Live reaction from the climate talks in Barcelona to the delay of up to year in getting a deal.
The BBC and others report this morning, what we learned here in Barcelona last night, that European negotiators have said there will ‘likely’ be no legally binding international to deal to combat climate change for several months, ‘up to a year’.
Responding, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping of Sudan, chair of the G77 and China, representing poor nations, accused Europe of “managing expectations down”, with young activists here in Barcelona reacting angrily to the British government’s comments by awarding the UK a ‘fossil of the day’ award for, along with the US, trying to play down what can be achieved from Copenhagen.
Central to the disagreement here, as noted on Left Foot Forward earlier this week, is the refusal of many developed countries to sign up to deeper legally binding cuts in emissions.
A world leading climate scientist from Germany’s Potsdam Institute, Bill Hare, told Reuters this morning that the cuts being offered by rich countries amount to “scarcely a few more percentage points more commitments than they made in the original Kyoto agreement (in 1997)”.
However, he added:
“I think there’s all still to play for in Copenhagen in setting up a strong, legally binding agreement.”
Left Foot Forward heard from Makase Nyaphisi, the delegate from Lesotho, who speaks on behalf of the block of the Least Developed Countries (which includes countries like Malawi, Uganda and Mozambique).
He said:
“A delay would be very disappointing. There is no real commitment to lead. The EU is not ready to take that role.”
After Ed Miliband told Parliament only a “politically binding” agreement is possible, Kim Carstensen, the leader of WWF’s global climate initiative, said:
“We need a climate treaty which will survive recessions, elections, and natural disasters. Not a piece of paper that will be forgotten after the next change of power in London, Tokyo or Washington.”
6 Responses to “Global anger at delay on climate deal”
Chris Ojembe
My reaction is on Klem ,s. Knowing very well that such funds could go into frivolities such as the acquisition of new guns and fulfill nuclear ambitions, you should have also proposed adequate chanelisation and supervision to ensure real utilization.