Durban Climate Change Conference: Breakthrough Reached On Course For Future Accord

Durban Climate Talks Agreement Canada

First Posted: 12/10/11 11:51 PM ET Updated: 12/10/11 11:59 PM ET

AP — DURBAN, South Africa - A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change for the coming decades.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted Sunday — a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

The United States was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that likely would find much opposition in the U.S. Congress.

"This is a very significant package. None of us likes everything in it. Believe me, there is plenty the United States is not thrilled about," said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern. But the package captured important advances that would be undone if it is rejected, he told the delegates.

The deal's language left some analysts warning that the wording left huge loopholes for countries to avoid tying their emissions to legal constraints, and noted that there was no mention of penalties. "They haven't reached a real deal," said Samantha Smith, of WWF International. "They watered things down so everyone could get on board."

Environmentalists criticized the package — as did many developing countries in the debate — for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

"The good news is we avoided a train wreck," said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. "The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve."

Scientists say that unless those emissions — chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry — level out and reverse within a few years, the Earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

Sunday's breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule, including two round-the-clock days that left negotiators bleary-eyed and stumbling with words. Delegates were seen nodding off in the final plenary session, despite the high drama, barely constrained emotions and uncertainty whether the talks would end in triumph or total collapse.

The nearly fatal issue involved the legal nature of the accord that will govern carbon emissions by the turn of the next decade.

A plan put forward by the European Union sought strong language that would bind all countries equally to carry out their emissions commitments.

India led the objectors, saying it wanted a less rigorous option. Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan argued that the EU proposal undermined the 20-year-old principle that developing countries have less responsibility than industrial nations that caused the global warming problem through 200 years of pollution.

"The equity of burden-sharing cannot be shifted," she said in angry tones.

Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua gave heated support for the Indians, saying the industrial nations have not lived up to their promises while China and other developing countries had launched ambitious green programs.

"We are doing whatever we should do. We are doing things you are not doing. What qualifies you to say things like this," he said, raising his voice and waving his arm.

The debate ran past midnight and grew increasingly tense as speakers lined up almost evenly on one side or the other. Conference president Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who is South Africa's foreign minister, called a recess and told the EU and Indian delegates to put their heads together and come up with a compromise formula.

Coming after weeks of unsuccessful effort to resolve the issue, Nkoana-Mashabane gave Natarajan and European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard 10 minutes to find a solution, with hundreds of delegates milling around them.

They needed 50 minutes.

The package gave new life to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose carbon emissions targets expire next year and apply only to industrial countries.

A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future.

Together, the two documents overhaul a system designed 20 years ago that divide the world into a handful of wealthy countries facing legal obligations to reduce emissions, and the rest of the world which could undertake voluntary efforts to control carbon.

The European Union, the primary bloc falling under the Kyoto Protocol's reduction commitments, said an extension of its targets was conditional on major developing countries also accepting limits with the same legal accountability. The 20th century division of the globe into two unequal parts was invalid in today's world, the EU said.

The difficult clause in the documents called on countries to complete negotiations within three years on "a protocol, another legal instrument, or a legal outcome" that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol. It would need about five years for ratification.

But the EU objected to the late addition of the phrase "legal outcome," which it said would allow countries to wriggle out of commitments. The final compromise, reached at 3:30 a.m., changed the final option to "an agreed outcome with legal force."

By Arthur Max, The Associated Press
FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

AP — DURBAN, South Africa - A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate chan...
AP — DURBAN, South Africa - A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate chan...
Filed by Brodie Fenlon  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:48 AM on 12/12/2011
RE: "Transmiss­ion and distributi­on losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007"
So you claim that the high voltage transformers operate at almost 0 loss. Where can I buy such a transformer?
BTW China reports 3% transmission loss (and hence it is light years ahead (with the lies) of USA).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:47 PM on 12/11/2011
Where is the 100 billion a year going to come from?
What is Canada's share?
What social programs will we have to cut to pay it?

How many job losses will it cause in Canada?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:38 PM on 12/11/2011
What a stupid headline.
They agreed to keep negotiating, that's all.

God these loons love to lie to us!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeanMartin
Everything in moderation.
09:15 AM on 12/11/2011
I find it illuminating that the cover story on Huffington Canada has to do with the worldwide environmental conference, while its counterpart on Huffington US is about the GOP's neverending (and increasingly vacuous) series of "debates".

