By Velma Mukoro
The recently concluded Lima climate negotiations drew mixed reactions from communities around the world. Climate change was back on the global political agenda as governments around the world gathered in Lima, Peru to come up with a climate action plan to be finalized in in Paris late next year. The main focus of the summit was to accelerate transition from dirty fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy.
Being the 20th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the negotiations fell short of people’s expectations. The initially scheduled 12 day event extended for an extra 33hrs as negotiators struggled to reach a common agreement. What came out of the compromise was a framework on a new climate treaty scheduled to be signed in C0P 21 in Paris 2015. This was compiled in a new text document called Lima Call for Climate Action.
The high level conference was supposed to set the groundwork and pave way for a meaningful climate agreement in Paris next year. However, the talks didn’t meet the expectations of millions of people who took to the streets of New York on September 21st and Lima on 10th December this year in a historic Peoples Climate March.
In solidarity with these two marches, parallel events were held in different parts of the world as people urged their elected officials to scale up their ambitions by coming up with bold pledges on emission reductions that will create an economy that works for the people and the planet.
Lima talks were considered a disappointment because politicians failed to build on the momentum of the internationally coordinated people’s actions. In fact some big decisions that were to be made in Lima such as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) which suggests that countries table their carbon emission reduction strategies were pushed to 31st March 2015.
Prior to the summit, the US and China (the world’s two biggest carbon emitters) came to a historic agreement when they both promised to cut their emissions. This was considered a game changer for the climate world and was hoped to increase momentum for the Lima talks. The US announced it will reduce its carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 while China plans to “peak” its emissions by 2030 and thereafter start reducing the amount of carbon it emits.
Reaching the US $ 10 billion target for the Green Climate Fund was seen as a remarkable achievement. The fund was set up to help poor nations mitigate and adapt to the severe impacts of climate change. The minimum target US $ 10 billion is supposed to kick start climate resilient projects in LDCs over the next five years. What was considered as a pace setter and remarkable progress during the negotiations shadowed by unwillingness of countries to set a clear timetable of how they intend to scale up the funds and meet the post 2020 100billion annual contributions. The minimum amount compared to the annual target sets a big gap in terms of progress and a foreseeable failure can be predicted in Paris next year.
According to critics and experts alike, the Lima agreement doesn’t portray the urgency of addressing climate change. The negotiations were flawed because they failed to establish a clear global goal of curbing emissions and reducing global warming. UNFCCC recommended that in order to keep global warming below the 20c mark and prevent devastating irreversible impacts of climate change, the world must shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050 and completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100. The climate budget also suggests that 2/3rds of all known fossil fuel deposits should remain below the ground if this target is to be met. However, the Lima agreement won’t take the world off the 4oc path that it’s on.
Negotiators agreed that Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) must be submitted by end of March. However the Lima document makes this a voluntary exercise whereby countries will not be held accountable for reporting their emissions. In other words, rich countries will not have the pressure to cut their emissions which means that poor nations who contributed the least to the present crisis will be forced to put in greater effort of combating climate change.
Lack of emphasis on the document makes it less legally binding and could result to signing of a weak deal in Paris. Initial UNFCCC climate negations held heavy polluters accountable for their actions and countries agreed to make modest but specific emission cuts. However, weakening of rules, shifting of responsibilities and making little offers of financial help by negotiators from rich countries like US, Australia, Canada shows prospects of a less legally binding global climate deal.
Being the 20th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the negotiations fell short of people’s expectations. The initially scheduled 12 day event extended for an extra 33hrs as negotiators struggled to reach a common agreement. What came out of the compromise was a framework on a new climate treaty scheduled to be signed in C0P 21 in Paris 2015. This was compiled in a new text document called Lima Call for Climate Action.
The high level conference was supposed to set the groundwork and pave way for a meaningful climate agreement in Paris next year. However, the talks didn’t meet the expectations of millions of people who took to the streets of New York on September 21st and Lima on 10th December this year in a historic Peoples Climate March.
In solidarity with these two marches, parallel events were held in different parts of the world as people urged their elected officials to scale up their ambitions by coming up with bold pledges on emission reductions that will create an economy that works for the people and the planet.
Lima talks were considered a disappointment because politicians failed to build on the momentum of the internationally coordinated people’s actions. In fact some big decisions that were to be made in Lima such as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) which suggests that countries table their carbon emission reduction strategies were pushed to 31st March 2015.
Prior to the summit, the US and China (the world’s two biggest carbon emitters) came to a historic agreement when they both promised to cut their emissions. This was considered a game changer for the climate world and was hoped to increase momentum for the Lima talks. The US announced it will reduce its carbon emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 while China plans to “peak” its emissions by 2030 and thereafter start reducing the amount of carbon it emits.
Reaching the US $ 10 billion target for the Green Climate Fund was seen as a remarkable achievement. The fund was set up to help poor nations mitigate and adapt to the severe impacts of climate change. The minimum target US $ 10 billion is supposed to kick start climate resilient projects in LDCs over the next five years. What was considered as a pace setter and remarkable progress during the negotiations shadowed by unwillingness of countries to set a clear timetable of how they intend to scale up the funds and meet the post 2020 100billion annual contributions. The minimum amount compared to the annual target sets a big gap in terms of progress and a foreseeable failure can be predicted in Paris next year.
According to critics and experts alike, the Lima agreement doesn’t portray the urgency of addressing climate change. The negotiations were flawed because they failed to establish a clear global goal of curbing emissions and reducing global warming. UNFCCC recommended that in order to keep global warming below the 20c mark and prevent devastating irreversible impacts of climate change, the world must shift to 100% renewable energy by 2050 and completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100. The climate budget also suggests that 2/3rds of all known fossil fuel deposits should remain below the ground if this target is to be met. However, the Lima agreement won’t take the world off the 4oc path that it’s on.
Negotiators agreed that Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) must be submitted by end of March. However the Lima document makes this a voluntary exercise whereby countries will not be held accountable for reporting their emissions. In other words, rich countries will not have the pressure to cut their emissions which means that poor nations who contributed the least to the present crisis will be forced to put in greater effort of combating climate change.
Lack of emphasis on the document makes it less legally binding and could result to signing of a weak deal in Paris. Initial UNFCCC climate negations held heavy polluters accountable for their actions and countries agreed to make modest but specific emission cuts. However, weakening of rules, shifting of responsibilities and making little offers of financial help by negotiators from rich countries like US, Australia, Canada shows prospects of a less legally binding global climate deal.