Comments on: US Playing Spoilsport at International Climate Negotiations? http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/30/us-playing-spoilsport-at-international-climate-negotiations/ Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:35:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: US OK with National Mitigation Measures in International Climate Treaty : Red, Green, and Blue http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/30/us-playing-spoilsport-at-international-climate-negotiations/comment-page-1/#comment-74243 US OK with National Mitigation Measures in International Climate Treaty : Red, Green, and Blue Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:50 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3632#comment-74243 [...] the Bangkok round of negotiations the US and EU negotiators raised objections to the principles agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Climate Convention which said that [...] [...] the Bangkok round of negotiations the US and EU negotiators raised objections to the principles agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Climate Convention which said that [...]

]]> By: A Step Backward: Obama to push for scraping of Kyoto Principles as he meets Chinese Prez, Indian PM? : Red, Green, and Blue http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/30/us-playing-spoilsport-at-international-climate-negotiations/comment-page-1/#comment-73959 A Step Backward: Obama to push for scraping of Kyoto Principles as he meets Chinese Prez, Indian PM? : Red, Green, and Blue Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:34:43 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3632#comment-73959 [...] The developed countries’ bloc raised objections at the Bangkok talks to the principles of Kyoto Protocol and Bali Climate Convention according to which there would be clear distinction between the abilities of developed and [...] [...] The developed countries’ bloc raised objections at the Bangkok talks to the principles of Kyoto Protocol and Bali Climate Convention according to which there would be clear distinction between the abilities of developed and [...]

]]> By: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: Does his Climate Change Record Stand up to Scrutiny? : Red, Green, and Blue http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/30/us-playing-spoilsport-at-international-climate-negotiations/comment-page-1/#comment-70128 Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: Does his Climate Change Record Stand up to Scrutiny? : Red, Green, and Blue Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:33:25 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3632#comment-70128 [...] fact, recent American actions and position in international negotiations on climate change seem to belie the [...] [...] fact, recent American actions and position in international negotiations on climate change seem to belie the [...]

]]> By: Leda Smith http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/30/us-playing-spoilsport-at-international-climate-negotiations/comment-page-1/#comment-69647 Leda Smith Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:06:56 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3632#comment-69647 I'm afraid you should do a bit more research before publishing accusatory articles...The hold up was on whether some issues such as finance, capacity building are cross cutting issues that should be considered as a whole. Under the LCA there are two separate groups on mitigation (actions to reduce emissions) one for countries that have commitments (many developed countries), and another for countries that don't have commitments (developing countries). The US and others were simple proposing that there are some issues on reducing emissions that effect all parties who are trying to reduce emissions and that these are best addressed in one group (rather than duplicating efforts). So I'm afraid that the assertion that "the US threatened to stall negotiations until developing countries pledge equal emission reduction measures," is simply false. Neither country backed down, they just decided how they could move forward and address these issues without convening a new subgroup. I would highly advise you revise your post based on these facts. See the daily report of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin: "Parties then focused on how to consider proposals related to principles and frameworks for mitigation actions by all parties. The US, supported by AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, the EU, NORWAY and others, proposed creating a separate sub-group on proposals relating to common mitigation elements. INDIA and several others opposed, stressing that such proposals are inconsistent with the Convention as they would impose new requirements on developing countries. The US stressed it would be difficult to move forward on other issues without resolving this subject matter. COLOMBIA noted they could agree to the US proposal for a new sub-group but emphasized that the issue of support by developed countries should also be discussed in this context. COSTA RICA supported allocating some time for this discussion to help crystallize the work in other sub-groups and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION said a specific slot on mitigation actions by all countries could help to better understand intentions and aspirations of parties. BRAZIL said it is unclear why specific proposals should receive specific time slots and, for the G-77/CHINA, highlighted that no concepts incompatible with the BAP should be introduced. As a way forward, Chair Zammit Cutajar proposed discussing the proposals for the beginning of the mitigation section before discussions on sub-paragraphs 1(b)i and 1(b)ii of the BAP on Tuesday morning in informal consultations." I’m afraid you should do a bit more research before publishing accusatory articles…The hold up was on whether some issues such as finance, capacity building are cross cutting issues that should be considered as a whole. Under the LCA there are two separate groups on mitigation (actions to reduce emissions) one for countries that have commitments (many developed countries), and another for countries that don’t have commitments (developing countries). The US and others were simple proposing that there are some issues on reducing emissions that effect all parties who are trying to reduce emissions and that these are best addressed in one group (rather than duplicating efforts).

So I’m afraid that the assertion that “the US threatened to stall negotiations until developing countries pledge equal emission reduction measures,” is simply false.

Neither country backed down, they just decided how they could move forward and address these issues without convening a new subgroup. I would highly advise you revise your post based on these facts. See the daily report of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin:

“Parties then focused on how to consider proposals related to principles and frameworks for mitigation actions by all parties. The US, supported by AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, the EU, NORWAY and others, proposed creating a separate sub-group on proposals relating to common mitigation elements. INDIA and several others opposed, stressing that such proposals are inconsistent with the Convention as they would impose new requirements on developing countries. The US stressed it would be difficult to move forward on other issues without resolving this subject matter.

COLOMBIA noted they could agree to the US proposal for a new sub-group but emphasized that the issue of support by developed countries should also be discussed in this context. COSTA RICA supported allocating some time for this discussion to help crystallize the work in other sub-groups and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION said a specific slot on mitigation actions by all countries could help to better understand intentions and aspirations of parties. BRAZIL said it is unclear why specific proposals should receive specific time slots and, for the G-77/CHINA, highlighted that no concepts incompatible with the BAP should be introduced.

As a way forward, Chair Zammit Cutajar proposed discussing the proposals for the beginning of the mitigation section before discussions on sub-paragraphs 1(b)i and 1(b)ii of the BAP on Tuesday morning in informal consultations.”

]]>