If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

UN Climate Talks Roundup: Nations Demand Compensation, Investment Falls Short

Climate change compensation has emerged as a major issue of the UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar, the Guardian reports, with rich countries like the US and Europe opposing the idea that they should pay developing counties for “loss and damage” in vulnerable areas caused by climate change.

The concept comes from an agreement that came out of the 2010 Cancún, Mexico talks in which all countries agreed to “to reduce loss and damage associated with climate change,” the newspaper writes. Now, some 100 developing countries led by the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries block and the African Group of Nations are using this “loss and damage” clause to demand compensation.

Meanwhile, yesterday at the summit, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey announced a series of new projects totaling £150 million ($241.4 million) to help developing countries address climate change. This includes £98 million to help finance 270MW of new renewable energy capacity in Africa, and £21 million to fund a World Bank program to improve water resource management for 18 million people.

Davey also announced that by the end of this month, the UK will deliver the £1.5 billion it pledged at the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks to help developing countries curb climate change. He said the UK is committed to delivering its fair share of the UN’s climate finance goal of $100 billion per year by 2020.

A day earlier, the Climate Policy Initiative released a report that says the $364 billion spent in 2010-11 to curb climate change falls short of the $1 trillion needed each year to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. According to The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2012, the private sector was the main source of global climate finance, contributing between $217 and $243 billion, mostly from corporations and renewable energy project developers. Public sector investment totaled between $16 and $23 billion globally.

A report tracking climate action released last week gave major emitters China, the US, the EU and Russia “inadequate” ratings for their plans to limit global warming to the 2 degrees Celsuis mark and said the world is headed for a warming of about 3.3 degrees Celsius.

Another report released in Doha by the World Energy Council urges governments to design long-term energy policies, enable market conditions that attract long-term investments and encourage research and development in energy technology. It also says developed countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are the closest to achieving sustainable energy systems (see chart). Neither the US nor the UK make the top 10 list.

Run an Efficient EHS Audit Program - A How-to Guide
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

  
Leveraging EHS Software in Support of Culture Changes
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

  
The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
Planning for a Sustainable Future
Sponsored By: Dakota Software

  

5 thoughts on “UN Climate Talks Roundup: Nations Demand Compensation, Investment Falls Short

  1. Question: If you fill a glass 1/2 full of water, then add 1/4 cup of ice, mark the water level. After the ice melts, will the water level go up, stay the same, or go down?

  2. This is disgraceful. If UK and US diverted one years military budget spending we could probably have it sewn up or if every citizen earning above a certain salary sacrificed a dollar a day (less than a cup of coffee), they could afford to compensate developing nations. Lets not forget these nations grew strong on colonial resources and slavery then abandoned poorer nations to their independence, while being the ones who created the global warming problem. Its high time they paid up.
    Perhaps an act of good will of this magnitude could quell the ‘axis of evil’ the US constantly piped on about a few years ago which could justify the lessened militaristic and security measure spending they keep claiming they require. Have they ever asked themselves why so many ‘terrorists’ want to attack them? Perhaps if they kept their noses and armies out of other nations affairs attempting to shore up their dodgey oil deals and practiced some international benevolence, insurgant groups would have less to fuel their hatred?
    Just a thought.

  3. Answer: the water level in the glass would STAY THE SAME!
    Moral of the question: If you don’t understand basic facts, don’t fall for the political scam. In other words, 1) water level can not rise due to ice bergs melting, 2) there is NO global warming, & 3) this is all a scam to take money form those who work for it and give it to 3rd or 4th world dictators who only dream of killing innocent people.
    Too much money in all the wrong hands is why people are dying. Get it?

  4. As usual, CO2good is way off the mark. No one says that sea levels will rise when already-floating icebergs melt, and it is completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The problem is that sea levels will rise when land-based glaciers speed up their flows towards the sea – partly as a result of floating ice shelf collapse that lessens the resistance to such flows, and partly the direct result of increased temperatures leading to meltwater that lubricates the ice/rock interface the glaciers flow over. In addition, sea levels will also rise purely as a result of the expansion of sea water that takes place as sea temperatures rise.

    What was it that you said, CO2good, about not understanding basic facts? And as far as falling for scams goes, your post about melting icebergs is certainly a scam that people must guard against falling for.

    Global warming is an established scientific fact. So is the rise of sea levels that is, and will continue to, accompany it.

  5. You fool. Sea level rise is not from Icebergs in water melting, its from water expansion through warming and fesh water ice on land (most notabley Greenland and Antarctica) melting into the sea, having a two fold effect. Raising sea levels and diluting the salinity that drives the oceanic temperauture distribution cycle. Much of the Artic is already gone but has not made a huge impact because its largely sea ice. Have heard this arguement heaps of times and if you are still relying on this one, you are deluded. Go back and fill a glass half full, mark the level, then add ice to the water. Then after it has melted mark the level and see what you find. Maybe then you will be s*#t scared like the rest of us who have done our research. As for industry and corporations running scams to take our money, you may be right. Its called greenwash and very abundant, but thats not sciences fault. Its just business doing what it has always done. Exploiting our ignorance.

Leave a Comment