Talk:Climate Negotiations soon to conclude in Bali; UN "concerned by the pace of things"

OR notes
I was in the press conferences (more or less randomly, I just wanted a rest and juice for my laptop...). 125.162.176.9 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. that was all four press conferences I added notes for below (in that order).

I was very intentionally at the 11pm non press briefing (having hoped to hear from the G77+China). Sean Heron 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Working notes
I'm afraid that I was so taken up with the EUs "shall we bother with the Major economies meeting?" (which amused me quite a bit), its gotten late here, and I don't see me adding much to this. I guess the state its in its hardly worth publishing though, and tomorrow theyll have probobly decided, so it wont be news. That being said I guess the article is dead. Ill have a quick check at VOA to see if they have something to flesh it out, and otherwise I guess its for the bin. 125.162.176.9 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC) both those were me... Sean Heron 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I (and the article), got lucky. I guess if anybody wanted to, they could try to mash this and the other climate conference article from today, as they are interrelated (see the VOA article, that also has some info that might be worked in), but I really need to head for bed now. Sean Heron 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yvo de Boer Press briefing thursday 12:30
concerned by the current pace of things

There was a meeting of ministers yesterday, which came up with three outstanding matters: They will discuss these issues in smaller groups and come together at 3 pm today to report again.
 * one, how progress can be made on the text regarding the future
 * secondly within that, how to formulate the level of ambition
 * thirdly a small group, looking at article 9 review

12 noon tomorrow, time is up. As things need to be translated and photocopied. And there are only limited capacities for photocopying so you need some time to put things out so that they can be distributed before they are adopted in the plenary. for checking

He has the feeling, because a number of matters have been brought to the high level meetings, and these matters are interconnected its an all or nothing situation, where no agreement on future action would lead to the whole house of cards falling together.

That are his concerns (he sounds and looks pretty tired) he´ll leave it to questions now.

Q: Draft of ? did you see. Seems to leave the 25-40% reduction targets for Annex I countries out ??
 * A: Im not laywer, Im a social scientist. I read para as adressing all parties. Refers to all. It one part talking about another. Parties to Kyoto (which does not include US), consider 25- 40% cuts for Annex B of Kyoto (which are all industrialized nations). Some people are uncomftorble with these numbers in there. US sees it as prejudgeing the outcome of the negotiations. Others, e.g. EU and G77+China want them in. If they stayed in, than more would be achieved than I expected. If not, its as much as I expected, but of course the agreement must be reached.

Q: related to former Question, Annex B. Became stronger, as asked US for future targeting.
 * A: If you write an article about this paragraph in this Article (of the draft-paper), people will not read it (laughter). Does not know if what he stated before is how it (the paragraph) is actually meant. The question is: Does the Bali process need to be guided by an emissions range, or are they only going to get what I had hoped for.

Q: G77 seems to worried, that taking commitments on future emmision cuts undermines current commitments. Is this a possible deal breaker?
 * A: As it is the Kyoto Protocol refers only to Industrialized nation. The Purpose of the dialoge is to deliver finace and technology for developing nations. If no decision is reached, then there will be no commitments on those either.
 * Based on convention. .... . If we dont manage to launch negotiations here. Then there is only formal discuss for commitments under the Kyoto protocol ?? So all have to see that negotiations for the future are imperative.

Q: When you look to deadline. Do you see possibility, as (at a previous conference in) the Hague, to stop the clock and continue the conference on that later?
 * A: Back then we had to leave on Saturday morning because of a fair. We can not afford Cop 13(followup, didnt quite catch it). G8, IPCC, heads of state called for breakthrough at Bali, does not think that pressure can be put on hold (Fridge allegory).

Q: What has to happen between 3 and tommorow noon
 * A: The discussion on the AWG is still open, Article 9 review is open, tech transfer open; capacity building might be resolved as well if everything else works out.

Q: what are the sticky issues on capacity building, and technology transfer?
 * A: Regarding capacity building, there have been calls for linkage of reports by developing countries on GHG??? with capacity (didnt get is sorry).

Tech transfer: Decision on mechanism has been made, to turn requirements to projects. Everybody agrees on that. The problem is a technicalitiy, whether it should be called technology leverage program or facility.

Q: ?? didnt catch it, something on draft
 * A: three options: Constitute a new Subsidiary body, an Ad Hoc Work Group, or an informal dialoge. The movement at the moment is towards the second (AWG). The decision has an effect on the name of the group and whether there are 2 co-chairs or one chair.

