentos, ou desmatar.

Quanto ao CO2, tem que se pensar não apenas no que se emite, mas também no que se seqüestra do ambiente. Enquanto os solos de florestas retêm cerca de 70 milhões de gramas de carbono na forma de estoque, pastagens, culturas variadas, e o Cerrado retêm algo entre 35 e 56 milhões de gramas, ou seja, a diferença de estoque de carbono no solo não é tão diferente em diversas formas de uso. Entretanto, o estoque de carbono é bastante variado quando se leva em consideração o que se planta, ou seja, acima do solo. Enquanto a floresta tropical retém 200 milhões de gramas de carbono por hectare, a pastagem, por exemplo, retém apenas 1,3 milhão. Por sua vez, o cultivo de cana retém cerca de 17 milhões de gramas de carbono por hectare, mais de 10 vezes do que a pastagem.

Então, uma das idéias possíveis é aumentar a densidade de cabeças de gado, e recuperar parte da área de pastagem, sem promover o desmatamento, além de aumentar o seqüestro de carbono e aumentar a produção de alimentos e energia. Quanto à energia o Brasil tem enorme potencial para aumentar suas fontes renováveis. Além de novas variedades de cana-de-açúcar que prometem aumentar consideravelmente a produção bruta, tem-se que o bagaço moído e a palha ainda têm cerca de dois terços da energia da planta. Parte disso já vem sendo usada para gerar energia elétrica, mas uma grande aposta tem sido no etanol de segunda geração, ou seja, recuperar essa energia armazenada nas estruturas do bagaço e da palha e transformá-la em etanol.

Um dos processos mais pesquisados atualmente é o de hidrólise, ou seja, quebrar as moléculas de celulose, transformando-as em açúcares, para depois fermentar e produzir mais etanol. Tradicionalmente, o processo de hidrólise mais usado industrialmente é o ácido. Entretanto, as pesquisas correm a passos largos para usar enzimas para promover a hidrólise. Essas enzimas podem ser produzidas pelo cultivo de fungos selecionados e nesse caso uma das apostas no país é de pesquisar nossa enorme biodiversidade.

A Embrapa tem investido muito nesses temas que envolvem diferentes áreas do conhecimento, testando diferentes espécies de fungos, cultivados em diversas condições de operação, com diferentes substratos (meio de cultivo dos fungos).

Na Embrapa Instrumentação Agropecuária, em São Carlos, SP, foi desenvolvido um reator automatizado, específico para cultivos e testes dessas várias espécies. As espécies candidatas serão aquelas que produzirão em quantidade, e de forma economicamente viável, as enzimas que promoverão a hidrólise para o etanol de segunda geração. Cana, bagaço, palha, etanol produzido de forma mais sustentável para o ambiente e assim, quem sabe, o Brasil poderá aumentar sua estrela na próxima reunião pós Copenhague.

Victor Bertucci Neto, pesquisador, Embrapa Instrumentação Agropecuária, São Carlos (SP)

quinta-feira, dezembro 24th, 2009 | Author: admin

A proposta da UE vai ser discutida no fim de janeiro e ganha força depois do desastre da Conferência de Copenhague. A ideia é sobretaxar produtos importados de nações poluidoras, como China e EUA

