Spiegel Writes Of A Climate Treaty “On The Brink” …”Harsh Threats” …China Feels “Provoked – Unwilling To Compromise”

Spiegel has the latest analysis of the climate haggling going on at COP21. It looks pretty heated.

From science journalist Axel Bojanowski‘s perspective, the representatives have encountered some major obstacles. He writes of a “huge clamor” and reports that the treaty is on the brink. He writes, citing delegates, the negotiations have been charged with “harsh threats” and “sick pride”:

 China, India, USA, EU and the oil producing nations downright crashed against each other with full force in the negotiations.”

Bojanowski writes of swirling discord over the 2°C target, noting that a group of countries led by the USA and the EU wish to adopt the “highly ambitious” 1.5°C target, which means the planet would only have 0.5°C of allowable warming remaining.

Theoretically that would require an immediate stop in emissions growth – something that in reality is pure fantasy. Saudi Arabia wants nothing to do with the 1.5°C target and, according to Bojanowski, is threatening to “bust the fragile alliance of developing countries, the so-called Group 77”.

The Spiegel report portrays a conflictive atmosphere where developing countries are pitted against industrial ones. The former are demanding that the latter pony up for the “damage” caused and be given leeway in emitting carbon. However the USA delegation insists industrial countries commit to reductions as well, “especially China”, where pro capita CO2 emissions are already approaching EU levels.

Although the media (at least in Germany) are projecting a cooperative and constructive atmosphere in place in Paris, the Spiegel report tells us the opposite, where a huge chasm still remains between industrial developed countries and the emerging countries. Bojanowski writes that the current draft treaty has enraged the USA delegation” because it calls on the developed nation to “allocate financial support” while other countries “contribute voluntarily” – a condition in the main part of the treaty that would never pass the US Congress. China insists that this clause remain in the main part.

Bojanowski writes that China “feels provoked” by the newly formed “High Ambitious Coalition” which comprises the USA, EU and poor developing countries – which China used to represent – and is now “unwilling to compromise“, Bojanowski reports.

The Treaty is far from being ready, and there is still a chance that the whole process could collapse. Expect the bazaar to last through the weekend.

 

14 responses to “Spiegel Writes Of A Climate Treaty “On The Brink” …”Harsh Threats” …China Feels “Provoked – Unwilling To Compromise””

  1. sod

    Why so negative?

    Saudi Arabia doe snot like the 1.5°C Target? Really?

    Saudi Arabia might be breaking its alliance with the underdevelopted countries? Really?

    China doesn t want to be forced to belong to the group, that has similar per capita emissions? Really?

    Instead of a carbon cap there will be a temperature target? catastrophic result? Really?

    This meeting is sending a strong signal to everyone. The world is moving. Investments in coal and oil might be dead soon. Alternative power will grow massively. Everybody understands that, even without a final contract on the table.

    The latest draft can be read here:

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da01.pdf

    1. handjive

      It would send a powerful signal if more than 0% of #COP21 attendees would boycott fossil-fueled goods/services.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      sod,
      A fellow named E.M.Smith writes as “Musings from the Chiefo”
      [ chiefio dot wordpress dot com ]
      His latest post is titled “Market Glance” but it is mostly about the World’s economies as we go into the 2nd half of the decade. (He currently lives in California.) Chiefo and you, Sod, are not on the same eco-page but do try to overlook that to get an idea of how he sees the next few years of doings in the World.
      My take is that there are many demands on the governments and non-government institutions for both money and attention. The US has multiple problems and the government will not accept a legal treaty despite what the current president thinks about the temperature. (I don’t think that he thinks about temperature. Rather, I suspect he thinks about large fees for speaking after he leaves office in January of 2017.) Insofar as the USA is deeply in debt the only way to get large sums of money is to borrow it. Can the US borrow money from China and then return it to them and other countries as climate reparations?
      Still, it is nice to know that there is still an optimist or two floating around.

      1. sod

        I do not find anything with any meaning on the climate conference over at Chiefio. Do you have a link? Or were you really talking about the toilet paper article?

        There will be an agreement. It will be weaker than i wish, but much much more strong than you folks think it will be.

        The economy is listening. They understand, that if there is no legally binding treaty this year (and that is more than plausible), then there might be one in 5 years.

        The time of coal and oil is over. And the fight is now one of delay.

    3. DirkH

      sod 11. December 2015 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Why so negative? ”

      What’s wrong with you? The total collapse of warmunism is positive. We are optimists. Go to hell, warmunist wannabe dictators (where, I hear, it is warm, but there’s no water vapor).

  2. Harry Dale Huffman

    It is characteristic of Obama that he would be part–probably the lead “community organizer”–of that so-called “highly ambitious” coalition, as he likes to twist the knife to make things even worse, in the face of inevitable outrage over his habitually-dictatorial plans and actions. That perverse habit–the tyrant’s way of “dropping his pants” to blatantly reveal his disdain of people–should tell anyone with eyes to see that his real motivation is revenge, against all real and imagined wrongdoings against those he identifies with (blacks and Muslims, and all those who hate America).

  3. Santa Baby

    Like Shavez said in Copenhagen in 2009. The real objective is implementing Marxism nationally and internationally. The lower the temperature target the quicker this is to happen.

  4. tom0mason

    It started as +5C in 2100 and 100 metres of sea-level rise. Then it all changed to just +2C as the arbitrary aim of COP21. Now COP21 has deflated it to +1.5C in the remaining 85 years and just 1 metre of sea-level rise but at about the same costs to industrialized nations.

    At this rate of change in targets and imagined extrapolated effects, the weekend’s haggling at this bazaar could be truly very bizarre.

    So much for settled science, or is it just about grabbing the money?

  5. Papy Boomer

    Too much Kool-Aid is not good for your health. There is so other directions to look before getting trap by a religion. You should try looking to your right to have a better view. Then you will have a more complete “tour d’horizon”. It’s also good for your mind.

  6. boyfromtottenham

    As I understand it, if this document is a “Treaty” then the US Senate (and probably the equivalent bodies in a few other countries) will refuse to sign it. If it isn’t a “Treaty” then it probably has no legal force, and is just shelf-ware. So what is the point?
    BTW I love the “1.5 degrees” bit. LOL

    1. John F. Hultquist

      “Accord” seems to be the chosen term, as in climate accord.

  7. sod

    ” If it isn’t a “Treaty” then it probably has no legal force, and is just shelf-ware. ”

    You are a little bit late to the debate.

    There will be an agreement and it looks like they will set 1.5°C temperature raise as some sort of a target. They will look extremely stupid, if this increase happens next year, which it might if the el-nino has a similar effect to what it had in 1998.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/last:360

  8. Loodt Pretorius

    This 1.5 degrees target is not based on any scientific evidence. I prefer the target of 1.987654321 degrees which is evidently based on far more scientific rigour.

  9. Graeme No.3

    It hardly matters what the “target” is, with the sun in its present phase by 2100 the shivering survivors will be glad of any warming.
    If you extrapolate the existing rise for the last 20 years (including the adjustments) humans will be lucky if the temperature rises 1℃. With a weak sun set to make nonsense of the IPCC claim that the sun has no effect on climate, the next 30 years are going to be cold. It won’t matter to me but I am sorry that I won’t get to see the movie of sod attempting to cross the English Channel and being interrupted by a polar bear.