The Guardian newspaper has obtained a leaked copy of a draft text of the political agreement that is likely to arrive at the end of the Copenhagen summit. This text is explicitly political and is likely to supplement the actual negotiating text. The paper reports:
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
However the draft text obtained by the Guardian is likely to have changed considerably since it was issued on the 27th of November. Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists described it as ‘a starting point document’ noting that on the 1st and 2nd of December Danish negotiators consulted with representatives of the developed and developing world in Copenhagen. ‘I assume they made pretty extensive revisions to that based on the comments they got and based on inputs from a variety of negotiating blocs’ he said. ‘What they (Denmark) put out early next week or whenever they decide to actually put it out to Ministers will probably be very different to what is on the Guardian website, but who knows, this is in Danish hands.’ With regard to the negotiating text rather than this political text he said ‘My understanding is that they want to make a whole series of decisions next week in the conference of the parties based on the negotiating text as well as this political text.’
Controversially the text contains passages that imply international measurement, reporting and verification of developing country actions and that developing country emissions must peak between now and 2050.
Chinese negotiator Su Wei told a press conference this evening that he hadn’t seen the proposal. He welcomed the idea of a global peak in emissions – presuming of course that developed countries did most of the work, but said that ‘it is too early to talk about a peak concentration year for developing countries.’ He noted that many people who live in developing countries still do not have access to electricity. He also rejected the notion of international measurement, reporting and verification of Chinese emissions.
参与讨论 COMMENTS
粗略看来(我还没仔细看文章), 这件事并没有像作者想的那么具有争议性。作者似乎太依赖资料来源了,而且不管是有意或者无意似乎您都有些歪曲它的观点.
无论公开还是私底下,对于这次会谈是否会成为京都协议的替代品的看法都是有争论的。(77国集团并没有以任何形式公开支持任何接替产物,而且仍赞成对京都协议进行延伸。) 从定义上看,这份协议不可能涵盖全世界所有的需求,但是它会触及那些过去被替代性框架方案所忽略的利益。
由于发展中国家庞大的人口规模,不少关于2050年达到排放峰值的说法就仍显偏颇。国家发展曲线如何影响个人,它往往然而很难预测国家发展曲线对个人造成的长期影响,而且对发达国家的人民来说难度更大,因此该让这些发达国家来“买单”。
From the looks of this article (and I haven't seen the text) it really isn't as contentious as the writer makes out and you seem to have been sucked in by your source. Either way you appear to be knowingly or unwittingly misrepresenting this position as a revelation.
Clear differences have emerged in public and have been clear in private over whether the aim of the negotiations should be a successor to Kyoto (G77 hasn't openly support a successor in any form and still favours extension of Kyoto). By definition this can't be the all encompassing agreement the world needs but extends certain benefits likely to be lost in various scenarios for successor framework.
By definition the various realistic emissions cap scenarios will be 2050 still prejudice developing countries in relative terms because of the projected size of their populations, however on projections of development curves an impact on individuals often doesn't even manifest itself in the long term, and is far more arduous for individuals in developed countries in the short term - hence making the developed world 'pay'.
我们建议你在评论后署名, 以便其他浏览者能更好地与你交流。你没有必要使用真名,但你的署名将会协助我们维护网站的信息交流畅通。
We suggest you add your name to your comments so that other readers can respond to you more easily. You don’t have to use your real name, but providing a name will help make communication clearer for other forum participants.
除非其他申明,本网站及其内容受知识共享组织的“署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎"2.0 英国:英格兰和威尔士协议和 2.5 中国大陆协议的保护。
Unless otherwise stated, this work is under Creative Commons' Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License and 2.5 China License.