Another city; pretty much the same outcome. The great climate change debate has rumbled along from Rio to Kyoto, through Copenhagen and on to Lima, without the breakthrough that campaigners have sought. There was an agreement of sorts in Peru, but nothing that lived up to the billing. --Editorial,
The Daily Telegraph, 15 December 2014
Lima is just yet another re-enactment of the three-stage ritual that has become only too familiar over the past 20 years. First, we are treated to months of ludicrously unscientific hype, telling us that the threat of global warming is now worse than ever. Then, they all gather in some agreeable venue, for the “developing” nations – led by China and India – to say they will only play ball if the “developed” world, led by the EU, the US and Japan, pays them $100 billion a year to curb their “carbon emissions”. In days of acrimony and stupefying boredom it emerges that the rich countries aren’t really intending to deliver. Finally, at the eleventh hour – or more likely 4 o’clock in the morning – a “breakthrough” is announced. Everyone has finally agreed on a meaningless document that commits no one to anything. --Christopher Booker,
The Sunday Telegraph, 14 December 2014
In typical fashion, the United Nations climate summit failed to make any real headway on a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming. Instead, delegates from 194 countries walked away with a non-binding agreement to come back and negotiate again next year. Some environmentalists and media outlets have tried to spin the agreement reached in Lima, Peru this weekend as a big step towards a real global warming treaty, but critics argue the failed climate summit was no surprise. “The Lima agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality,” said Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. “The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.” --Michael Bastasch,
Daily Caller, 15 December 2014
More than 190 countries yesterday agreed a deal to tackle climate change, paving the way for a global treaty. The agreement was watered down, however, after many developing countries refused to sign earlier drafts. During a tense final 40 hours of negotiations in Lima, Peru, a loophole was inserted into the climate change deal that allows countries to avoid the tough, economy-wide emissions targets already adopted by Britain. A proposal to allow countries to review each other’s targets was scrapped after China objected. There will be no official assessment next year of whether targets are fair and comparable. --Ben Webster,
The Times, 15 December 2014
India on Sunday hailed the outcome of the climate summit here, saying the deal reached has addressed the concerns of the developing countries and given them enough space to grow and take appropriate nationally determined steps to combat global warming. “We are happy that the final negotiated statement at COP20 in Lima has addressed the concerns of developing countries and mainly the efforts of some countries to re-write the convention has not fructified,” Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said. --
Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
The final draft clearly mandated the developed world to take more firm financial commitments to scale it up to USD 100 billion per year from 2020. The financial treaty which was passed has more clarity. Now it is mentioned that they will provide and mobilise funds. Whatever developing world wanted ultimately remained intact. Predominantly developing countries demands were met. I think it is a good way forward for Paris. …It will not be lopsided anymore. –- India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar,
Press Trust of India, 14 December 2014
Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American lobby group, said: “It’s definitely watered down from what we expected. It’s now totally voluntary whether countries choose to provide information [about their emissions targets].” Lord Lawson, the former chancellor and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a climate sceptic think-tank, said the weakness of the deal meant Britain should rescind a law binding itself to cut emissions. “The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose,” he said. “Following Lima, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.” --Ben Webster,
The Times, 15 December 2014
A carbon-curbing deal struck in Lima on Sunday was a watered-down compromise where national intransigence threatened the goal of a pact to save Earth’s climate system, green groups said. NGOs and developing nations alike had hoped the agreement would compel rich countries to include information in their pledges on climate adaptation and other financial help. They had also sought a robust assessment of the pledges’ aggregate effect and a mechanism for ramping up contributions, if they were judged inadequate to meet the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels. But expectations were mostly disappointed. --
AFP, 14 December 2014