Says an awful lot right there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
artist-53
Wordy opinionated poor spelling Liberal
09:05 AM on 12/11/2011
http://www.democracynow.org/ has complete coverage of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban. Providing in depth interviews for the entire length of the conf.. To understand the details of this conference, you should watch the entire week of coverage.

The US has interfered with any progress this conference could have made. It became another political arm wrestling event that serves the few. The US was often summed up this way by most in attendance.. Either sign on.... commit or get out of the way.

However , Countries that receive money from the US, talked as if they were walking on eggshells, due to the experiences of some countries that became vocal about the US ,as they stood to loose US dollars, so they walk on eggshells and nothing is real......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor Saymong
Canuck up Toronto way
08:05 AM on 12/11/2011
Nice photo Peter Kent! You look like such an inspiring and informed and pleasant leader! You make me all warm and fuzzy all over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gravescanada
06:21 AM on 12/11/2011
Methane. It is located both in the permafrost in the north, as well as deep in the ocean in what is called Fire Ice. Fire Ice is methane hydrate, a sherbet-like substance consisting of methane trapped in water ice locked deep underwater by the cold and under pressure 23 times that of normal atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, it is about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide, meaning methane reservoir's could potentially warm the Earth tens of degrees. When released into the ocean-atmosphere system, methane reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and can cause marine dysoxia, which kills oxygen using animals, Japan is currently test drilling for the gas and is claiming successful tests using a method that gently depressurizes the frozen gas. The US, China, Canada and South Korea are now exploring the mining of methane hydrates from their own sea beds. Fracturing these beds of methane could trigger underwater landslides, causing earthquakes and tsunamis. Ultimately an uncontrolled release of massive amounts of methane could cripple our climate in ways we cannot even fathom. Luckily, those drilling or seeking to drill these dangerous methane deposits are the same people that drill for Oil in the ocean, and we all know how safe that is.(that was sarcasm) My point is, even as we face an ever changing climate due to our current activities, we as a species seem hell bent to find other ways to destroy our planet.
05:20 AM on 12/11/2011
I worked with Peter Kent years ago. He has always had some serious mental problems. Remember me.

Ross C****ill
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
10:16 PM on 12/12/2011
You think Peter Kent is reading this article, and staying up to date on the comments section?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
04:39 AM on 12/11/2011
Setting science aside for the moment, I am enjoying P. Kent's look of disdain, and fury. What he gained at the summit is isolation. Even the US has parted ways with his proposal and its attempt to dismantle an accord that Canada never took seriously in the first place. This is where the Tar Sands come into play, with its lack of a serious ecological impact study, from mining to transport including shipping. The Durban talks has dealt Kent a decisive and politically damaging blow.

Kent was arguing a point that the Conservatives wanted him to win, but he failed. What they assumed was, is that the US would follow suit, and support a non participatory stance along with China and Russia. Of course he also assumed that climate change could still be set aside for a few more years until things got really serious, or the oil industry was more stable and accepted globally. China and the US both pivoted from their previous stance, and left Canada holding the bag, one that Kent is woe to drag back home.

The Tar Sands are soon going to be ripped open on a huge scale, and shipped to the US and China, Canada's oil allies. Now the rest of Canada will have to clean up as well, and the Conservatives will have to sign on the Kyoto extension, and figure out how they are going to pay for it, with a lot less complaining.
03:04 AM on 12/11/2011
It would be interesting to know how much of the energy is wasted along the electric grid when distributed from the TPP to the household or to the enterprise and isn't it better to produce the energy at the enterprise itself.
What about the parasitic units taking commission fees for power supply distribution. How much has been their profit in the last 10 years for example, and how much of it, if any, was spent for new technologies to improve the energy efficiency of the electric grid.
It should be clarified also to what extend we are unable to process back the CO2 without producing more of it. And what about the S02 emissions from the coal burning and when the processes will become irreversible.
Maybe a not entirely bad idea is to stop producing the CO2 at that speed instead of wondering what to do with it after that.
It becomes obvious that the politicians, besides suppressing their own people, taking bribes from other politicians and designing schemes for corruption and dealings of any kind are not able to do anything else.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
03:54 AM on 12/11/2011
8% of output is lost in transmission.

The loss of efficiency would be orders of magnitude greater if power generation was decentralized.

