A finales del 2011, el 07 de diciembre, se aprobó en la Cámara de Senadores la Ley General de Cambio Climático en México. Obtuvo 76 votos a favor, 2 en contra y 5 abstenciones, y ahora el dictamen espera su revisión en la Cámara de Diputados.

Dentro de la ley se han establecido distintos mecanismos que son indispensables para una lucha nacional efectiva contra el cambio climático, como lo es el Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático, un Inventario Nacional de Emisiones y un Fondo Nacional para la lucha contra el Cambio Climático. También se contempla la obtención de un sistema de evaluación permanente para analizar los avances y retos que se enfrenten en la materia.

¿Quiénes están en contra de la ley?

Todo el paquete suena muy bien, sin embargo, hay personas y organismos que se han pronunciado en contra de la ley, cómo lo señala NOTIMEX para el periódico El Universal:

Luis Héctor Sarti Pérez, vicepresidente de la Asociación de Industriales del Estado de México (AIEM), afirmó que la aplicación de la Ley General de Cambio Climático aprobado por el Senado, representará un costo de mil 360 millones de dólares.

Indicó que dichas inversiones son necesarias para cumplir con la reducción de 20 millones de toneladas de dióxido de carbono (CO2) para la industria.

Refirió que ello resulta preocupante, pues ante el escenario económico actual, la principal afectación será limitar el crecimiento del empleo.

Se ha dicho que esta ley limitará las posibilidades de desarrollo económico del país, pero quizás se están limitando a ver un camino antigüo y débil, en donde el medio ambiente queda en segundo plano.

Según la nueva normatividad, se multará el uso de combustibles fósiles, lo cual afectará a las empresas más contaminantes, aquellas que consumen un mayor volumen de energía. Ahora debemos apostar a un crecimiento industrial sustentable, a la generación de empleos verdes y a establecer como prioritaria la seguridad nacional: un modelo en donde todos salimos ganando.

La Cámara Nacional del Hierro y el Acero, Canacero, también se muestra en contra. Uno de sus argumentos, publicado en el periódico Mi Ambiente, es el siguiente:

“Hoy en día Estados Unidos, China, Europa, Rusia y Brasil, las grandes economías que generan alrededor del 80% de los gases con efecto invernadero, evitan asumir compromisos severos de reducción de emisiones carbono, con medidas que llevarían una reducción en los niveles de bienestar de su población”.

Sabemos que paises mencionados no son un ejemplo a seguir en materia de  política ambiental y lucha contra el Cambio Climático. Otro argumento de Canacero según el periódico Excelsior, es el siguiente:

“Octavio Rangel, director de Canacero, se defiende diciendo que ellos no buscan ser contaminantes, sino por el contrario, quieren no tener camisas de fuerza legales que les afecte. Y pide voltear a ver la CFE y Pemex que contaminan todavía más.”

Futuro incierto

Ahora la Cámara de Diputados analizará la Ley General de Cambio Climático, la cual definirá el bienestar y el futuro de cientos de familias en nuestro país. Al final, no es solamente un asunto de política ambiental o rescatar ciertos ecosistemas, se trata de un asunto que salvará miles de vidas.

(Andrea Arzaba, Enero 2011)

Más información sobre la ley:

Exodoenlinea.com.mx
Eluniversaledomex.mx
Coparmex.org.mx
Jornada.unam.mx
Excelsior.com.mx

Even a month after the end of COP17, I remain uncertain about the role played by the New Zealand negotiators. Two quite opposite interpretations seem possible. On one hand, New Zealand’s actions could be interpreted as deliberately compromising the integrity of the negotiations for short-sighted national economic interests (Scenario A).  But, on the other, New Zealand’s negotiating stance could be interpreted as pragmatic attempts by a small State to bring about a deal that would bring in more of the key emitters (Scenario B).  In truth, I suspect that New Zealand’s negotiators fell somewhere in the middle, with both good intentions and bad (Scenario C).

Scenario A: New Zealand blocking negotiations for economic interests

The case against New Zealand appears, at first at least, stark and clear.  By the third day of COP17, rumours were spreading through the NGO community.  New Zealand was up to something bad.  Over the next 24 hours, in conversations with a number of negotiators, the New Zealand Youth Delegation learned that this reputation was not limited to the NGO community.  Kyoto Protocol Negotiators called New Zealand “problematic for a thousand reasons”, “pushing negotiations to the lowest level of cooperation and the lowest level of ambition” and “totally ridiculous”.  Further, one stated:

New Zealand is taking deliberately inconsistent stances on a number of issues, which makes it difficult to reach consensus on anything.

A new round of rumours spread fast through the NGO community.  Many other off the record remarks were quoted and requoted (and perhaps misquoted).  For a lot of civil society present, the idea quickly became that New Zealand was doing something very bad, but no one could get truly precise details or confirmation on the record.  On the Friday, the Climate Action Network (CAN) found something specific and on the record, so New Zealand received its first Fossil of the Day placing, for proposing a flexible mechanism for forestry that would allow a State to sell carbon credits for one forest bilaterally over and over again.  Overall, New Zealand came third in the Colossal Fossil, showing that CAN, the largest civil society alliance, saw it extremely critically.  One of the two ministers announced to attend the Conference, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith, did not attend.  The other, International Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser, did not hold back when interviewed:

I didn’t come here to negotiate with 10 young New Zealanders. What they’ve unfortunately bought without realizing it is the whole drum beat on KP, KP, KP, as if somehow they don’t understand that a deal that locks in only 15% of emissions is actually an insult to New Zealand.

New Zealand’s environmentalist community didn’t pull any punches either, in the aftermath of COP17.  Generation Zero delivered coal to Mr Groser for Christmas.  Peter Hardstaff of the World Wildlife Fund announced that he would write to Tim Groser for an explanation of his actions at the negotiations, and stated:

“…New Zealand wants to change the rules so countries where emissions have gone up over the past decade will benefit, and countries that have managed to reduce their emissions will be penalised”…

“That’s not fair, and if that’s right it’s not making New Zealand look good in these talks.”

…

“What seems to be happening is our Government is doing all it can to change the rules in a way that will benefit New Zealand now,” …

“What’s good for New Zealand and this current government is not necessarily good for the planet and good for a global deal.”

Greenpeace too had New Zealand in its sights :

Whilst Greenpeace has accused the Government of siding with China, the United States and India instead of joining European and Pacific nations in calling for a stringent, legally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.

