Copenhagen climate summit held to ransom - Gordon Brown

[TomCADem]

Source: BBC

"We did not get an agreement on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80% reductions by developed countries.

"Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries."

The accord was reached between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, but is not legally binding.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the agreement must be made legally binding next year.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8423831.stm

---

The United Kingdom is blaming China for vetoing binding reductions.

[FarCenter]

1. The UK seem particularly miffed -- they wanted the cap and trade exchange for the City of London

Since their financial services based economy centered on London is doing so badly, they need a new product to broker and speculate on. Carbon emissionss credits, and the various derivatives and synthetic securities that they might conjure up, look like a good opportunity for British financiers.

[bertman]

2. I think you're right, FarCenter. I read a while back that this Cap and Trade idea would generate

the same kind of global speculative trading that we have seen out of control on Wall Street.

I'm going to use the "T" word and advocate for a flat out carbon TAX. If you produce it you have to pay out the nose. That's incentive to reduce carbon production.

[SOCALS]

3. This Cap and Trade

is a bonanza for Wall Street speculators and should be banished completely!

[WriteDown]

4. But how would you enforce a carbon tax on say....China...

Considering the trade deficit.

[pampango]

5. There's some kind of carbon trading going on there now.

"Copenhagen deal causes EU carbon price fall"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8425293.stm

"Carbon prices in Europe dropped to a six-month low after agreements made at the Copenhagen climate summit to cut emissions disappointed traders. The accord signed by the US, China and emerging major economies is weaker than a legally binding agreement. Because of this the European Union says it is not willing to raise its carbon cutting target to 30% by 2020.

The carbon market trades emissions under cap-and-trade schemes whereby emissions are limited and can then be traded.

Each state under the scheme gets an emissions allocation that it then divides among its worst emission-producing companies.

If it comes in under target, it can sell its excess allowance as carbon credits to other firms. If it comes in over target, it has to pay a penalty and then go to the market to buy credits to make up the difference. In early market trading, EU allowances for December 2010 delivery, dropped 8.7% to €12.40 a tonne. A deeper cut in emissions targets would have increased demand for these allowances, pushing up prices."

[Judi Lynn]

6. If you want to know who's to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate

If you want to know who's to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate
Obama's attempt to put China in the frame for failure had its origins in the absence of American campaign finance reform
George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 December 2009 20.00 GMT

~snip~
The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama.

The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal that outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation: either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown.

The British and US governments have blamed the Chinese government for the failure of the talks. It's true that the Chinese worked hard to mess them up, but Obama also put Beijing in an impossible position. He demanded concessions while offering nothing. He must have known the importance of not losing face in Chinese politics: his unilateral diplomacy amounted to a demand for self-abasement. My guess is that this was a calculated manoeuvre guaranteed to produce instransigence, whereupon China could be blamed for the outcome the US wanted.

Why would he do this? You have only to see the relief in Democratic circles to get your answer. Pushing a strong climate programme through the Senate, many of whose members are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the energy industry, would have been the political battle of his life. Yet again, the absence of effective campaign finance reform in the US makes global progress almost impossible.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests