Skip to main content

#Durban : The most positive part of the outcome

The beginning of the end for the Kyoto 'Annex 1' vs 'non_Annex 1' distinction is crucial. This opens the way for the starting-in-2020 climate agreement (or maybe 2017?) promised in Durban to be something modelled on Contraction and Convergence (or on GDRs, etc). This gives a crucial opening to achieve for the first time an agreement which encompasses everyone, is just, and is effective. So, although the long delay may well prove fatal, especially to AOSIS countries and LDC countries, we do now at least have a _chance_, for the first time, of achieving what we as a species need through the COP process.
So: one cheer for Durban.
----------------------------------------
  
For all things Rupert, goto
www.rupertread.net

Comments

Aubrey Meyer said…
Rupert - the delay, essayed at COP-17, as a proportionate excess of what is needed, strains us all to breaking point now: - http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html
13 December 2011 at 18:25
Aubrey Meyer said…
Rupert, you respond favourably to Mark Lynas' take on COP-17 - "a major step forward". Beware; C&C at the wrong rates [achieving too little too late] is as bad as no C&C.

Lynas is an advisor to the Maldives/AOSIS. However, AOSIS doesn't think that COP17 was a major step. They think the opposite with Chair Karl Hood asking 'must we now die so that you can develop?'

Here is what they asked for compared with what they got. The former [what they asked for] would have been a major step in the right direction. The latter [what they got] was a major step in the wrong direction: - http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html

BTW Mark Lynas took to denouncing C&C two years ago and persuading the Maldives to take that line.
14 December 2011 at 09:56
Rupert said…
Thanks Aubrey. I take your points. Please note that I only gave one cheer: that's a long way short of three!
;-)
26 December 2011 at 12:55
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more