“They’re the ones who have actually watered down and resisted any real progress,” spokeswoman Bunny McDiarmid told ONE News.

Kennedy Graham, of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand fired his own salvoes:

The mirror on the wall has myriad images of idiocy.

Are we being catatonic here, stupid, devious, or simply dilatory? Either way, will the outcome be different?

Further:

New Zealand has been playing its part in this:

• We have been holding other Parties to ransom.
• We have demanded the excessive transfer of emissions units beyond 2012.
• We have opposed any binding obligations beyond this date.

The message we are sending to the world is this: do not let humanity’s greatest crisis get in the way of national opportunism – of making a quick, unsustainable, income.

This was the loudest narrative about New Zealand. At COP, I heard the same criticisms from people from small islands and people from Ireland.  To the NGO community, and many negotiators, Scenario A was the case: New Zealand put its immediate economic self-interest over the long-term needs of current and future generations.

Scenario B: New Zealand being a pragmatic and realistic player, negotiating in good faith

However, I am not convinced that the story is entirely one-sided.  Scenario B too has its benefits.  In Tim Groser’s words:

“New Zealand will be looking for progress towards a comprehensive global agreement with binding emission-reduction commitments. These commitments need to include all developed countries as well as advanced and major-emitting developing countries.

“Only a comprehensive agreement will make a real difference to climate change,” Mr Groser says.

Perhaps, in pushing down the ambition on both the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) tracks, New Zealand was taking a pragmatic stance.  Recognising that it played a small part in global emissions, New Zealand may have considered that the most important thing was to push for a form of second commitment period that could cover more than 15% of emissions.  New Zealand’s third place in the Colossal Fossil, perhaps, was not deserved, because it received repeated daily Fossil awards for very similar conduct in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.  And New Zealand’s negotiators refuted any suggestion of inconsistency in the AWG-KP strongly.   Perhaps, even, to New Zealand, the AWG-KP was the least important track: nice to have, but insufficient, and not necessary. That analysis would certainly fit with some informal remarks from a few New Zealand negotiators.  Kyoto, thus, became a bargaining chip.  In Tim Groser’s words:

“New Zealand can do a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, but we’re not going to be committed to that position until we can see how the other factors play out.”

A “Kyoto Plus” or KP+ is needed:

For the period 2013 – 2020, this would include Kyoto commitments from those countries willing to sign up for CMP2 (say, the EU, and other Kyoto-friendly countries such as Australia and New Zealand) “plus the mitigation commitments that China, the United States and other countries who stand outside Kyoto said they would do in Cancun, clarified and operationalised.”

And, in the AWG-LCA, New Zealand could have just been being totally pragmatic.  An agreement by 2020, to a diplomat, is a realistic timeframe.  Concerned to avoid a repeat of the failed Bali Road Map, New Zealand may have focused on setting a diplomatically realistic timetable.  The example of the Kyoto Protocol may have been instructive to them: Negotiated in 1997; made workable by the Marrakech Accords in 2001; and triggered into force in 2005, with notable States absent.  What point, it can be asked, in setting an urgent timetable and demanding an ambitious agreement, if it would take years to sort out afterwards anyway and important emitters probably wouldn’t even come on board?  To Tim Groser, a comprehensive deal, perhaps, would be better than a quick deal:

“In addition to that, what we need is … a roadmap, or a process, to negotiate a more coherent long-term deal which ends this mosaic of different bits into a single comprehensive treaty.”

Perhaps some of the NGO criticisms were mistaken, based on false rumours.  For example, I heard a rumour, on the lost Saturday of COP17, 10 December 2011, that Tim Groser had acted totally unreasonably the night before, demanding a comprehensive rewrite of the AWG-KP text.  But Mr Groser was, it transpires, chairing another session for most of that night, so would have had very little realistic chance to do so.  Perhaps I misunderstood the rumour.  Perhaps it was a Chinese whispers scenario.  Or, perhaps, the rumour was simply false, and Groser was doing his level best to hold another track of negotiations together under immense pressure.

Scenario C: Somewhere in the Middle?

The truth, I suspect, falls somewhere between scenarios A and B.  CAN was probably a bit too generous in awarding Fossils to New Zealand, but some of them were deserved.  Using the Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding agreement we have – as a bargaining chip is problematic at best.  Calling a second commitment period a “joke” for only covering 15% of emissions is overstating the case, given that the Annex 1 countries involved (and the US) bear the greatest historical responsibility for emissions, and arguably have the greatest capacity for mitigation.  Further, when numerous commentators – journalists, activists, and even negotiators – described the international youth climate movement as the hope of the Conference, dismissing our youth delegation abruptly and almost thoughtlessly shows much about Tim Groser’s apparent priorities.    Finally, according to those with much more expertise than I, New Zealand’s agricultural and forestry positions were clearly examples of economic self-interest.

The Subjective Truth in Negotiations

However, whether Scenario A or B is true – or, whether as is more probable, the truth lies with Scenario C, somewhere in the middle – the subjective truth, in the minds of many negotiators and civil society representatives, was Scenario A, and in negotiations, that can be as important as the objective truth.  For any one party or observer in a negotiation, subjectivity is truth.  NGOs and States act on what they perceive, and the perception of New Zealand – justified or not – was far from clean.

Let me take this a step back and break it down with analogies from my professional life as a litigation lawyer.  The ideal settlement negotiation is win-win, where both parties get what they want.  That, however, is not always a possibility.  Take, for example, an insurance settlement.  The insured wants to be paid more.  The insurer wants to pay less.  There are rare chances for a mutual win.  So, as the advocate for one party, the ideal outcome is win-lose in your favour – but you don’t want the other side to know that!  You want them to think they won too, especially if your client and their client have an ongoing business relationship.  You don’t want the other guy to think that you ripped him off.  That will make any future dealings harder.

This is possible, because in a negotiation, parties have imperfect information.  Generally, you want to give the other party false perceptions about your interests and bottom lines.  You want them to think that things that do matter to you don’t, and things that don’t matter, do.  That way, you can trade unimportant bargaining chips for important advances, with the other party thinking that they have won a major concession (when they haven’t).

