China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, played its cards close to its chest at the 12-day summit with Premier Wen Jiabao moving little beyond previous statements.

But China came in for sharp criticism for its firm line on what emerged as a key dispute -- how to verify that emerging economies are fulfilling their pledges to crack down on carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

The final statement pledged that verification would respect nations' sovereignty. And it offered no target for cutting emissions by mid-century -- a step rejected by China and fellow emerging economies such as India which say that rich nations bear primary responsibility for climate change.

"It's a lot less ambitious even than the position papers submitted by China. It's very sad that we built up all this momentum and ended up with such a weak document," said Yang Ailun, the climate campaign manager for Greenpeace China.

Yang noted that China has rapidly stepped up action against climate change in recent years, including announcing ahead of Copenhagen a plan to reduce the intensity of its carbon emissions.

"From a domestic perspective, China is very progressive and has come a long way," she said.

"But it's still a country that's trying to understand what kind of international responsibilities it has."

The United States -- the second biggest polluter which with China accounts for more than 40 percent of global emissions -- has been adamant that developing nations prove they are acting against global warming, a stance backed by the European Union and Japan.

Since taking office in January, President Barack Obama has sharply changed US policy to take action against climate change. But a bill to cap emissions faces opposition in the Senate, where lawmakers want assurances that the United States will not lose its competitive advantage.

"It seems that in Washington whenever you ask the question of what is the US going to do about climate change, the question turns into what is China going to do," said Andrew Deutz, director of international government relations at the US-based Nature Conservancy.

Asked at a press conference about China's position, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown took a swipe at Beijing for "clinging to their version of what an international organisation should not do."

Isabel Hilton, editor of London-based ChinaDialogue, said the irony was that China wants to build a verification regime for its own purposes.

But outside monitoring is China's "worst nightmare," Hilton said.

"Their suspicion has always been that the Americans are trying to stop their rise, and that they will use these instruments somehow as a way of sabotaging China's progress. That does not appear to be the case," she said.

But in a sign that may bode well for future negotiations, the two countries have a growing working relationship on climate change. Obama and Wen met twice one-on-one to negotiate in Copenhagen.

Some observers say that climate change could eventually become a means for cooperation rather than conflict between the United States and China.

"It's an opportunity to reset the US-China relationship," said Julian L. Wong, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think-tank.

"Obama's foreign policy is to be a more engaged partner on the international stage, so this is really the perfect opportunity as it's a pressing issue and there are economic opportunities," he said.

China, while nominally part of a negotiating bloc of developing countries, appeared to distance itself in Copenhagen from nations such as Sudan and Venezuela which furiously denounced the United States throughout the talks.

"Concerning their basic interests, China is still in line with developing countries," said Zhang Haibin, an associate professor and expert on environmental diplomacy at Peking University.

"But the disparity among developing countries' interests are growing amid the severity of climate change, which hurts developing countries as a whole."

earlier related report
Copenhagen failures strike at heart of UN system
Copenhagen (AFP) Dec 20, 2009 - For the past decade, the effort to muster an alliance of nations to fight climate change has seemed at times like a train wreck in slow motion.

In Copenhagen last week, there were moments when that crash finally -- horribly -- appeared to have happened.

The United Nations had billed December 18 2009 as the day when all countries would rally under its banner, forging a strategy to combat the greatest threat facing humanity this century.

Instead, the day will be recalled for the chaotic haggling among a select group of a couple of dozen top leaders.

They put together a non-binding deal -- essentially the lowest common-denominator -- that not only left climate action lodged in low gear but also drove a wedge in the world community.

Only by gavelling the document through a plenary session, to the fury of developing nations who said they had been ignored, was the UN able to stop the "Copenhagen Accord" from being strangled at birth.

Diplomats interviewed by AFP were appalled at the backroom circus, the crippling damage to global consensus and the failure of a two-year process to spell out ambitious targets on emissions curbs, for 2020 and 2050, that will brake global warming.

In the rush to understand the fiasco, some pointed at the nightmarish complexity of climate negotiations while others blamed the DNA of the nation-state itself.

"The biggest backlash from what has happened will be directed at the UN system, not on climate change," a European official predicted.

He and others voiced exasperation with the negotiation architecture under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This 194-member arena proceeds by consensus and a sheep-and-goats division of rich and poor, which in turn has big repercussions for commitments for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions.

These rules were enshrined at the UNFCCC's birth in 1992 at the famous Rio Earth Summit and are virtually sacrosanct.

Poor countries are understandably loth to give up the privileges they have on emissions controls: their number still includes South Korea and Singapore, whose per-capita GDP is now among the highest in the world.

Then there is the mountain of complex issues, from finance for poor countries, emissions credits and verification of pledges to reporting of national emissions and the counting of forest "sinks."

These offer nearly infinite potential for foot-dragging and textual sabotage.

When the UNFCCC, and in 1997 its offshoot the Kyoto Protocol, came into being, time seemed plentiful and consensus, despite its flaws, was deemed vital.

Few people guessed that, within less than two decades, climate change would advance so quickly and so viciously as it has today, or that China, India and Brazil would become massive carbon polluters so quickly.

The end result is that the UNFCCC is like a crawling, overladen fire truck that has been told to race to quench a blaze.

"We have seen all the limits of the system in the past two weeks, in terms of unity, the endless series of interventions and points of order," the European source said.

Another question is whether nation states have it in their genes to address a worldwide challenge, for national leaders defend national interests, not the planet's.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cautioned the talks were "an important test" of whether nations could join together to fight a common threat.

"I think if we are able to get a good agreement, this would clearly create an enormous amount of confidence in the ability of human society to be able to act on a multilateral basis," the UN's top climate scientist told AFP last week.

"If we fail, I don't think everything is lost, but certainly it will be a major setback."

Alden Meyer, with a US pressure group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the failure in Copenhagen "shows the fragility of the multilateral system."

"This is certainly not an efficient process that moves at lightning speed to address climate change," he said.

But, Meyer argued, the system's problems lay in a lack of political dynamism.

In the 1990 Gulf War, when the US mustered a huge coalition that ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, "an alignment of nation-states combined with strong interests" showed how the UN system could be made to move.

UNFCCC chief Yvo de Boer on Saturday agreed his agency's process was "large, cumbersome and diverse."

"You could argue that it would be much more effect just to address climate change in the G20, where you've got 85 percent of the emissions around the table," he told reporters.

"That may be correct from an emissions point of view," said de Boer.

"But it's not correct from an equity or from an environmental point of view, because what you don't have around the table is the 100-odd countries that have contributed nothing to climate change, who have minuscule economies but who are on the front line of dealing with the impacts of climate change.

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Climate Science News - Modeling, Mitigation Adaptation

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News