The rest of your post was poorly worded, so I can't respond to it adequately.
05:22 AM on 12/11/2011
8% over what distance?
photo
hculliton
Match bearings and shoot!
08:51 AM on 12/11/2011
So a decenteralized generation net is far less efficient than our current centralised system. I find that surprising. I thought that a decenteralized production grid, as with the internet, would be both efficient and reliable. Could you reccomend any articles for my further education?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
02:29 AM on 12/11/2011
If we want C02 reduced: buy local, save energy, reduce car use and water use. Water treatment and transportation is the largest user of energy for municipalites (Can. Fed. of Municipalities) We know the stakes are higher now. It's up to us citizens to change our own behavior and to get others to do the same. In truth, I have more faith in people to make it happen than governments. We don't need these fools in power telling us what to do. If you want change: make it happen.
photo
darkmark
religion, the veil of evil.
02:47 AM on 12/11/2011
agreed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
03:59 AM on 12/11/2011
Save energy, reduce use, yes!
But buy local, no!

Buying local is NOT environmentally friendly, contrary to what some people would tell you.
Centralization of production is hugely more efficient than a system where millions of extra producers are created just to save on transportation costs. In the grand scheme of things, being able to efficiently produce a specific good from a central location and then ship it across the globe has a smaller carbon footprint than a "buy local" world would.
04:20 AM on 12/11/2011
Maybe this applies to certain types of goods, but I don't see how. If I buy fruit, vegetables, or fish locally, how would that be a more harmful footprint than if the same products are: harvested from a country or ocean thousands of miles away; shipped thousands of miles to a central urban location nearby; redistributed and delivered to separate specific sites? It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe if it were an either or situation, but it's unlikely local goods would entirely replace the current set up...instead buying local would complement what's in place now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
01:40 AM on 12/11/2011
Lord Christopher Monckton reports from UN Climate Summit

Durban: what the media are not telling you

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Durban, South Africa

DURBAN, South Africa -- “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being asked to approve.

Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention -- Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean 'for'] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the

http://climatedepot.com/a/14072/Exclusive-UN-Climate-Draft-Text-Demands-New-International-Climate-Court-to-compel-reparations-for-climate-debt--Also-seeks-rights-of-Mother-Earth--2Cdeg-drop-in-global-temps
photo
darkmark
religion, the veil of evil.
02:13 AM on 12/11/2011
are you trying to say something coherent? what are you trying to say? i don't understand you. do you speak a known language? can i help you? are you having a problem? hello, hello can we get you something? we've called your parents. they are bringing your favorite blanky. here suck on this rubber toy until your mommy gets here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
07:36 AM on 12/11/2011
Double dose of Thorazine required for Darkmark............
07:11 AM on 12/11/2011
Interesting, I see the end of the UN might be the eventual outcome of all this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
09:53 AM on 12/11/2011
One can only hope..............................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arovingmind
I think, therefore I am liberal
01:00 AM on 12/11/2011
"The good news is we avoided a train wreck," said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. "The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve."

"The real news is that they avoided a nuclear melt-down and instead engineered a bullet-train wreck of global proportions.!" This so called compromise, forced upon COP by the 1% aristocracy and wealthy that think they can buy their way out of the up-coming mass extinction, is a time b o m b. The funny thing is, the world's poorest people, those who have had to live off of the land, are the ones, if any humans survive at all, who will survive the coming catastrophe brought up this world by those least prepared and least capable of surviving without their servants and someone holding their silverspoons and golf-clubs for them. Irony can be funny.
12:59 AM on 12/11/2011
This is all fine and dandy for the 194 or so countries to agree to this, but does anyone actually believe it will ever see the light of day. There are far too many far right wing governments involved that are supported by those with financial and power greed as their top priority and the environment really doesn't matter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arovingmind
I think, therefore I am liberal
01:02 AM on 12/11/2011
Yes, the US of A, the GOBP/Toilet Paper Brigade, the Kockbrothers, the Federalists, the 1%.
01:18 AM on 12/11/2011
Pessimist much? Way to write off 194 governments with a wave of your virtual hand using a statement that has no basis.
01:33 AM on 12/11/2011
Do you actually think either the US senate or congress will pass this? Unless the GOP are shut out of the next several elections in the U.S. this will never see the light of day there.
photo
darkmark
religion, the veil of evil.
02:18 AM on 12/11/2011
you know he's right. the gopers are as arrogant and shallow as any human can be. they are the mouth pieces for the most conservative corporations in the usofa. with obama as the lead for our side what do you think he will give away first, i mean before he even starts talking to the gopers?
12:56 AM on 12/11/2011
Great use of a picture to go with this story.