So, in a commercial negotiation, there are three realities.  There’s the objective reality, that you don’t know.  Then there is the subjective reality that you perceive, based on your knowledge of your position and your interpretation of the signals given by the other party.  And, finally, there is the other party’s subjective reality.  In all probability, of course, you are both trying to distort the other party’s subjective reality.  But, to you, your subjective interpretation is truth.  You may have some doubt, but it is what you know and perceive – and what you act on.

In negotiation, subjectivity is truth.  No party has complete information.  Each party has a different subjective reality that determines what he or she  does. The outcome of a negotiation is determined less by the objective reality of the situation than by the competing subjective realities of the parties.

This, perhaps, explains the vast gap between climate science and climate negotiations.  Climate science is a matter of objective reality.  Climate negotiations are a matter of subjective reality.  The subjective reality experienced by most of the negotiators is not that of the science, or the effects of climate change, but the diplomatic process.  It’s what they know.

Quite simply, though: Whether or not a country objectively does good or bad, in negotiations and diplomacy, the perception is just as important.

Scenarios A, B, and C: Communication Failure Throughout

Whatever the actual fact of the matter, I suggest that New Zealand’s negotiators fundamentally failed in communication at COP.  If scenarios B or C are true, other negotiators weren’t telling that to civil society.  If you look above, you’ll see far more links for Scenario A than Scenario B.  Most of the coverage I’ve seen of New Zealand at COP17 slams us as the bad guy.  If scenario A is true, the negotiators simply failed to hide it.  They played a win-lose game and let people see it, in a forum where a win-win should have been the goal (and the appearance of a win-win was definitely possibly).  If Scenario B or C is true, then New Zealand was doing good stuff – but fundamentally failed to communicate it to a lot of negotiators and civil society representatives present.

This may have consequences for New Zealand in future, diplomatically and otherwise.  New Zealand’s legacy from Cancun, from what I can tell, was not bad (though many in the NGO community do remember the country being on the side of the loopholes for forestry).  To quote Idealog:

In the closing days of the last UNFCCC Conference in Cancun, Groser played a significant role at the request of the Mexican presidency, working through the night guiding parties to a landing on the contentious matter of measuring and verifying countries’ emissions reductions commitments. There may well be call for Groser’s diplomatic prowess – and multiple cups of Tanzania’s finest – in the final stretch of COP17.

Because of the closed-door nature of the frequent Ministerial Indaba and other meetings over the last days of COP17,  I do not know whether Tim Groser used his diplomatic process similarly at COP17.  But, even if he did, that won’t be how New Zealand is remembered at COP17.  Tim Groser will be remembered by many for calling the Kyoto Protocol an insult – even thought that’s not quite what he said.   That matters.  That will determine how other negotiators deal with New Zealand at the intersessionals and at Qatar.  That will inform NGO messaging and campaigning.  New Zealand can expect more attention from international NGOs at future COPs.  Finally, New Zealand’s image, justified or not, may even affect New Zealand’s tourism, putting another chink in the country’s “100% pure” brand.

New Zealand’s negotiators are very good at their jobs.  They are experienced and skilled.  But, at COP17, they slipped up on their external messaging.  In truth, I suspect that scenario C is true.  New Zealand did some good and some ill.  But the subjective truth that many negotiators will take away COP17 is scenario A.  They will remember New Zealand for playing hard-ball and focusing on its economic interests at the expense of wider interests.

Qu’attendre de 2012?

On ne peut nier que 2012 se présente déjà comme une année particulièrement intense en termes de négociations environnementales… Au cours des six prochains mois, le processus menant à la Conférence Rio +20 va s’accélérer progressivement, avec une augmentation de la fréquence des réunions informelles et autres sessions de négociation.

Dans la période qui précédera la conférence de Rio, les négociations climat seront également le cadre de la session intersessionnelle la plus intense jamais organisée dans ce processus (du moins en termes de nombre de groupes se réunissant en parallèle). Pendant deux semaines à la fin de printemps, la communauté climatique se réunira à Bonn, avec 5 grandes instances de négociation travaillant de manière simultanée (pour les lecteurs adeptes d’abréviations, la réunion rassemblera Juin les sessions de travail de l’OSMŒ, de l’OSCST, du AWG-KP, du AWG-LCA et du petit nouveau, le AWG-DPEA – Groupe de travail sur la plate-forme de Durban pour une action renforcée).

Parmi les tâches énormes attendant les négociateurs (! Lien intra), on peut déjà anticiper des discussions particulièrement compliquées sur les trois éléments suivants: le lancement d’un cycle de négociations renouvelé vers un accord post-Kyoto, l’adoption d’une deuxième période d’engagement sous le Protocole de Kyoto, et l’ouverture d’une réflexion sérieuse sur les moyens permettant de renflouer le Fonds vert pour le climat.

Alors que les négociateurs ont beaucoup de pain sur la planche, à qui font-ils confiance pour diriger cette cuisine-climatique?

L’importance du rôle des officiels présidant les négociations a été démontrée au cours des dernières années: alors que la présidence danoise a été blâmé à juste titre pour son manque de compétence lors de l’échec retentissant de la conférence de Copenhague, le rôle positif joué par la présidence mexicaine à été reconnue de manière quasi-unanime comme ayant été l’une des clefs ayant permit des avancées inespérées à Cancun.

Cette année, les membres d’un des blocs de négociation semblent avoir été particulièrement bien lotis en ce qui concerne la répartition des postes clefs dans les négociations… On s’attendrait à ce que la communauté internationale, réalisant l’urgence et l’iniquité de la crise climatique, ait décidé de donner un rôle plus important à ceux parlant au nom des petites états insulaires menacés par l’élévation du niveau de la mer, ou peut-être aux délégués de l’Afrique sub-saharienne, déjà touchée par des perturbations climatiques aux conséquences dramatiques pour les populations locales.

J’ai peur cependant que le leadership ait pris malgré tout cette année une direction bien différente. Le Qatar a tout d’abord été choisi pour accueillir la conférence annuelle sur le climat cette année (CdP18) et présider ainsi les négociations pendant douze mois. Le Qatar, un membre de l’OPEP – le club des exportateurs de pétrole – est responsable du niveau le plus élevé d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre par habitant (lien!). Chaque année et par habitant, le Qatar met dans l’atmosphère autant de gaz nocifs que trois américains (pas tout à fait un exemple lui-même), ou 10 fois plus que la moyenne mondiale.

