According to the CBC:
The draft texts being debated hinge on four key issues:
Emissions cuts: Industrialized nations are being pressured to cut back on emissions, while major developing nations like China and India are being asked to curb emission growth.
Financing: Richer nations are being asked to finance initiatives to help fight climate change in developing nations, but there is disagreement over how much climate aid should be given, and how it should be distributed.
Monitoring: The U.S. and developed nations are pushing for international verification of emissions actions by developing nations, but China, India and others are resisting any verification program.
Legal Form: Some nations want to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, while others — including the U.S. — would like a separate agreement that includes major developing nations.
Here is what I think about each one. The first concern is a given. We need to cut back as industrialized nations. Whereas developing nations should only curb because they have lower emissions per capita and have emitted far less over the last 200 years than the developed world.
As for the financing, I wouldn't know. It's too technical.
However, with the monitoring issue, it's clear to me what should happen. Of course there should be verification of emissions actions by developing nations. If this does not occur, these nations can claim actions while not doing anything, so that on paper it looks like emissions are cut, but in actual fact they are not. Furthermore, this allows emitters from developed countries where emissions are being cut to avoid restrictive policies and continue emitting in the developing world. This and further economic concerns would result from unverified emissions reductions actions.
As for the legal issue, it should be a new treaty that encompasses all the nations. It's simpler to do so than adding nations to the kyoto protocol. This would mean unnecessary complications with the structures of kyoto.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
- The case for Ignatieff's environmental policy
- The Potential Beginnings of a Full Blown Parliamen...
- Harper is redefining prorogation
- The Issues Copenhagen negotiations are hanging on
- Canadian detainee-transfer agreement releasing Tal...
- Where Andrew Coyne gets it wrong on the environmen...
- Was that clear substantive conclusive evidence Pet...
- Further Indication of Stephen Harper's Disconnect ...
- By following US, Prentice showing lack of leadersh...
- Why Ignatieff's Position on HST is Wrong
- ▼ December (10)