Tag: Chile

Colossal Fossil for Australia’s New Government

This year’s Colossal Fossil goes to Australia. The new Australian Government has won its first major international award – the Colossal Fossil. The delegation came here with legislation in its back pocket to repeal the carbon price, failed to take independent advice to increase its carbon pollution reduction target and has been blocking progress in the loss and damage negotiations. Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi!

Canada is dishonored with a special Lifetime Unachievement Fossil Award for its long-standing efforts preventing this process from making a sufficient contribution to the fight against climate change. As long as Canada and the Harper Government puts their addiction to the tar sands first, Canada will continue to be a Fossil champion.

Canada’s record is in indeed unsurpassed – it is the only country in the world to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. And it did not event meet its pitifully lowered emissions reduction target announced in the lead-up to the Copenhagen COP. Canada’s stance is also rubbing off on other countries at the negotiations. Following Canada’s Kyoto “lead,” Japan abandoned its own 2020 target, and when Australia proposed to cut its carbon price, Canada cheered instead of staging an intervention. Canada you truly are a climate laggard... again... and again.

Singapore slinks to first Fossil for stingy stance on 2015 deal

The first place Fossil of the Day goes to Singapore for strongly opposing the inclusion of the clear elements of a roadmap to the comprehensive global climate action planned that needs to be agreed in 2015. The island city-state is blocking the development of framework to fairly divide climate action between countries. Furthermore, Singapore is promoting weak language in the text on the post-2020 carbon pollution reduction commitments, preventing national actions being integrated in a rules-based multilateral system. Despite being a member of AOSIS, Singapore is blocking progress towards the 2015 deal because of their unwillingness accept they must contribute to the solution.

Second place Fossil goes to U.S.A. We have been hearing that the Americans came here with a mandate to play a constructive role in the negotiations, which is not currently being reflected. They are blocking progress on a Long Term Finance pathway as well as an agreement on the relationship between the COP and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which are critical issues for developing countries. The U.S. is also being difficult around the establishment of an international mechanism on loss and damage, which was agreed at COP 18 last year. This is complete backtracking and a betrayal to the millions of poor and vulnerable people around the world.

Saudi Arabia wins the third place Fossil of the Day. Saudi Arabia wants to introduce the issue of “Response Measures” into the 2015 agreement. Response Measures is the about how countries like Saudi Arabia would be compensated for any loss in oil sales if the world decides to reduce the use of fossils fuels to solve climate change. It would be surprising to many to see Saudi Arabia asking governments for financial compensation when they have one the highest GDPs in the world for selling the substance that caused climate change in the first place. But Saudi Arabia is not interested in financial compensation. They just want to poison the negotiations. They are not fooling anybody.

Ray of the Day goes to Chile. The Alliance of Independent Latin American and Caribbean States (AILAC) has proven itself to be the gold standard in civil society engagement, moral integrity and simple logic by championing youth in the ADP and putting forward Intergenerational Equity. 

Region: 

CAN Intervention - LCA Sectoral Approaches Spin-Off Group - May 23, 2012

 


Thank you Mr. Chairman for the chance t
o speak on sectoral approaches and more specifically 
on addressing emissions from bunker fuels. I am speaking behalf of the Climate Action 
Network.
We would like to address the questions you have posed to this group.
On the first question: We find ourselves in the interesting position of agreeing with Canada, 
and also with Burkina Faso, Singapore and Chile on the special status of international 
transport. There has to be separate treatment of those inherently international sectors where 
emissions occur outside and between national boundaries. So it is likely not a useful exercise 
to spend more time and efforts to develop a framework covering all sectors, unless it is 
involves recognizing and starting from this distinction.
ON the second question, we welcome the willingness expressed by most parties to send a 
signal to IMO, but we note some differences in what that signal should be. We think 
international maritime transport and aviation should be seen as uniquely global sectors with 
shared and overlapping jurisdiction between UNFCCC and the specialized agencies IMO and 
ICAO. In this context, it is not useful to propose that the principals of one body taking 
precedence over another, but of finding arrangements that reflect the principals and 
customary practices of both bodies. Saying that the principals of one body should take 
precedence over another is a clear recipe for continued stalemate.
On the third question – we think it is extremely important to get a robust outcome from Doha. 
For bunker fuels we need a signal that recognizes and encourages the ongoing work of the 
IMO and ICAO, and gives them advice on a way forward that reconciles the principles and 
procedures of the different bodies, and notes that these sectors should contribute their fair 
share to global efforts and increased ambition. We understand that the best way to do this in 
the context of the current discussions in both bodies of global market based measures, is to 
pursue global measures consistent with the procedures of the IMO and ICAO, while addressing 
differentiation and the UNFCCC principles through the use of revenue generated. This revenue 
can be used to directly address impacts on developing countries from the measures 
themselves, and additional financing can be channeled to developing countries for climate 
actions through the Green Climate Fund, as well as for in-sector actions.
Thank you Chair
Topics: 
Region: 
Subscribe to Tag: Chile