Decepcionada com o “desastre” representado pela Conferência de Copenhague, encerrada sábado passado, a Europa procura uma solução para o clima e alguns países retomam a ideia de uma taxa de carbono a ser cobrada sobre produtos importados de nações poluidoras.
A União Europeia (UE) pretende, ao mesmo tempo, tranquilizar seus industriais e endurecer suas posições para 2010. “Devemos analisar como proceder após o desastre de Copenhague”, explicou o ministro do Meio Ambiente sueco, Andreas Carlgren, ao chegar à capital da Bélgica para uma reunião com seus colegas da UE.
Paul Magnette, o ministro belga encarregado do clima, é partidário de endurecer posições. “Se alguns países entre os maiores emissores (de gases de efeito estufa) no mundo continuam a impor obstáculos à adoção de objetivos vinculantes de redução das emissões, a União Europeia deve adotar, como permite o relatório da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) de 26 de junho, uma taxa de carbono sobre os produtos importados desses países que fazem uma concorrência desleal a nossas empresas”, afirmou ele.
O fracasso de Copenhague é atribuído à recusa da China e dos Estados Unidos em aceitar compromissos vinculantes. A posição de firmeza assumida por Paul Magnette vem sendo, há muito tempo, preconizada pelo chefe de Estado francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, e pela chanceler alemã, Angela Merkel.
“Devemos decidir qual oferta a União Europeia vai por sobre a mesa no dia 31 de janeiro, e o que devemos fazer para tranquilizar nossas empresas”, explicou um negociador francês. Mas a ideia da “taxa de carbono” não conseguiu unanimidade. Os alemães, por exemplo, estão divididos.
A comissão europeia, como um todo, também mostra-se reservada. Segundo um dirigente, a União Europeia deve insistir em seu compromisso de reduzir suas emissões de gases de efeito estufa num percentual de 20% em 2020 em relação a 1990, com a possibilidade de uma redução de 30% se outras nações industrializadas assumirem compromissos semelhantes.
A “Sra. Clima” da UE, a ex-ministra do Meio Ambiente da Dinamarca, Connie Hedegaard, comissária europeia designada para esse dossiê, vem sendo questionada. Ela chega a Bruxelas com um fracasso pessoal na conferência de Copenhague, onde foi obrigada a deixar a presidência das negociações sobre o clima após ter sido duramente criticada por membros do G77 (a coalizão dos países em desenvolvimento) que a acusaram de privilegiar muito os interesses dos industrializados.

JC Online

Category: NEWS  | Tags: , ,  | Leave a Comment
quinta-feira, dezembro 24th, 2009 | Author: admin

A US-led initiative called the Copenhagen Accord has formed the centre-piece of a deal at UN climate talks in Copenhagen, despite some countries’ opposition. Below is an explanation of the main points in the agreement.

LEGAL STATUS
The Accord, reached between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, contains no reference to a legally binding agreement, as some developing countries and climate activists wanted. Neither is there a deadline for transforming it into a binding deal, though UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it needed to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year.
The accord was merely “recognised” by the 193 nations at the Copenhagen summit, rather than approved, which would have required unanimous support. It is not clear whether it is a formal UN deal.

TEMPERATURE RISE
The text recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.
The language in the text shows that 2C is not a formal target, just that the group “recognises the scientific view that” the temperature increase should be held below this figure.
However, the accord does not identify a year by which carbon emissions should peak, a position resisted by some richer developing nations.
Countries are asked to spell out by 1 February next year their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. The deal does not spell out penalties for any country that fails to meet its promise.

FINANCIAL AID
The deal promises to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years. It outlines a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.
The accord says the rich countries will jointly mobilise the $100bn, drawing on a variety of sources: “public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.”
A green climate fund will also be established under the deal. It will support projects in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, “capacity building” and technology transfer.

EMISSIONS TRANSPARENCY
The pledges of rich countries will come under “rigorous, robust and transparent” scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
In the accord, developing countries will submit national reports on their emissions pledges under a method “that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.”
Pledges on climate mitigation measures seeking international support will be recorded in a registry.

REVIEW OF PROGRESS
The implementation of the Copenhagen Accord will be reviewed by 2015. This will take place about a year-and-a-half after the next scientific assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
However, if, in 2015, delegates wanted to adopt a new, lower target on global average temperature, such as 1.5C rather than 2C, it would be too late.

BBC News

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
quinta-feira, dezembro 24th, 2009 | Author: admin

