After two weeks Talk was closed yesterday, the Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
With what results? We try to analyze them before drawing conclusions. The document called for closing
Copenhagen Accord has 3 skinny little pages in which states as follows: • The
Kyoto Protocol remains in force until its natural end in 2012 for countries that had signed (among them there are the USA);
• The sanctioned agreement to maintain the growth of global temperature within 2 degrees Celsius . • The
CO2 emissions to be reduced and, by next January 2010, each of the 193 countries attending the conference will inform the objectives it intends to take in this regard. EU confirms that, for now, the goal that had already been given to reduce its emissions by 20% by 2020 . The U.S. promise to reduce their emissions by 17% than in 2005 (but it will be the U.S. Congress to ratify the final decision).
• The developing countries , (the most dissatisfied with the results of Copenhagen), every two years should report the results of their measurements. • The
rich countries to poor ones will $ 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 and then $ 100 billion a year by 2020. •
of incentives will be introduced against deforestation.
• The next appointments are between six months to Bonn, and a year in Mexico City . •
This agreement is recognized but will not be binding on any of the participating countries.
He immediately provoked a heated debate among those disappointed by this meeting and those who say they are still quite satisfied. I even talk about the disappointed "Flopenaghen" to describe their feeling of total failure of the conference, including many representatives of environmental NGOs.
But not everyone thinks the same way.
Let's see what we can then save the meeting in Copenhagen and what is not.
E 'no doubt that given the high expectations surrounding this meeting Creates the results can not fail to disappoint . However, in my opinion, save something from there. Meanwhile, almost all the countries of the world came together, giving credit to the theory that global warming exists , man is the root cause and you must find a solution to the problem. We managed to involve in the project's U.S. had declared that instead out of the Kyoto Protocol. In essence, the agreement represents a promise to enter into a more concrete a year in Mexico City. E 'but no doubt that the objective of reducing and cuts in emissions are expected really far too small.
should be noted, however, the return to a kind of leading role by the United States, which despite the economic decline, have been able to engage in their final proposal as India, China, Brazil and South Africa, or some of the most economically emerging countries that probably have preferred to adhere to minimum commitments now rather than in a year an agreement strictly binding. Throughout this process the role of the European Union, which now seems to be at the forefront in the fight against climate change, has unfortunately remained marginal , as well as that of Russia that I remember is the fifth country in the world and Emissions which, being among the main producers of gas and oil, has little interest in participating in this agreement.
In a year we really get to something more concrete? I can not answer.
likely that we have the first answers to this question, relying on new targets for reducing emissions that each country will communicate by the end of January.
Then maybe we will start understand something about it.
Michele Salvadori
your say on this subject, click on "comments" and write your own review.
0 comments:
Post a Comment