Q: Whats at stake here for the US? Is it the case that if they do not agree to 25-40% cuts, then they might face stricter cuts in 2050?
 * A:At stake for US and everybody, is "can a framework for 2012 be put in place or not? He believes that it will be very difficult to go home and say that there they have not managed to come up with an answer to the problem the scientific community has made clear.
 * Future targets are only aspirational, so there are no great stakes there.
 * Issues that need to be resolved are:


 * technology transfer and tradeing
 * finance for mitigation and adaptation
 * formal status of body (not sure which, guess the one he talked on earlier)
 * formal status of body (not sure which, guess the one he talked on earlier)

CAN America, 13:00
They had hoped that the US delegation would change there position and move towards cooperation, but at least not obstruct negotiations. But in public and private they have made objectionable actions.

Wanted to point out one of the worst issues: In not going to mid term reductions, he puts into question the results of the IPCC. And IPCC is even conservative. He believes that dangerous climate change is already not stoppable. Now need to stop catastrophic c change.

Carl Pope: They know what needs to be done, they do not have the will to act. Most explisitly irresponsible action undertaken by any administration ever in power during our lives.

Q: Why are they not doing anything:
 * A: could take lead (which I Carl) would prefer

could take collaberative action. But that would need to take multilateral action. or third they could admit they want to sink the negotiations, but that would make them irrelavent internaly (as everybody else wants them)

Q: Tech transfer
 * A. they say they dont want to force companys to sell IP rights.

Capacity building: Indust provide ?? so that develop countries can participate in process (UNFCCC??) US want to check how the money is being used.

second from left: Admin and manufacture have missed oppor to become exporters of efficen tech. and they may still have inertia of old possitions.

Q: if admin is not going to change position, how is international com going to move to agreement?
 * A: sec from left: First we need to see task before us, and not bow to administration. ....

dont want to go past this conference, but if it fails, than tremendous wind in our backs to get out of starting blocks by 2009.

Q: is there a business way to make it stronger?
 * A: there is an consensus by business that nego needs to be taken forward.

Q: last minute intervention from US on REDD?
 * A: (very left) was close to be agreed on, then US put item REDD to LULUCF altogether. That put it of topic.

(second from left) number of devel have made efforts to reduce emmis from deforest, and to reach agreements, and US has been slaping them away.

Q: Excuse China is not party to Kyoto, so US not agree.
 * A: no, not valid excuse. In internal am politics, there is strong interest in getting China to step up now as well. opport for the two countres to work together and work on tech.

C change has unpredecented role in the upcoming election.

Q:

Q+A US press conference
Q: Why is there not agreement on global vision yet? (cause thats what your saying is missing). And why isnt that what is on the table now. A: doesnt adress question really, talking about side stuff.

Q: ban ki said equity is important. so why then does your delegation say things on adapt and tech ? A: yes all need to bla bla. US pledges so and so much. Major emerging econs should contribute, etc. All must act. For least developed, adaptation, not just fund. Work on ground, as has been requested by LDCs.

Q: do you see possibility of negos not reaching agreement. Q: historic responsibility: Can developing countries be asked to turn away from coal and oil without compensation. ... A: All need to move to there possibility. We will lead and continue but others need to follow.

Q: Optimistic that 25-40 need to be out of text, and many would be comfy with that. You said get stuff to go to major emmiters. And how about the statements you made at the G8+5.

G8+ 5 Obligations under convention. Need to move bla bla. No alignment of any single country with or against others.

Indonesian press briefing
Target or not? In vienna it was agreed that 25-40 cut by 2020 is needed. and this view has been carried over by EU. But some oppose. Therefore round table called by COP president. It will be discussed in round table meeting this afternoon. (about 40 ministers). Proposals from smaller group will be discussed.

On REDD almost everything has been agreed on, exept one very late item. Hope that will be concluded by tomorrow.

third: Tech transfer. Major impact for ???. But no agreement on financial issues. No agreement on financial agreements... But still moving on. No conclusion but still discussing.

fourth: CCS it has been agreed on the technology. Therefore it will not yet aplied as CDM.

fifth: agreement on simplification of CDM.

Altogether: it is looking better today then yesterday, but it still working.

How do I acess? Always negotiators keep there cards close to chest.