Comme présidente de la CdP, le Qatar va pouvoir compter sur le soutien et le leadership des présidents d’autres instances, et plus particulièrement sur les compétences et l’engagement du président de l’AWG-LCA (l’organe de négociation portant sur certains des principaux enjeux à venir). On peut être sûr déjà que le Qatar bénéficiera dans ce contexte d’une position confortable puisqu’un diplomate de l’Arabie Saoudite – la bête noire des ONGs environnementales – a été choisi pour ce poste stratégique.

Cet improbable présidence en duo est susceptible de trouver une autre oreille attentive auprès du Groupe 77-Chine (représentant pas moins de 131 pays). En effet, le pays présidant le groupe cette année n’est autre que l’Algérie, membre de l’OPEP elle aussi. Elle occupera donc cette année une position importante qui n’est pas seulement pertinente dans le cadre des négociations climatiques, mais aussi au sein du processus qui conduira vers la conférence de Rio +20.

Et si l’on avait besoin d’une cerise sur le gâteau, on peut aussi remarquer que la président actuelle du Groupe de l’Asie dans les négociations sur le climat n’est autre que … l’Arabie saoudite. Être le président d’un groupe régional donne certaines compétences permettant ainsi une capacité de nuisance non négligeable, pour peu que le pays en question décide d’utiliser cette position d’une manière obstructive. Cette position pourrait cependant changer bientôt.

Le processus climatique – une réhabilitation menée par les concessionnaires en chef?

Submergé par tant d’indices concordant, surgit alors l’ombre d’un doute. Les négociateurs sur le climat ont-ils complètement abandonnés tout espoir de progrès substantiels dans ces négociations au cours des douze mois à venir? S’en remettent-ils pour diriger notre cure de désintoxication aux énergies fossiles à ceux qui profitent de notre dépendance? Ou s’agit-il juste d’une mauvaise farce? Dans ce cas messieurs dames, pourquoi ne pas pousser le plaisir jusqu’au bout: je suggère la nomination du Canada pour présider les discussions sur l’avenir du Protocole de Kyoto, alors que le pays est le seul à avoir poussé le vice jusqu’à ce retirer de cet accord.

En ce début d’année, essayons donc de maintenir un peu d’espoir et ainsi conserver un certain optimisme. Nous pouvons encore espérer que cette position va mettre plus de lumière sur les agissements des membres de l’OPEP, exposant ainsi leurs manœuvres, leur offrant une réelle motivation de ne pas faire capoter les négociations climatiques. Ou peut-être que ces positions de choix permettront au pays exportateurs de pétrole se rendre compte que leurs ressources n’ont pas d’avenir prometteur sur le long terme, et que leur avenir repose plutôt sur l’anticipation de la transition vers de nouvelles sources d’énergie. Mais cela, je le crains, n’est guère plus qu’un vœu pieux.

Photos: Sébastien Duyck, Marc Aert / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

What to expect from 2012?

There is no denying that 2012 already hold many promises as a particularly intense year in terms of earth negotiations. During the next six months, the process leading to the Rio+20 conference will accelerate, with an increasing amount of informal meetings and negotiating sessions.

In the run-up to Rio, the UNFCCC will also host its most intense intersessional session ever (in terms of the number of bodies meeting at the same time). During two weeks in late spring, the climate negotiations community will meet in Bonn, with 5 major negotiating tracks and subsidiary bodies meeting at the same time (for those addicted to acronyms, the June meeting will gather sessions of the SBI, the SBSTA, the AWG-KP, the AWG-LCA and the newly created AWG-DPEA – Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action).

Among the daunting tasks awaiting the negotiators, one can already foresee as particularly challenging the following three elements: the launch of a renewed negotiating round towards a post-Kyoto agreement, the adoption of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and the opening of serious thinking on how to fill in the Green Climate Fund.

With negotiators having some much on their plate, who are they trusting to lead the cuisine?

The importance for the success of the negotiations of the presiding officers has been demonstrated over the past years: while the Danish leadership was blamed unanimously for the failure of the Copenhagen 15, the positive role played by the Mexican presidency in the lead to the unexpected progresses achieved in Cancun was almost as unanimously acknowledged.

This year, one negotiating block seems to have been particularly successful at securing leadership positions in the negotiations for its members… You would expect that, realizing the urgency and inequity aspects of the climate crises, the international community has decided to give a stronger role to those speaking on behalf of the small islands threatened by sea level rise, or perhaps to Sub-Saharan countries already affected by an increasing severe climate.

I am afraid however that leadership has however taken this year a whole different direction. Qatar has been selected to host the upcoming COP18 and preside the negotiations for twelve months. Qatar, a member of the OPEC – the club of oil exporters – has the highest emissions of greenhouse gases per capita in the world. Each year and on a per capita basis, Qatar puts into the atmosphere as much as three times the emissions of the average US citizen (not quite an example him/herself), or 10 times as much as the world’s average.

As COP president, Qatar will build on the support and leadership of other presiding officers, and more particularly on the skills and commitment of the chair of the AWG-LCA (the negotiating body looking into some of the key upcoming issues). One can be sure already that Qatar will indeed find there a comfortable support as a gentleman from Saudi Arabia – the bugbear of the environmental NGOs – has been chosen for this strategic post.

This unlikely presiding duo is likely to find a receptive ear among the G77-China (representing no less than 131 countries), as the country chairing the group this year is a third OPEC member: Algeria, thus now occupying a position that is not only relevant to the climate negotiations but also to the Rio+20 process.

If one needed icing on the cake, we could also note that the current chair of the Asia Group in the climate talks is no other than… Saudi Arabia. Being the chair of a regional group comes with competences enabling a certain amount of nuisance capacity, would the country decide to utilize its position in a way as to obstruct progress. This later position might hopefully still change soon.

The climate process – a rehabilitation led by the chief dealers?

I am left with a question to the climate negotiators: have you completely given up on achieving anything substantial in these negotiations this year? Or would you rather expect those profiting from our current dependency to fossil fuels to lead us away from this dangerous addiction? Or is this just a practical joke? If so, why not push the fun till the end: I suggest nominating Canada to chair the discussions on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, while the country is the only one having withdrawn from this agreement.

Well, in a desperate attempt to see some positive light in the beginning of the year and to retain some optimism, we can still hope that this position will put the OPEC members under more public scrutiny so that they would not dare to scupper the climate negotiations. Or perhaps that these leading positions will enable the oil exporters to realize that their resources have no promising future and they would rather benefit from the anticipation of the transition to new sources of energy. But this, I am afraid, is wishful thinking.