Em meio à viagem de retorno ao Brasil, a senadora Marina Silva (PV-AC) concedeu entrevista de Portugal, por telefone, à Agência Senado,  após cinco dias em Copenhague, Dinamarca, dedicada à Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Mudanças Climáticas - COP-15.
Para Marina Silva, quanto ao fundo internacional a ser criado para subsidiar ações de mitigação e adaptação às mudanças climáticas, “está havendo um olhar equivocado” dos líderes mundiais. Ela observa que os países desenvolvidos se dispuseram a gastar US$ 14 trilhões para combater a crise econômica mundial, investindo em um modelo predatório de desenvolvimento, mas não são capazes de investir US$ 200 bilhões ao ano em ações que levam à mudança desse modelo.
- Lideranças tão poderosas para decidir sobre economia não são capazes de tomar uma decisão para salvar o planeta - lamentou, referindo-se à falta de acordo em relação ao fundo mundial para as mudanças climáticas e aos cortes de emissões de gases de efeito estufa.
Marina Silva disse que esperava que, com a chegada do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva a Copenhague, o Brasil pudesse se reposicionar. Referindo-se à ministra da Casa Civil Dilma Rousseff, afirmou que a chefe da delegação brasileira adotou “posição equivocada”, ao defender a não participação do Brasil com recursos para financiar ações de adaptação dos países mais pobres.
Segundo Marina, tais recursos “poderão ser mobilizados” para que países da África e as ilhas sujeitas ao desaparecimento possam investir em ações de adaptação. E os países emergentes como Brasil, China, Índia, México e África do Sul também deveriam se comprometer em financiá-lo, já que também seriam beneficiados por ele.
- Tem que ser proativo. É essencial que ser efetivo naquilo que podemos fazer e não adotar, como o Brasil tem feito, uma postura dúbia. Quando interessa, reivindicam status de países desenvolvidos, e quando não interessa querem ser tratados como os países pobres - concluiu a senadora, para quem os países emergentes, entre os quais o Brasil, também têm responsabilidade quanto às emissões de gases de efeito estufa.
Ela admitiu, no entanto, que o Brasil já fez diferença ao apresentar uma meta de redução de emissões entre 36,1% e 38,9%, embora com a ressalva de tal meta estar vinculada apenas nas projeções de emissões até 2020.
Indagada sobre a oportunidade de o Brasil também ser beneficiado com recursos do fundo internacional, Marina disse que o fundo deverá ser criado de modo a “integrar duas possibilidades de ajuda”. No curto prazo, seriam beneficiados os países pobres, mais ameaçados pelas mudanças climáticas. No longo prazo, o Brasil poderá ser beneficiado, com o financiamento de ações de mitigação dessas mudanças.

Agência Senado, Cristina Vidigal

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
quinta-feira, dezembro 24th, 2009 | Author: admin

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (”equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

The Guardian, Mark Lynas

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
quarta-feira, dezembro 16th, 2009 | Author: admin

O Brasil encabeça a lista de um ranking de combate à mudança climática publicado nesta segunda-feira por uma organização não-governamental europeia.
Pela primeira vez desde que o indicador começou a ser medido pela ONG Germanwatch e a rede Climate Action Network (CAN), um país emergente ocupou a liderança no ranking, passando para trás países desenvolvidos como a Suécia, a Alemanha e a Noruega.
O Brasil obteve uma nota 68, o que o coloca no grupo dos países cujo desempenho nesse sentido é considerado “bom”. No mesmo grupo ficaram a Suécia (67.4), Grã-Bretanha e Alemanha (65.3), França (63.5), Índia (63.1), Noruega (61.8) e México (61.2).
“É muito bom que países emergentes estejam ganhando posições neste ranknig”, avaliou o diretor europeu da rede CAN, Matthias Duwe. “Estão mandando um sinal claro, durante as negociações de Copenhague, de que estão comprometidos em combater a mudança climática. Gostaria apenas que outros países europeus estivessem demonstrando o mesmo compromisso para com as mudanças positivas.”
As organizações elogiaram a melhora do marco legal de proteção ao clima no Brasil. Mas adotaram uma postura cautelosa em relação à desaceleração do ritmo de desmatamentos no país, que reduziu as emissões de carbono do país. “Ainda não está claro se isto é resultado de uma menor demanda por óleo de palma e soja na atual crise econômica.”

