Hotly Debated Non-Binding APEC Climate Statement Urges Voluntary Aspirational Goals On Emissions

[hatrack]

If participating countries want to adopt them, that is, and provided it won't hurt their economies or anything very, very bad like that.

EDIT

Drafted by experts of the 21-member Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the six-page text now goes for approval to APEC leaders meeting this weekend at a summit in Sydney. The source, a senior Southeast Asian official who was closely involved in the negotiations, said the statement urges nations to reduce energy intensity by 25 percent by 2030 but does not make an enforceable commitment.

"It is an aspirational goal, not a binding commitment," the source added. "Even though there is a numerical target, APEC is not a binding organisation." He also said the statement was "formulated in such a way that it does not prejudice" the UN process.

Australia had touted a tough statement on climate change, which would draw in emerging nations to make cuts in greenhouse gases, as a cornerstone of the gathering. But it triggered a fierce debate here, with emerging nations led by China saying they did not want to be bound by any commitments. They said all attention should be focused on a UN climate change conference in Bali in December, which aims to lay the groundwork for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions. "We cannot pre-judge the results of the Bali meeting," the official said. "The UNFCCC is like a Bible," referring to the UN meeting.

EDIT

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer had appeared downbeat earlier Friday as the "very difficult" negotiations went down to the wire. "If we can get a good declaration out of this, that would be a very great achievement. But I make no predictions about how those negotiations will go. We're still working at it," he said.

EDIT

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/070907122053.se8sbe4p.html

Thanks, Mr. Foreign Minister Downer. I'm just overwhelmed with the very greatness of this awesome achievement you've managed to accomplish in your non-binding aspirational cooperative non-binding way. :puke:

[PATRICK]

1. Voluntary aspirations

Does that meaning cutting back on CO2 emissions by holding our breath- even if only symbolically?

[phantom power]

2. You have to wonder why they're "hotly debating," since it's nonbinding.

I myself wouldn't waste much energy debating something I knew I could totally ignore. To say nothing of debating it "hotly."

"Me? I'm just here for the catered lunch and the air-miles."

[kestrel91316]

3. Has it occurred to any of these clowns that FAILING to decrease

GHG emissions might have just a TAD worse economic consequences than decreasing them would? Can any of them see beyond the ends of their teeny tiny noses???

[GliderGuider]

4. Hooray! We're saved!

:woohoo:

[XemaSab]

5. I don't get how there's still all that "hurting the economy" crap floating around

It seems like an intensive push to develop new technologies would HELP the economy.

Did the invention of the telephone hurt the economy? Did the invention of cars hurt the economy? Did the invention of the TV hurt the economy? Did the invention of computers hurt the economy? Did the invention of the internet hurt the economy?

So then why would the invention of pollution control technologies, carbon sequestration methods, and non-fossil-fuel-based power sources hurt the economy? :shrug:

[razzleberry]

6. nobody wants to pay for more climate laws.

what about that, don't people understand?

I suppose it could be argued,
that this-or-that climate law would not hurt the economy.

however, the certain individuals who get stuck with the bill,
do like it, and they vote accordingly.

the supposed benefit is spread over
a lot of indifferent people.

[Nihil]

9. That's why it has to be a "law" rather than a "voluntary contribution".

It doesn't matter if you *want* to pay it or not, you will still *have* to pay it.

Of course, to make it into a law requires politicians who are not corrupt
so there's FA chance of that then.

Rest easy Razzle, you aren't going to have to put your hand in your pocket
after all ... just keep going on in the American way ...
(i.e., "F*ck you, I don't care.")

[wordpix]

7. a typical King GeoW policy: voluntary programs that produce no change b/c

his crony corporate backers don't want any change, they want to keep mountain-top coal mining and making, selling and driving SUVs and other gas guzzlers, etc.

[hatrack]

10. Total reduction of all GHGs claimed by the Energy Star program in 2006 - 37 million tons

Total global anthropogenic CO2 productoin in 2006 - approximately 31 billion tons.

Gots to luuuuuuuuuv those powerfully effective voluntary approaches, huh?

[struggle4progress]

8. Declaration a 'stunt'

September 9, 2007 - 2:10PM

Environmental experts dismissed an agreement from Asia-Pacific leaders setting "aspirational" goals on climate change as an empty gesture that may actually undermine efforts to halt global warming ...

<Greenpeace South-East Asia energy campaigner Abigail> Jabines accused US President George Bush and summit host Mr Howard of trying to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which both leaders have refused to ratify ...

"The main practical implication could be a delay in doing anything," <Professor Hugh Outhred, an energy specialist at the University of New South Wales> said. "They gain time, they are trying to do as little as possible." ...

Australian former diplomat Richard Broinowski dismissed Mr Howard's suggestion that this agreement drew in rich and poor nations for the first time ...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/apec/declaration-a-stunt/2007/09/09/1189276524682.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1