Images: Sébastien Duyck,

Marc Aert / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It been a little more than a month since I left Durban with some disappointment. After the festive season, I come back wit a lot of hope, patience and holiday fat.  Between then and now, I have read a lot of Durban analysis and what we look forward to between one D to the other D. There have been analysis of winner’s and loser’s at the COP. I would like to begin by nominating my own winners and losers and try and make sense of what we are going with to the Bonn talks.

The European Union, has always been a leader in the arena. It had come with a clear mandate that it would not commit to a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol until the emerging economies agree on deciding an architecture that would include them in a binding agreement. One thing we need to remember is , most European countries had their legal domestic reduction targets. With or without being a party to the Kyoto they would reduce their emissions. In spite this knowledge, Brazil, China and South Africa agreed to discuss a new framework that would expect them to reduce emissions from 2020.  But, by this strategy, EU clearly got the Alliance Of Small Island States and Least Developed Countries on their side. The vulnerable nations have often been vocal about the need for the emerging economies to act and not just voluntarily. Hence, EU and AOSIS,LDC were clear winners.

United States was trumped a couple of times during the negotiations. While people feel, it had got its way again, I beg to differ slightly in this regards. A young activist intervened Mr. Stern’s, the Special Envoy for Climate Change , speech. People applauded. The audience (non-negotiators) of the COP 17 passively showed their disdain with the United States. There was a massive protest by the environmental groups and youth groups demanding “Action Now!”. The activists , actively echoed the sentiment inside the hall to the outside world. Of course, this has been happening COP after COP. Nobody supports the United States but the action has to go beyond protests and showing non agreement. Everybody knows the US has been a traditional blocker. Give or take, US has or will never agree to do what we want from it. The only option is to not let it get what it wants us to do and that is it postpone progressive climate talks towards a deal that would keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees or less.

In its present form, the Ad Hoc Working Group- Long Term Co-operative Action (AWG-LCA) document leads us to a 4-4.5 degrees Celsius rise in temperature. This could and will be catastrophic. Everybody knows it, but the EU, AOSIS, LDC, BASIC countries accept it.  The United States has been pushing that the work of this working group was over and it needed to close down. The talks looked towards a complete disintegration especially during the equity-emerging commitment debate. But, it was eventually resolved and the LCA managed to live for another year. The United States definitely lost here. Was it an EU strategy or a mere co-incidence, that is hard to tell.

The media claims, India lost the plot. India has always used its internal social status and developing card to resist being included in any kind of legal domestic cuts. This COP was no different. What happened was, India being portrayed as the bad guy – the blocker of the talks. As pressure build on, miraculously India gave in to agreeing to a decision that would launch talks on a new legal instrument with a legal force under the convention.  But, the vital question was did India lose out on equity, which it called the blank cheque for 1.2 billion of its citizen? The clue maybe in the extension of AWG-LCA which continues its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to 1/CP.13 OR the Bali Action Plan, in whose heart lies Equity. Was India really the loser?

While we discuss, it would be interesting to see what the AWG-DPEA (Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) and AWG-LCA has in store for us at Bonn. Will Equity and legal reduction for all run parallel or Will Legal reduction run over Equity. All eyes are on this as the plot thickens.

Japan And Russia which had refused to be party to the second commitment period because large enough emissions weren’t being covered under it will ave to either come up with a new reason for inactivity or welcome the positive movement DPEA has made on an all-inclusive climate deal.

On 28 February, 2012 when UNFCCC holds a in-session workshop where countries can propose ways of increasing ambition and further ambition, these issues are bound to come up. And, things might be a little clearer. I hope to retain the hope and patience but not the holiday weight till now and Bonn.

Ya nos bombardearon con películas hollywoodenses del fin del mundo, con interpretaciones baratas de las profecías mayas, con enunciaciones esotéricas sobre el fin de la humanidad y con best sellers en donde se afirma que, según los mayas, el 21 de diciembre de este año, “la humanidad va a llegar a su fin”.

Buenos mis queridos lectores, lamento decepcionar a algunos de ustedes al unirme y coincidir con aquellos seguidores de las tan sonadas “predicciones”, ya que los siguientes ecosistemas estan en peligro de extinción.

Les presento algunos casos en México que corren riesgo de ser destruidos si continuamos afectando a nuestra madre tierra de la manera en la que lo hacemos hoy en día:

CABO PULMO

La empresa española Hansa Urbana quiere construir en Baja California Sur un enorme proyecto turístico que se llama Cabo Cortés, por lo que el parque nacional Cabo Pulmo es una zona amenazada a desaparecer.

Sometida a fuertes presiones debido a este desarrollo inmobiliario, las organizaciones civiles y personas en todo México, y en el mundo entero, hoy luchan por preservar uno de los ecosistemas marinos más diversos internacionalmente.

“Si Cabo Cortés sigue adelante, este maravilloso santuario puede verse gravemente dañado. La empresa ha obtenido los permisos para construir, pese a que el proyecto violaría varias leyes nacionales e internacionales, y aunque autoridades relevantes consideraron que no debía seguir adelante.” – Greenpeace

La diversidad en Cabo Pulmo se encuentra amenazada / Fotografía: cabopulmo.com

MARIPOSAS MONARCAS

Miles de mariposas monarcas mueren año tras año a causa del frío. Para estos resistentes insectos, que emigran desde Canadá, hoy es difícil sobrevivir ya que la falta de árboles en los bosques a donde llegan, como los de Michoacán o Valle de Bravo, permite la penetración del frío con una mayor fuerza. Y esto sucede ya que hay una tala de árboles desmesurada en la región.

Las mariposas monarcas en México mueren, principalmente, por la tala de árboles en sus reservas y bosques/Fotografía: vanguardia.com.mx

“A esos permisos de tala legalizada en terrenos protegidos hay que sumar la tala clandestina, ejercida todos los días en todos los rincones del país. Se estima que 50 por ciento de la madera en el país proviene de la tala ilegal. Por el motivo que sea, se deforestan cada año alrededor de 700 mil hectáreas, y por lo menos 367 áreas boscosas y selváticas en 23 estados están a punto de perder sus recursos forestales.” – Hiperactivos.com

“…la tala ilegal es uno de los principales problemas que ponen en riesgo el mantenimiento de la biósfera, ya que la deforestación destruye los microclimas que generan las condiciones esenciales para recibir a las miles de millones de mariposas que llegan de Estados Unidos y Canadá.” - CNNMéxico

WIRIKUTA

Proyecto minero con permiso de operar en 6 mil hectáreas del Wirikuta (sitio sagrado de la etnía huichol), en la Sierra de Catorce, San Luis Potosí. Este atenta a la destrucción del ecosistema de uno de los altares de mayor importancia de peregrinaje.

Wirikuta constituye una zona megadiversa de México, y desde 1999 forma parte de la red de los 14 sitios sagrados más importantes del mundo, por parte de la UNESCO. Además de la destrucción del ecosistema, la utilización de cianuro y otros componentes tóxicos, por parte de las mineras canadienses, daña gravemente para la fauna y flora presente en la región.

Wirikuta amenazado por mineras canadienses / Fotografía: elcerebrohabla.com

“Y vaya que la Comisión Nacional del Agua ya advirtió al presidente Calderón y  su gabinete el peligro inminente de que la minera, por su tipo de explotación a cielo abierto para sacar oro, dejará en muy poco tiempo sin agua a toda la región, pues utiliza 100 millones de litros de agua al día; además de dañar una comarca denominada por el propio gobierno calderonista como Reserva y Zona de amortiguamiento para uso tradicional.” – Lydia Cacho, sinembargo.com.mx

No creo que estuvieran de acuerdo que en La Villa se hiciera una gasolinera, algo que va a alterar el santuario. De ese tamaño es el problema. Incluso más fuerte. Porque allí están las energías, no sólo para nuestro pueblo, sino para todo el planeta. – La Jornada

¿Ustedes conocen algún sitio amenazado a desaparecer, el cual no esta mencionado en la lista?

Quizás después de haber leído este texto ustedes se unan también a los creyentes de que estos “mundos” corren el riesgo de ser destruidos en este 2012, si no se aplican las leyes ambientales, y sus correspondiente sanciones, de manera adecuada y congruente.

(Andrea Arzaba, enero 2012)

Indeed, libertarians (of the self-serving strain) are continuing to decry environmental standards and policies for their draconian and liberty-restricting nature (and sometimes in the most illogical ways). However, contrary to many unfounded and contradictory pseudo-libertarian claims that are being thrown around, we must not forget that no sensible or fair libertarian policy should allow us to infringe on the liberty of others or harm them through allowing us to degrade the environment on which they depend. Our liberty is (or should be) restricted by the liberty of others. As such we must not lose sight that the green economy is not a disposable luxury we can return to at a later stage. If the green economy is not viable, then the economy itself is not viable, in which case, in the words of Andrew Simms, “bye-bye us”. As Faith Briol the chief economist of the International Energy Agency points out, “delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent to compensate for the increased emissions.” Of course, the additional $4.30 won’t be spread out equally across the globe nor across the generational divide and will most likely affect places like Niger and Somalia the most, even more than they currently are. As such civil society must use whatever resolutions were passed, as weak as they may be, to push for the development of a greener economy, and more than that push for better policies in the future.

So what can we do? My friend and fellow tracker from Pakistan, Farrukh Zaman lays out some of the possibilities for the international climate change regime here, which is well worth a read. Manish Bapna and Vinod Thomas also give us some great ideas which are good for both the economy and the environment. Indeed there is much to do on both the international and national scene that is good for both the environment and economy. In South Africa, however, it seems that the environment and the economy will resume their politically perceived position at loggerheads with each other, despite some of our most marvellous environmental rhetoric during COP 17. Already Eskom our major power producer is warning of rolling power blackouts across the country, and our major ‘solutions’ to such a problem seem not to be coming from renewables but mostly from nuclear and the development of new highly controversial mega coal power plants which are from what the climate requires despite the reassurances of the South African Environmental Minister that these aren’t the same coal plants as the 1950’s for they will be using technologies such as carbon capture and storage (which is problematic in its own right, although not according to COP 17, which passed it as a legitimate form of clean development under the clean development mechanism).

In South Africa, as in many places, we are faced with an apparent energy dilemma: we have an expanding industrial economy, which we are fuelling with fossils, but green resolutions that are asking us to do otherwise. This is indeed a tricky dilemma as Faranaaz Parker’s balanced article on renewables suggests. This, however, is the time that we in South Africa need to see past this somewhat false dilemma. Yes, we cannot continue to fuel the current industrial economy without mega energy projects, but what are the products of our current economy such that it is so valuable? Top-down, unequal industrial development that benefits a few often at the expense of many. Is this really the economic product that we want? For the majority of South Africans (except for the symbolic 1%), I doubt it. We need to redefine our development paradigm to include more localised bottom-up development, which includes ecological considerations and health as important development indicators, for which renewable energies and less resource intensive development is more suited. We as a nation need to begin to question and rethink the development paradigm that has allowed us to become one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and resource intense economies in the world, but still allows for such great poverty and inequality, represented by growing urban sprawl with elite pockets of wealth surrounded by burgeoning squatter camps, coupled with environmentally insensitive and often degrading development. Indeed, the industrial development paradigm that we currently seem hell-bent on pursuing is failing throughout the Western world, and many of the reasons why it did originally work anyway was because of the West’s exploitation and exportation of negative impacts beyond their own borders. We don’t have access to the quite same (perverse) privilege so why emulate something that is not sustainable?

It is important for not only Africa to rethink it’s development trajectory, and indeed green policies, such as South Africa’s proposed carbon tax, as well as internationally binding treaties, are important in providing the framework within which to shift that trajectory. We must, however, ensure that the dialogue and action is not always focused on the national and international level and that we do not find ourselves in futile wait for action from above, when nothing is happening on the ground. After all there is no small amount of hypocrisy and irony in decrying the inability of government to solve climate change from the driver’s seat of an SUV, on your way back home from a job exploiting the environment to enjoy a steak dinner.  Although the (somewhat disappointing)  UNFCCC regime is important, it is also important to remember that it is local, domestic and individual actions that make up the global climate. After all “our complete world economy is built upon millions of small private acts of psychological surrender, the willingness of people to acquiesce in playing their assigned parts as cogs in the great [and in our case often destructive] social machine” as Thedore Roszak so elegantly points out.

