Obama, world leaders in last-minute climate talks

nenhum sinal de acordo naquileo que se refere ao estabelecimento de metas realistas de reduções de GEE, seja por parte dos Paises desenvolvidos, seja por parte dos em desenvolvimento.
Presidente Lula e Obama acabaram de discursar, ambos em direções opostas. Lula se posiciona dizendo que o Brasil não deve assumir metas obrigatórias,mas sim um compromisso. Obama, diz que os EUA entendem que os países em desenvovimento devem assumir tais metas e que sejam agressivas e obrigatórias. Eis ponto de inflexão.

Leia o artigo:

""It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.

World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document".


The UN climate talks were in serious disarray Friday, prompting President Barack Obama to upend his schedule and hold close-door talks with 19 other world leaders to work out a last-minute agreement on fighting global warming.
Associated Press
18/12/2009 12:25
Delegates earlier blamed both the US and China for the lack of a political agreement that Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and more than 110 other world leaders are supposed to sign within hours.

But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after the unscheduled meeting with Obama and the other leaders, said progress in the climate talks was being held back by China.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the US president met with world leaders from China and Russia, both seen as key participants in the climate talks, as well as the heads of state from wealthy nations like Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany and those from developing countries like Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Colombia.

"Most of the leaders are still working out to produce a meaningful agreement to be adopted," Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kazuo Kodama said.

The lack of a deal caused leaders to throw out the planned timetable for the final day of the two-week UN climate conference, with their informal talks delaying the opening of the regular session.

Broad disputes continued behind closed doors between wealthy nations and developing ones, delegates said — the divide that from the start has dogged the two-week UN climate conference, which aimed to reach agreements on deeper reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

No agreed text had emerged as presidents and premiers were gathering at a Copenhagen convention hall, said Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren.

"It is now up to world leaders to decide," he said, suggesting they would be pressed to make last-minute decisions on the thrust of the climate declaration.

Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the morning's impasse on the Chinese for "blocking again and again," and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer, a long-range climate aid program announced Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A leading African delegate, meanwhile, complained bitterly about the proposed declaration. "It's weak. There's nothing ambitious in this text," Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, a leader of the developing nations bloc, said Friday.

Delegates filtering out of the predawn discussions Friday sounded disappointed.

"It's a political statement, but it isn't a lot," said Chinese delegate Li Junhua.

"It would be a major disappointment. A political declaration would not guarantee our survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, many of which are threatened by seas rising form global warming.

World leaders handed off the draft text of about three pages at about 3 a.m. local time to their ministers and they continued to work on it through the night. But by 5 a.m., negotiators from Mexico and the G-77 plus China said they were nowhere near agreement on the final document.

Vazamento de "texto final" divide países em Copenhague

O vazamento de um esboço de documento final - proposto pela delegação dinamarquesa, que preside o encontro - deixou expostas as divisões entre os países participantes da reunião das Nações Unidas sobre o clima, em Copenhague, nesta terça-feira.

Sob o título Acordo de Copenhague sob a Convenção-Quadro sobre Mudança Climática da ONU, o texto prevê, entre outros, metas de corte de emissões dos países ricos de 80% até 2050. Mas também estipula metas obrigatórias para os países em desenvolvimento.

Isso contraria frontalmente os princípios da convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o clima, que sempre dividiram as responsabilidades - obrigatórias - dos países ricos, e voluntárias dos em desenvolvimento.

Revoltados, representantes da Aliança Pan-Africana por Justiça Climática (PACJA, na sigla em inglês) chegaram a provocar um tumulto no Bella Centre, sede da conferência, em protesto contra o texto, que contraria diversos interesses dos países mais pobres.

"Grave violação"
O chefe da delegação do Sudão, Lumumba Stanislas Dia Ping, atual presidente do G-77, grupo de 130 países em desenvolvimento, classificou a proposta de "grave violação" e "ameaça ao sucesso" do encontro de Copenhague.

O rascunho do polêmico texto, segundo o embaixador extraordinário para mudanças climáticas do Itamaraty, Sérgio Serra, foi apresentado na reunião preparatória uma semana, na capital dinamarquesa. Ao fim do encontro, do qual participaram apenas representantes dos países mais influentes nas negociações, o documento teria sido recolhido pelos dinamarqueses, segundo Serra.

A situação ficou tão tensa que o próprio secretário-executivo da reunião da ONU, Yvo de Boer, divulgou um comunicado lembrando que o documento era informal. "Os únicos textos formais no processo da ONU são aqueles tabulados pelos presidentes dessa conferência, em nome dos participantes", disse Boer.

Para o coordenador da campanha Amazônia do Greenpeace, Paulo Adário, o documento mostra que os países ricos "não querem agir". "Não é só o conteúdo, é todo um processo equivocado", afirmou Adário, referindo-se ao fato de o texto não ter sido discutido.

The Guardian
Mas, depois que uma cópia chegou ao jornal britânico The Guardian, que publicou o texto na íntegra, além de detalhes com negociadores dos outros países que estariam por trás da proposta, Estados Unidos e Grã-Bretanha, os ânimos se acirraram. Para muitos, a existência de um documento, ainda que informal, antes das negociações de Copenhague é prova de que os países menores estão sendo alienados do processo.

