Yay! - by Richard... Saturday, December 04, 2010

Yay! - by Richard... Saturday, December 04, 2010

I am sooooo sorrreeeee!

Cancún climate talks in danger of collapse over Kyoto continuation

• Latin America outraged at foot-dragging by rich
• Wealthy countries say little chance of deal now

John Vidal, Environment editor

• The Guardian, Saturday 4 December 2010

Members of the Sierra Club in Cancún make their feelings clear about countries they say avoid the issue of climate change. Photograph: Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images

The UN climate talks in Cancún were in danger of collapse last night after many Latin American countries said that they would leave if a crucial negotiating document, due to be released tomorrow, did not continue to commit rich countries to emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba) group of nine Latin American countries – who claim they are backed by African, Arab countries and other developing nations – said they were not prepared to see an end to the treaty that legally requires all of its signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

They challenged the Mexican presidency of the UN summit to prepare a negotiating text including a commitment by rich countries to set fresh targets for a second period of Kyoto beyond 2012.

The Guardian understands that if the new text includes a reference to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the talks will continue. But if it omits the wording and opts only to support negotiations based on the weaker Copenhagen accord agreed last year, then developing countries are likely to stop the talks.

Mexico will publish its text on Saturday evening in preparation for the arrival of ministers from 193 countries for the high-level talks on Monday. The energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne will arrive then, leading the UK delegation.

The potential crisis was provoked by Japan stating earlier this week that it would not sign up to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Other countries, including Russia, Canada and Australia are thought to agree but have yet to say publicly that they will not make further pledges.

Kyoto is considered iconic to developing countries because it is the only legal agreement that binds rich countries to emissions cuts. It is feared that wealthy countries, led by the US, which has not ratified the treaty, want an agreement that will commit them only loosely to targets.

"We will not support any situation where these countries get away with this and make no commitments. We want concrete commitments for Kyoto. A handful of countries have no right to do this," said Claudia Salerno, Venezuela's special climate envoy.

Salerno was joined in Cancún by diplomats from Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica and Ecuador, who said they speak for other Alba members including Antigua, Honduras and St Vincent.

She said she had come from a meeting where one country, presumably Australia, had said "they might as well go to the beach" rather than set new pledges for Kyoto. "We will not accept the destruction of the Kyoto protocol in exchange for anything. The new text must include the second period of Kyoto," she said.

Wealthy countries were last night trying to avoid a diplomatic disaster, saying they were not trying to kill Kyoto. Britain and the EU have said they are prepared to sign up to a second commitment period – provided others do so too.

Developed countries have indicated in closed meetings that there is now little chance of a second commitment period for Kyoto being negotiated in Cancún.

Few heads of state are expected to attend this year's talks – in sharp contrast to the summit in Copenhagen. However, Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, and Bolivia's Evo Morales have said they will be there. All were accused by Gordon Brown of "holding the world to ransom" at the Copenhagen talks. They will be joined by the presidents of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil and Guatemala.

A benefit of the EU? - by Richard...

Kraft Foods is moving part of its newly acquired Cadbury business to Switzerland in order to reduce its UK tax bill. It is expected that Kraft will have completed this move by next year, relocating a small number of key management posts to its European headquarters in Zurich.

A spokesman for Kraft said: "Since 2006 we have been implementing our European model involving a (holding) company based in Zurich together with local companies in country markets."

Now, wasn't there something about being in the EU, with access to European markets and all that, which made all of this unnecessary? So how is it that a major US multi-national finds it a better option to run its business in Europe from a non-EU country?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

It's not that he's stupid - by Richard...

... m'lud. He's just a Tory. In fact, he's one of that peculiar breed of High Tory that can think out half the story, but then come screeching to a halt because he can't cope with the consequences. That is Charles Moore for you, writing in a paper that deserves to be behind a paywall for its own protection.

At least with Moore's piece, though, you only have to read the strap to get the gist: "As the euro founders, Britain must make a bolder case for root-and-branch reform," we are told.

There you have it. After making the case that the EU is a profoundly dysfunctional organisation, he does the old Tory trick of arguing for "reform". How one would go about attaining that desirable state, however, is never specified. Further, when you challenge these people as to how they personally would seek to achieve it, there is either vague talk about "handbags" or silence and an embarrassed shuffling of feet.

That, actually, absolves the likes of Moore from being stupid. Although one seriously wonders. Amongst other things, the man calls for the EU to have a "policy of free trade". How many times does one have to remind these people that the EU is a customs union? This is the very antithesis of free trade – a status which is so fundamental that to change it would mean changing the very nature of the EU.

Whatever else, even if the charge of stupidity does not stick, this type of person is certainly dishonest. But it is a special kind of dishonesty that pretends to address popular concern about the EU when the intention is, in the final analysis, to do absolutely nothing. But then Moore is a Tory.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Oh, p-leeze! - by Richard...

For this blog, it is well-evident what the main news of the week has been – and hardly surprising, given the personal, political and economic impact of the bad weather. But, reading some reports, you really do wonder which planet some people inhabit. From The Independent, for instance, we have the comment that at 1pm yesterday, more than a quarter (28%) of rail services were not running. Of those able to operate only just over half (53%) were running on time.

But then we get the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) saying that services in south east England and Scotland were the hardest hit. This leads to ATOC chief executive Michael Roberts delivering these immortal words. He says: "We recognise that lessons can be learnt and, in particular, that the whole industry needs to get better at handling disruption."

This, to me seems the classic of the age. Public figures, utilities – you name it - make complete pigs' ears of the jobs they are paid to do and, when they go belly up, we get this trite, lame mantra: "We recognise that lessons can be learnt ... ".

For as long as I can remember, there have been complaints about the inability of the British rail system to handle bad weather. More recently (1991), we had that famous excuse of the wrong type of snow - now almost 20 years ago. Still they don't get their act together, treating bad weather as if it was some strange, rare act of God that is beyond the wit of man to deal with.

The only trouble is that these same people are endlessly inventive when it comes to reasons why we should pay them more for deteriorating services. In this topsy-turvy world, "learning lessons" is simply a means of fobbing us off with the hope that, in the distant, unspecified future, things might actually improve.

As always, though, we have allowed this to happen. My own "lessons learned" suggest that we definitely need a MAP – a Million Angry People – on the street. I guess that is a Road MAP ... but one with a difference. Until we can do this, the likes of Mr Michael Roberts will continue taking us for fools - and we will be the fools for letting them.