As such while not losing focus on the national and international scene it’s time, I feel, to knuckle back down and focus on the local. For, to quote a friend, what we need now are doers not dialoguers (although judging by this article I clearly think dialogue is important too). We cannot make the environment and the climate something we pay homage and attention to for two weeks every year at COP, or endlessly through our words,  rather the climate and our environment must become incorporated into our very way of being, for to do otherwise is to blind ourselves to the context of our existence and in doing so to infringe on the freedoms and rights of so many others who will be negatively affected by our actions and inactions, including both current and future generations of human and non-human species. This may be a lot easier said than done, but even in the often gloomy outlook cast over the globe there is an endless realm of positive possibilities to make a difference. Here are just 12 to get you started.

Doha, Qatar

As the dust finally settled down after the chaotic end to COP17 in Durban, South Africa last month, it was only normal to welcome perspectives from both sides of the spectrum. On one corner, we have supporters of the Durban package who see it as a ‘historic landmark’ deal that has set the future course of climate regime, therefore a success. On the other end, we have critics according to whom Durban represents a complete U-turn from Rio principles of historical responsibility ‘based on common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC)’, hence a failure. Many other opinions exist in between too. But one thing which everyone seems to agree on is that the Durban outcome is largely insufficient to prevent the two degree Celsius temperature rise of the planet, which the scientists say is the maximum limit. It also hints to a stringent reality of how politically difficult it is to reach a comprehensive global agreement even in the times of catastrophic climatic events.

Yes, Durban outcome is not credible, or perfect. It is also true that many important issues are left to stand as they happen to be and decision is still pending on them. Moreover, the burden of major emitters has also been shifted onto developing countries, which is against the principles of equity and CBDR. But to label the Durban outcome as a complete failure is not coherent– there are opportunities in it too that can bring us closer to a political or technological solution. Of course, Durban outcome has also given rise to many challenges, and this year we will see some heated action in climate talks to address these until their climax scheduled to happen at COP18 in Doha, Qatar by the end of the year. Here’s a brief look at what opportunities and challenges are in store this year for the international climate regime:

Opportunities

The good news is that many important developments have occurred since past year, which gives us hope that progress can be made in international negotiations on climate change, no matter how slow and incremental. New institutions have been created, some outstanding issues have been resolved, and new ideas have emerged to tackle climate change.

Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (DPEA)

The establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG-DPEA) is considered to be one of the major outcomes of COP17. It has been given the mandate to ‘develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all parties’ to be adopted by 2015 and implemented by 2020. This means that this year, negotiations will happen in an additional track to plan and finalize work relating mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, transparency, and capacity building that will serve as the building blocks of the new treaty (hopefully).

Green Climate Fund

For the past three years, negotiators were talking about setting up a fund that could help developing countries adapt and mitigate to the impacts of climate change. In Durban last year, the decision to set up a Green Climate Fund was finalized. What remain to be seen this year is when exactly this Fund will become operational and how money will be mobilized for it.

2nd Commitment Period of Kyoto Protocol

There is now an agreement over a 2nd commitment period (2CP) of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which will take effective from January 2013 when its first commitment period expires this year. This is important since Kyoto Protocol is the only legal instrument we have to tackle climate change globally. Although it has some shortcomings, nonetheless, KP is crucial for the international climate order as it encompasses several important areas such as CDMs, LULUCF, emission reduction targets by Annex 1 countries, along with tools, policies, and measures to address climate change.

Rio+20

2012 will also host the Rio+20 Summit that aims to address the issues of significant importance such as poverty and development. The Summit will try to convene global political attention towards the need for policy interventions and institutional framework for the areas of environment and development, now known as sustainable development. It will ensure that the global development remains possible and permanent without undermining the ecological aspects of humanity. Moreover, the Summit will try to put a meaning to the already elusive terms such as ‘sustainable development’ and ‘Green Economy’, along with developing a global deal for it.

National and Sub-national Approaches

In response to great urgency to tackle climate change, many countries have started taking individual steps as per their respective capabilities to address climate issues locally. This is good since now climate change has started to garner interest from various segments. In Pakistan, for instance, officials are talking about establishing or reinstating institutions that can work on climate issues. There are even talks of working with political parties to incorporate ‘Green Agenda’ in their political manifestos, and to bring policies into force through legislative authority.

Challenges

Unfortunately, the bad news is that there are more challenges this year than the opportunities that exist. The issues have gotten more complex and there are various issues that are left pending, which need to be resolved in 2012.

Nature of 2CP of Kyoto Protocol

Even before the end of the first commitment period, Canada has withdrawn itself from the Kyoto Protocol last month. This has some serious implications for the 2CP of the KP as others might follow the suit and not sign to the 2CP. The other challenge lies with finalizing the decisions on proposed KP amendments that were only taken note of and not decided in Durban. These include specific targets for Annex 1 parties that are ambitious and quantifiable and timeline of the 2CP.

Legally Binding Treaty Post-KP?

An overarching challenge for future climate negotiations is to determine and define the actual nature of the global pact that will replace KP, and whether it will be legally binding. The decision on it will supposedly be blocked and/or delayed by the major emitters. In fact, the inclusion of the phrase “agreed outcome with legal force” is seen by many as a way to postpone talks on the legally binding nature of the prospective pact by the major emitters (US is rumoured to be the brain behind the term, supported by Brazil). All in all, it is unlikely that a decision regarding the issue will be finalized this year.

Outstanding Issues of the LCA

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) completed most of its work at COP17 in Durban. However, there are many issues that are still pending. This year, the AWG-LCA will work on finalizing issues pertaining to shared vision, long-term finance, mitigation, and review. The challenge is to see if the AWG-LCA completes its mandate before its conclusion at COP18 or if it gives rise to newer issues that require more time and discussions to be resolved.

Political Momentum

An important aspect of Durban is that it represents a breakthrough at least on the political level. For the first time, developed and developing countries both agreed to share the responsibility of controlling GHGs emissions to tackle global warming. But the challenge is to see how long and how far will this political momentum last. 2012 also being the elections year in many countries, including the US, EU, and Pakistan, will see a shift in policies relating climate change and the environment in these countries.

The question in everyone’s mind is whether 2012 will be any better for the international climate regime. Will we be able to resolve outstanding issues and move closer to our objective? Or will we just delay the things further and bear the costs of inaction? Whatever happens, let’s hope that we do something before the world ends in 2012.

