With days left
for negotiators to compile a workable agreement to the ministers who will take
over the negotiation process next week, CAN representatives argued the need to
clarify specific language in the text of the COP 21 Paris climate
convention. They noted some optimistic developments
and progress, but also highlighted the gaps that exist between Parties that are
reflected in the multiple options still bracketed within the text.
Kaisa Kosomen of
Greenpeace articulated the need to revise specific sentences with stronger environmental
language. She spoke of implementing
exact language with regards to the long term goal in the agreement and how to
achieve it. Currently the long term goal
is set at a reduction in global temperature between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees
Celsius, but many Parties and observers are calling for reductions at 1.5 degrees
or lower.
Raman Mehta of
the Vasuhda Foundation spoke from the perspective of the developing countries,
arguing for needed developments in the areas of differentiation and finance. He noted that some Parties were disturbed by the
disregard for the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
(CBDR), which recognizes the historical and national circumstances of Parties.
He characterized some nations as arguing instead for a “symmetrical” model of
obligation and responsibilities.
Alex Doukas of
Oil Change International noted the persistent gap in climate change related
finance. Despite countries reluctance
and dialogue of their inability to find funds, Doukas argued that money being
used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry could be shifted to funding climate
action. This transfer would dually help
the mitigation of greenhouse gases, while also funding and supporting a shift
to renewable energy and adaptive technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment