EU must break stalemate after Bangkok

As the UN climate talks finished in Bangkok today, it became apparent that very little progress had been made in addressing the most crucial issues to be solved in Copenhagen.

– The EU needs to break the deadlock by taking its own strong initiatives in the same way it did when the Kyoto Protocol was created. It is no longer an option to hide behind the US, who seems unable to make sufficient contributions, says Svante Axelsson, General Secretary of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

The clash between developing and industrialised nations appears to have solidified during the talks in Bangkok, largely because of the latter’s inability to propose a source of financing that guarantees funding for the technological shift in developing countries and provides the investments needed to cope with climate change.

– When we’re seeing the rules of engagement established by the Kyoto Protocol called into question, it’s clear that the conditions for negotiation have worsened dramatically, says Axelsson.

In a speech given by the Swedish negotiator Anders Turesson, it was suggested that the Kyoto Protocol should be scrapped in favour of a new treaty that would incorporate some of the Kyoto treaty’s most important elements.

– This has irritated the members of the so-called G77 group – the world’s poorest developing nations. The basic premise of the Kyoto Protocol is that the industrialised nations have caused these problems historically, and that they must be responsible for finding a solution, explains Emma Lindberg, an administrator in climate issues who attended parts of the talks in Bangkok.

The head of the UN climate talks challenged the EU and other industrialised nations to assume their long-promised responsibility for financing climate-friendly growth in developing countries, without which there can be no hope for significant progress.

– In October meetings between financial, environmental and governmental leaders, the EU has to send the positive signals of real leadership that the world needs. Only then will there be a chance of taking significant strides in the final weeks leading to Copenhagen. Anders Borg [the Swedish Minister of Finance] and his colleagues have the power to decide whether Copenhagen will be a success, says Axelsson.

Domestic politics in the US arose as one of the major obstacles to negotiations. The US Congress is currently so preoccupied with domestic issues such as health care reform that it remains unclear whether it will manage to discuss adequate proposals for combating climate change in time for the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The US must be involved in some way, of course. But the treaty will be somewhat toothless if it is to be based on a country that hasn’t been given full authority by the Senate to issue concrete proposals. The Kyoto Protocol is the only reliable international tool we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To completely scrap the treaty is not only at odds with the EU’s past position – it’s Russian roulette at the highest level, explains Axelsson.

There is, however, some good news. Japan has strengthened its offer, suggesting a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, while Norway has raised its figure to 40 per cent. Other progress was made in the field of new technologies.