Esforço insuficiente
O quinto índice de desempenho da mudança climática (CCPI, na sigla em inglês) avaliou as medidas que estão sendo tomadas em 57 países e as comparou:
* Com o que está sendo feito em outros países
* Com o que a organização considera ser necessário fazer para evitar um aumento de 2º C na temperatura do planeta
Como a ONG considera que “nenhum país está se esforçando o suficiente para prevenir uma perigosa mudança climática” – ou seja, ninguém está cumprindo o critério número dois –, nenhum desempenho foi considerado “muito bom”, o que deixou vazias as três primeiras posições do ranking.
O indicador é divulgado no mesmo dia em que as negociações sobre o clima na capital dinamarquesa esbarraram em um impasse, com os países emergentes acusando os desenvolvidos de promover um acordo sem força para reduzir as emissões de gases que causam o efeito estufa, que causam o aquecimento global.
No rascunho de acordo apresentado na sexta-feira, as metas de cortes na emissão de carbono variam de 25% a 45% até 2020. Para os divulgadores do CCPI, as metas apresentadas pelos países ricos são “insuficientes”. No fim da lista, entre os países com desempenho “muito ruim”, ficaram o Canadá (40.7) e a Arábia Saudita (28.7).
A ONG ressaltou que, apesar de estar entre os dez maiores emissores mundiais de CO2, até agora o Canadá não anunciou nenhuma política significativa em relação ao tema.
Já a Arábia Saudita, o maior produtor mundial de petróleo, é considerada uma espécie de “inimiga” dos ambientalistas por questionar a origem e a importância do fenômeno de aquecimento global.
Na mesma categoria, e a apenas oito do fim do ranking, ficaram os Estados Unidos (46.3).
“Há uma série de propostas de políticas climáticas tramitando no Congresso americano no momento, mas nenhuma ainda aprovada”, disse o diretor de políticas da Germanwatch, Christoph Bals. “Uma lei que realmente reduza as emissões, assim como uma posição forte em Copenhague, melhoraria sua posição no ranking.”

BBC Brasil

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
quarta-feira, dezembro 16th, 2009 | Author: admin

The world’s poorest and fastest-growing developing nations appear, increasingly, to hold the fate of a new climate agreement in their hands. The choice they face is, deal or no deal?
As the Copenhagen climate summit barreled into its penultimate phase, wealthy countries ramped up pressure on emerging economies China and India, as well as African and island nations, to compromise and drop near-daily procedural tactics and protests that have slowed the negotiations.
Rich nations still hold some bargaining chips, chiefly how much money they’re willing to commit to help developing countries adapt to climate change and shift their energy sources over the long term.
A collapse in negotiations would trigger a blame game in which developing nations brand the United States and the West in general as the villains. Still, many negotiators and observers here say most of the key decisions that will seal or scuttle an agreement rest with poor and emerging nations.
China and India, whose booming economies are projected to account for much of the world’s emissions growth in coming decades, must decide whether they can accept the two conditions the U.S. calls fundamental to an agreement: that all nations make their carbon dioxide emissions reduction pledges clear and that they allow the world to verify that the pledges in fact are met.
Africans and island nations, for their part, must choose whether to accept greenhouse gas reductions for the developed world that are far weaker than the poor countries would like; scientists warn that the reductions proposed by wealthy nations might not be enough to spare the world’s poorest nations from flood, famine and other devastating effects of climate change.
Inside the Bella Center, the venue for the negotiations, summit attendees with deep ties to the developing world diverged sharply on whether those nations would ultimately strike an agreement or walk away.
“Only a fool will tell you definitely they know what China’s midnight position will be,” said Peter Goldmark, who directs the climate and air program for the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that works closely with China.
Goldmark thinks China will ultimately hold its line and reject international emissions-pledge monitoring in any form, a move U.S. officials insist would kill hopes for a deal. Other groups say China, the world’s largest emitter, does not want to risk blame if the talks fall through.
“They really want a deal,” Keya Chatterjee, director of the U.S. climate change program for the World Wildlife Fund, said of the Chinese. “They really care what the world thinks of them.”
American negotiators sided with the optimists Tuesday. “I actually think we’re going to get there with China,” Todd Stern, the U.S. special climate envoy, told reporters. “But you know, I don’t know for sure yet.”
Leaders of the Copenhagen negotiations are aiming for a framework agreement, including costs and emissions reduction commitments, that would pave the way for a new international global warming treaty to be signed later, probably next year. If major emitters don’t reach agreement in Copenhagen, observers say, international talks could be set back indefinitely, along with the Obama administration’s climate bill in Congress.
Some environmental groups say the United States and its allies have given developing nations ample reason to shoot down an accord, by proposing emission cuts too light to avert the worst effects of warming; by failing to provide fiscal details of a long-term climate aid package to the developing world; and, in the case of Europe and many other economic powers, by not moving aggressively to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emissions reduction targets with a process that gives developing nations a strong voice. (The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto treaty, which a Copenhagen pact would replace.)
Developed nations “are trying to bully around the poorest countries in the world, who will be most impacted by climate change,” said Erich Pica, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth.
Pica’s group and others also criticized wealthy countries for what they called a pressure campaign to bring developing nations on board, including President Obama’s calls Monday to the prime ministers of Ethiopia and Bangladesh to enlist their help in the climate negotiations.
One of the sharpest critiques came from Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who said Tuesday in a letter to African heads of state that the emission cuts on the table would “condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development.”
It appears unlikely, though, that wealthy nations will boost their carbon emission commitments significantly.
In his news conference, Stern reiterated that the Obama administration was unwilling to go beyond its pledge “in the range” of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, which is roughly the size of the cut laid out in the climate bill the House passed last month. He also said the total reductions spurred by climate legislation, which is pending in the Senate, could still end up being much higher than 17%.
Large sums of financial aid could help bridge the gap and bring African and island-nation delegates to an agreement, said environmentalists who spent the day talking with diplomats. “They want to find a way forward” with a financing package, said Heather Allen, an international advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Chinese officials offered similar signals in Beijing. “We still maintain that developed countries have the obligation to provide financial support,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said, adding that that was “the key condition for the success of the Copenhagen conference.”
In Copenhagen, optimism reigned in the pronouncements of conference leaders as the negotiations shifted to a ministerial level. Dignitaries such as Britain’s Prince Charles and former Vice President Al Gore called for action, and security workers began preparing for the arrival this week of more than 110 heads of state and government, including Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
“The deal is clearly visible,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said, “and not just any deal, but a deal that can be . . . a real turning point.”