Para o diplomata, a proposta de um documento final por parte dos presidentes da conferência é uma prerrogativa normal, para o caso de não se chegar a um consenso ao fim do encontro. No rascunho de uma declaração a ser assinada ao fim do encontro, fica patente a intenção de separar Brasil, China e Índia dos países mais pobres, classificados de "mais vulneráveis", de forma a evitar que tenham acesso a um fundo de de US$ 10 bilhões anuais.

Várias das propostas incluídas no documento indicam um afastamento dos princípios que norteiam o Protocolo de Kyoto, cujo primeiro período de validade vai até 2012. Para o Brasil, o que mais incomoda é o "desequilíbrio" do documento.

"Exige-se mais do que se oferece", afirmou Serra, lembrando que as ofertas de financiamento não são suficientes para as ambições brasileiras. Em reação ao documento dinamarquês, a China e outros países propuseram uma contrapartida, que segundo Serra, também precisa ser trabalhada.

"A minha aposta não é em um nem no outro, mas um terceiro documento que emane das negociações, e que seja equilibrado, ambicioso e equitativo", concluiu o diplomata.

HEALTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE//The Lancet

Expectations are running high for the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December. But will we get the global commitment for radical cuts in CO2 emissions that the world so urgently needs? The scientific evidence that global temperatures are rising and that man is responsible has been widely accepted since the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.1 There is now equally wide consensus that we need to reduce CO2 emissions to at most 50% of 1990 levels by 2050,2 if we are to have even a 50% chance of preventing temperatures exceeding preindustrial levels by more than 2°C, considered by many to be the tipping point for catastrophic and irreversible climate change.
The economic argument that taking action now rather than later will be cheaper is also widely accepted after the Stern report in 2006.3 The election of President Barack Obama has shifted US policy from seeking to block an agreement to seeking to find one.

So the chances of success should be good. But the politics are tough. The most vocal arguments are about equity: the rich world caused the problem: why should the poor world pay to put it right? Can the rich world do enough, through its own actions and through its financial and technological support for the poor, to persuade the poor to join in a global agreement? The present economic climate does not help, giving rich world sceptics arguments for not acting—or at least not acting now. And the sensitive issue of population stabilisation continues to slip off the agenda but is crucial to achieving real reductions in global CO2 emissions.

These arguments need to be addressed head on. Climate change is global. Emissions know no frontiers. And the necessary measures should be seen not as a cost but as an opportunity. Coal-fired power stations pollute the atmosphere and worsen health. So does the internal combustion engine. Deforestation destroys biodiversity. Saving energy helps hard-pressed household budgets. Drought-resistant crops help poor farmers. So even without climate change, the case for clean power, electric cars, saving forests, energy efficiency, and new agricultural technology is strong.4 Climate change makes it unanswerable.

The threat to health is especially evident in the poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, as the recent report by The Lancet and the University College London Institute for Global Health Commission shows.4 These countries are struggling to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Their poverty and lack of resources, infrastructure, and often governance, make them far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Warmer climate can lead to drought, pressure on resources (particularly water), migration, and conflict. The conflict in Darfur is as much about pressure on resources as the desert encroaches as about the internal politics of Sudan. And the implications for the health of local populations are acute—on the spread and changing patterns of disease, notably water-borne diseases from inadequate and unclean supplies, on maternal and child mortality as basic health services collapse, and on malnutrition where food is scarce.5 And population stabilisation will not be achieved if, for want of resources, girls are not educated and contraceptives are unavailable.6

Climate change is causing other kinds of extreme weather events too: storms, floods, and rising sea levels affecting coastal populations and islands.7 Every such event has adverse consequences for health. The poorer the country and its infrastructure, the worse are the consequences, and the poorer the chances of meeting the MDGs.
Crucially for winning hearts and minds in richer countries, what is good for the climate is good for health. The measures needed to combat climate change coincide with those needed to ensure a healthier population and reduce the burden on health services. A low-carbon economy will mean less pollution. A low-carbon diet (especially eating less meat) and more exercise will mean less cancer, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.4 Opportunity, surely, not cost.

This is an opportunity too, to advance health equity—increasingly seen as necessary for a healthy and happy society. If we take climate change seriously, it will require major changes to the way we live, reducing the gap between carbon-rich and carbon-poor within and between countries. The Commission on Social Determinants of Health said that action to promote health must go well beyond health care.8 It must focus on the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, and on the structural drivers of those conditions—inequities in power, money, and resources. These insights give further confirmation that what is good for the climate is good for health.

A successful outcome at Copenhagen is vital for our future as a species and for our civilisation. It will require recognition by the rich countries of their obligations to the poor; and recognition by the poor countries that climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution in which we all have to play a part. It will require a new mindset: that the measures needed to mitigate the risks of climate change and adapt to its already inevitable effects provide an opportunity to achieve goals that are desirable in their own right—the achievement of the MDGs in poor countries and a healthier, more equal society in the rich world and globally. Failure to agree radical reductions in emissions spells a global health catastrophe, which is why health professionals must put their case forcefully now and after Copenhagen.9