Draft Of U.N. Agreement Suggests Climate Policy Review Each Five Years
Dailycsr.com – 05 October 2015 – In a draft agreement prepared by the United Nations, which is making the round before the beginning of “Paris summit”, it is suggested that “carbon emission reduction policies” of each country should be revised by them every five years’ time. By doing so, they can avoid the dangerous threats imposed upon by the ever looming issue of global warming.
The provisions that elaborated the clause related to the “regular revisions” occupies “80 to 20 pages” of the draft report; moreover, this also suggests that the organisers of the U.N. think that:
“...any pledges in Paris will not be enough to keep temperature rises to less than 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels”.
However, the initial "comprehensive draft" composed by the co-chairmen of the event show that there is an “inevitable trend to stronger action". In fact, the said tendency is likely to strengthen over time, says the “deputy chief executive of the Climate Institute”, Erwin Jackson, who adds:
"It gets everyone on the same dance floor, and ensures the music they dance to can be made faster in the future”.
As per the promise made by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, his predecessor’s pledge will be retained which looks into reducing “Australia's emissions about 19 per cent on 2000 levels by 2030”. It will also be a reduction way below the “40-60 per cent” margin level which has been recommended “by the government's independent Climate Change Authority”.
However, in case any agreement urging for further cuts takes place after the Paris event will likely trouble Australia with its tight budget, which is being used to “pay polluter” so as to bring down emission levels. In Mr Jackson’s words:
"The core details still need to be resolved, but this [draft] again just highlights that Australia's lack of stable, scalable and credible domestic policy to modernise our economy is leaving us flat-footed in a world turning to clean energy”.
However, a spokeswoman has dismissed any such claim wherein Australia would benefit a partial trade agreement, whereby she stated:
"Australia has a strong and credible emissions reduction target. It represents a 50 per cent reduction in per capita emissions [from 2005 levels], the highest per capita reduction of any major developed nation."
"We are achieving real and significant abatement at around 1 per cent of the cost of the carbon tax”.
On the other hand, the Senator Waters commented:
"The Turnbull government's Paris targets are so bad that they not only isolate Australia from the trade and job opportunities of the clean energy future but they could have a wrecking effect on global ambition at these pivotal talks”.
"Direct Action is a complete sham and a fig leaf to cover up the fact we are doing next to nothing."
The draft deals with the option of negotiating “a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees”. The said limit has been arrived upon keeping the low-lying islands in mind which claim that “further warming may lead to much higher sea-level increases”. Furthermore, the text:
“...indicates climate aid from wealthy nations should reach $US100 billion ($141 billion) a year by 2020 and rise to a yet-to-be negotiated higher rate after that”.
In Maildives’ chief negotiator of alliance’s words:
"The contours of the package are coming together; most of the world has submitted a plan for action; and political momentum is as high as it's ever been”.
"But the devil is in the details”.
References:
http://www.smh.com.au
The provisions that elaborated the clause related to the “regular revisions” occupies “80 to 20 pages” of the draft report; moreover, this also suggests that the organisers of the U.N. think that:
“...any pledges in Paris will not be enough to keep temperature rises to less than 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels”.
However, the initial "comprehensive draft" composed by the co-chairmen of the event show that there is an “inevitable trend to stronger action". In fact, the said tendency is likely to strengthen over time, says the “deputy chief executive of the Climate Institute”, Erwin Jackson, who adds:
"It gets everyone on the same dance floor, and ensures the music they dance to can be made faster in the future”.
As per the promise made by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, his predecessor’s pledge will be retained which looks into reducing “Australia's emissions about 19 per cent on 2000 levels by 2030”. It will also be a reduction way below the “40-60 per cent” margin level which has been recommended “by the government's independent Climate Change Authority”.
However, in case any agreement urging for further cuts takes place after the Paris event will likely trouble Australia with its tight budget, which is being used to “pay polluter” so as to bring down emission levels. In Mr Jackson’s words:
"The core details still need to be resolved, but this [draft] again just highlights that Australia's lack of stable, scalable and credible domestic policy to modernise our economy is leaving us flat-footed in a world turning to clean energy”.
However, a spokeswoman has dismissed any such claim wherein Australia would benefit a partial trade agreement, whereby she stated:
"Australia has a strong and credible emissions reduction target. It represents a 50 per cent reduction in per capita emissions [from 2005 levels], the highest per capita reduction of any major developed nation."
"We are achieving real and significant abatement at around 1 per cent of the cost of the carbon tax”.
On the other hand, the Senator Waters commented:
"The Turnbull government's Paris targets are so bad that they not only isolate Australia from the trade and job opportunities of the clean energy future but they could have a wrecking effect on global ambition at these pivotal talks”.
"Direct Action is a complete sham and a fig leaf to cover up the fact we are doing next to nothing."
The draft deals with the option of negotiating “a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees”. The said limit has been arrived upon keeping the low-lying islands in mind which claim that “further warming may lead to much higher sea-level increases”. Furthermore, the text:
“...indicates climate aid from wealthy nations should reach $US100 billion ($141 billion) a year by 2020 and rise to a yet-to-be negotiated higher rate after that”.
In Maildives’ chief negotiator of alliance’s words:
"The contours of the package are coming together; most of the world has submitted a plan for action; and political momentum is as high as it's ever been”.
"But the devil is in the details”.
References:
http://www.smh.com.au
Companies