Los Angeles Times, Jim Tankersley

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment
quarta-feira, dezembro 16th, 2009 | Author: admin

As negociações estão avançando lentamente demais na conferência das Nações Unidas para o clima em Copenhague, disse o chefe da ONU para mudanças climáticas, Yvo de Boer. “Atravessamos um momento muito distinto e importante. Vimos, na última semana, progresso em várias áreas, mas não o suficiente”, disse ele.
“Existe ainda uma quantidade enorme de trabalho a ser feito se essa conferência for apresentar os resultados que as pessoas esperam.”
Yvo de Boer reconheceu que “leva tempo” chegar a um acordo de 192 países incluindo ilhas do Pacífico “que podem desaparecer sob o nível do mar”, produtores de petróleo “que temem por suas economias”, nações ricas “que não querem perder empregos” e emergentes “que querem erradicar a pobreza”.

Divergências
Na segunda-feira, as negociações foram temporariamente suspensas depois que representantes de países africanos se retiraram em protesto contra o que chamaram de “abandono das metas firmadas no acordo de Kyoto”.
Esses países criticaram a organização da conferência por, supostamente, se concentrar apenas nas negociações para um novo acordo climático, em vez de trabalhar paralelamente em uma extensão do Protocolo de Kyoto.
Países emergentes insistem que países desenvolvidos que ratificaram o protocolo devem se comprometer com maiores cortes de emissões dos gases que causam o efeito estufa.
Um grupo de nações, liderado por Alemanha e Indonésia, examina os possíveis cortes nas emissões por parte de países mais ricos.
Outro, liderado por Grã-Bretanha e Gana, estuda formas de financiamento de longo prazo para ajudar países mais pobres se desenvolverem de forma “verde” e se proteger dos impactos das mudanças climáticas.
A China, o maior poluidor do mundo em termos absolutos, acusa os países desenvolvidos de retroceder no que diz serem suas obrigações de combater o aquecimento global e afirmou que a reunião de Copenhague entrou em uma fase crítica.
Calcula-se que a sessão final da conferência, na sexta-feira, tenha a presença de cerca de 130 líderes, inclusive o presidente Lula.

BBC Brasil

Category: NEWS  | Tags:  | Leave a Comment