Images from 2011: protesters against the Tar Sands Pipeline surround the White House

In December, Durban concluded on a decidedly mixed note, and has been heralded as everything from a thrilling breakthrough to a profound failure.  Durban does represent a breakthrough on the political level, in that governments of developed countries, including the EU and US, and emerging developing countries, including China and India, agreed to eventual legally binding emissions reductions.  This may represent a paradigm shift from the US’ position going into Durban, that developed countries need only sign on to voluntary pledges.  However, the Durban Platform states that countries will agree to a new legal treaty by 2015, which will come into force in 2020.  We already know that this is too late to avoid catastrophic and irreversible effects from climate change-2020 is simply too late.

Looking ahead, the news over the past few days has been a frenzy of coverage of the Republican Presidential primary election, through which the Republican Party will choose its candidate to run against President Obama in the 2012 presidential elections.  And frankly, the slate of candidates is depressing.  Grist published an article describing the current two frontrunners’ positions on climate policy, with the self-explanatory title “Santorum vs. Romney: The climate is screwed either way.”

Tar Sands protest at the White House

Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, used to at least acknowledge that climate change is a problem, even if his ideas for what to do about it weren’t particularly progressive.  Now, however, Romney claims that “my view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Rick Santorum is even worse.  A climate denier, Santorum has said that “there is no such thing as global warming,” and that climate change is “just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”

Sadly, President Obama may be better in words, but doesn’t have much to offer in practice.  The President who promised that his administration would “work tirelessly to… roll back the specter of a warming planet” in his 2009 inaugural address is now flip-flopping on whether the Keystone XL Pipeline, which NASA scientist James Hansen has called “game over for the planet,” should be built.

Syrian protesters; image by Flickr user Gwenaël Piaser

The need to take action to halt climate change became more apparent than ever in 2011.  And while many Americans feel that climate change doesn’t affect them personally, climate has become more inextricably woven in to American interests, from national security to American jobs and economic growth.  For example, the Climate Progress blog named food insecurity due to drought and extreme weather events the “climate story of the year” for 2011, concluding that “feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.”  In an  article in Foreign Affairs earlier this year,  Annia Ciezadlo made the connection between the Arab Spring and food security, saying that “change is sweeping through the Middle East today, but one thing remains the same: the region once known as the Fertile Crescent is now the world’s most dependent on imported grain. Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost half are Middle Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia.”

In 2012, climate change will confront us more urgently than ever, through links to increasingly common, seismic global events like the Arab Spring.  It’s time that US climate policy, international and domestic, reflects that reality.  2012 must be the year for climate progress.

Nadszedł nowy rok. A z nim zmiany.

Od dziś obowiązuje nowa dyrektywa unijna nakładająca na przewoźników lotniczych startujących lub lądujących w UE opłaty związane z europejskim systemem handlu emisjami gazów cieplarnianych. W skrócie znaczy to tyle, że podrożeją bilety lotnicze, gdyż pasażerowie będą musieli pokryć koszty poniesione przez linie związane z wykupieniem praw do emisji CO2. Zgodnie z wchodzącymi w życie zasadami, operatorzy lotniczy obsługujący loty z i do UE są zobowiązane do kupna w 2012 r. na unijnym rynku ok. 15 proc. pozwoleń na emisję dwutlenku węgla. Pozostałą część dostaną za darmo. Szacuje się, że zmiany będą rzędu 2-12 euro za przelot.

Sama zapowiedź wywołała wściekłość właścicieli linii lotniczych. Część z nich postanowiła wykorzystać możliwości zablokowania dyrektywy na drodze sądowej. Amerykańskie linie szukały sprawiedliwości w sądach brytyjskich, Algierczycy we francuskich. Sąd w Londynie skierował jednak sprawę do Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości (ETS), gdyż kwestia dotyczy prawa całej Wspólnoty.

Sąd w Luksemburgu odrzucił zarzuty jakoby unijne prawo łamało postanowienia Konwencji Chicagowskiej zabraniającej jednostronnego nakładania podatków lotniczych, argumentując, że Konwencja nie dotyczy UE, która nie jest sygnatariuszem porozumienia. ETS stwierdził, że nakaz posiadania uprawnień na emisję dwutlenku węgla nie narusza „zasady suwerenności państw trzecich”. W orzeczeniu wyjaśniono, że „statki powietrzne znajdują się fizycznie na terytorium jednego z państw członkowskich UE i podlegają zatem z tego tytułu pełnej jurysdykcji Unii”. Również samoloty, które jedynie przelatują przez Unię Europejską muszą wykupić odpowiednie certyfikaty (wyrok C-366/10). Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości przychylił się zatem zaleceniom prokurator generalnej Juliane Kokott z początku października.

Przeciwko wyrokowi protestują Amerykanie, którzy straszyli krokami odwetowymi. Mają poparcie Izby Reprezentantów i Senatu. Międzynarodowa Agencja Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ICAO) podkreśla, że jednostronne działania Unii oddalają nas od globalnego porozumienia w sprawie podatku lotniczego. Chiny podkreślają, że dyrektywa stanowi pogwałcenie Protokołu z Kioto, gdyż nie różnicuje przewoźników z poszczególnych krajów (bogatych i biednych) oraz ich celów emisyjnych.

ETS już po raz kolejny udowodnił, że jest sądem bardzo aktywnym i nie boi się podejmować kontrowersyjnych decyzji. Tym razem wsparł zdecydowanie pozycję Brukseli odnośnie polityki klimatycznej. I dobrze. Dzięki sędziom z Luksemburga Europa pokazała, że może narzucać lepsze standardy i dawać przykład reszcie mimo sprzeciwów i pogróżek potęg gospodarczych.

Trzeba podkreślić, że dyrektywa jest dzieckiem komisarz Connie Hedegaard, która walczyła o jej utrzymanie do samego końca. Tu wypada wspomnieć o kolejnej zmianie, która nastąpiła w dniu dzisiejszym. Warszawa przekazała prezydencję w Unii Europejskiej Kopenhadze. Od dziś przez najbliższe 6 miesięcy to Duńczycy będą nadawali ton całej Unii. Wiadomo, że sprawy środowiska naturalnego i kwestie zmian klimatu są dla nich kluczowe. Dania ma szansę dodać unijnej polityce klimatycznej nowej energii i determinacji. Już dziś musi zacząć walkę o to, by Platformę Durbańską wypełnić w 2012 r. jak najlepszą treścią.