News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 COP 15: What exactly are they talking about? 

COP 15: What exactly are they talking about?

10 Dec, 2009 09:50 AM
THE world's eyes have moved to Copenhagen this week where thousands of environmental negotiators are meeting to try to reach an ambitious global treaty to reduce global emissions, and find the money to pay for it.

So what's happening, what's all the fuss about, and what impact will any outcome have on Australian farmers?

Who, where and what are we talking about?

  • More than 15,000 participants, including government delegates from 193 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and representatives from business and industry, environmental organisations and research institutions are attending the two-week gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • The meeting is historic because of the political will and momentum to agree to new binding targets to tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
  • There has been some hosing down of expectations a deal will be reached, however the attendance of leaders from major emitters like the US, China, India and Russia is seen as a significant sign a deal could still be achieved.
  • 110 government leaders will attend the summit in the final days next week.
  • Prime Minister Kevin Rudd arrives in Copenhagen next Wednesday and has a special role in helping the Danish Prime Minister pull a deal together. Penny Wong is already there.
  • The UN's top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, said there was unprecedented political momentum for a deal.

    "World leaders are calling for an agreement that offers serious emission limitation goals and that captures the provision of significant financial and technological support to developing countries," he said.

    "At the same time, Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins theday the conference ends."

Deal or no deal?

  • Negotiator s have been told they must focus on solid and practical proposals that will unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.

  • Acc ording to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an aggregate emission reduction by industrialised countries of between 25 per cent and 40pc over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to "stave off the worst effects of climate change", with global emissions falling by at least 50pc by 2050.
  • The clincher will be what role developing nations play in the climate agreement, how easy it is to find nationally appropriate mitigation strategies and what agreement is reached on sustainable development goals.
  • Underpinning all this is what sort of funding arrangements will be agreed to by industrialised nations to help poor and developing nations be part of this overall climate deal.
  • And what about farmers?

    • There is major momentum from developed countries throughout the world to overhaul the international accounting rules that stipulate which farm practices do or don't count towards emission reductions targets.
    • A major gathering of the world's farm leaders on Saturday will drive this issue forward with the deal's negotiators.
    • There is broad agreement that the current accounting rules for agriculture under the Kyoto protocol are flawed, inflexible and do not recognise the many positive contributions farmers can, or are already making, to reduce greenhouse emissions.

      This is penalising farmers, rather than allowing them to get credit for the good work farming can do for the environment.

    • Even if the big deal is not reached, there is hope this issue of agricultural accounting will still be resolved.
    • Australia is taking a lead role in this area. The National Farmers Federation has been helping guide an international lobby of farmers to help force change in this area so there is recognition particularly of improved land management and soil carbon sequestration.
    • The Federal Government has also been very strong on the need for these rules to change, but has not committed to voting against an overall deal if the necessary changes are not made in agriculture.

    * Footnote: Rural Press Canberra correspondent Lucy Knight will be attending the Copenhagen climate change summit - her reports will appear daily on FarmOnline.

    Print
    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Page:
    1


    comments


    Date: Newest first | Oldest first
    To put your global warming religious faith in a constructive outcome from the Copenhagen pilgrimage is incredibly naive. The track record of these sorts of international cultish gatherings is a feel-good mass delusional disappointment. The bullies in this club of gibbons will always manipulate things to suit themselves and the vulnerable are always their victims.
    Posted by Ken, 10/12/2009 12:21:02 PM
    The first and foremost agreement should limit population growth. Maybe KRudd can get the Chinese to explain how it is done.
    Posted by jerangle, 10/12/2009 7:29:39 PM
    Funny how our government can find funds to send 114 people to a climate change conference but not one government person has been sent to the world cattle veterinarian congresses held every 4 years. Not even when we hosted one in Sydney in 1998. I hope they all attend the agriculture day to learn the truth about our grazing ecosystem and their importance to our economies. They may even bother to look up the carbon cycle and work out how it all goes round in circles!
    Posted by Common Cents, 11/12/2009 8:15:15 AM
    I have to agree with Jerangle (falls off his chair). Most of the developing nations have spent the past century or more pumping babies out of 12 year old girls. That is, mothers at 12, grandmothers at 24, great grandmothers at 36, and great, great grandmothers at 48. And some of those great grandmothers were still having babies after their granddaughters became mothers. And this, at a time when we were producing mothers between 24 and 36 years. So forget all the bollocks about birth control etc, this was a simple cultural choice that these nations had full control over but chose not to. And they each now have the meagre share of their national pie that their collective negligence produced, and the low CO2 emissions to match. So for them to now turn around and claim that their low per capita CO2 emissions are the result of our excessive use of their resources is appalling bull$#@t. They have no sort of universal right to aspire to our level of CO2 emissions because they have already squandered that future by having three times more people than their environment can support.
    Posted by Ian Mott, 11/12/2009 10:00:58 AM
    This is not just any committee; it is one gigantic committee meeting. We all know what comes out of committees, yours excepted, of course. Jerangle, the politically correct won't say it is just a population problem, climate change is the politically correct term. We need to arm all these overpopulated countries and let them sort it out. But no, we let them flood all over the world as "asylum seekers" and destroy every other country including ours with the same mindless mantra, copulate without any controls and destroy the planet. Then to compound the problem we have others subsidising the children to keep them alive and make the problem multiply even faster. Darwin was so wrong, in this society, we have the survival of the weakest, where the strong are sacrificed, or at least milked for all they are worth.
    Posted by denis, 11/12/2009 10:39:12 AM
    Unfortunately KRudd is on record as wanting more, not fewer people. At present Australia feeds around 60m people, give or take a few million. If growth advocates like the Housing Industry Association have their way, more of Australia's scarce arable land will be covered with bitumen and concrete. More emissions, less agriculture, poorer water quality, worsening balance of payments, but who cares? We live on a Magic Pudding and all will be well so long as we go on growing.
    Posted by nico, 11/12/2009 10:51:11 AM
    The world summit on climate change shortchanged the view of scholars in the environment sector; that is the environmental practitioners who are the stewards of the future agreements and protocols. Women should also not be underrated as they are the the worst affected by any catalytic change of the environment as indicated by the Eco-feminist world view. Lastly we should not forget Garret Hardin's theory of 'The Tragedy of Commons' when dealing with this contentious issue of climate change. Remember that carbon dioxide emitted in Venezuela falls as acid rain in K'ogello in Kenya!
    Posted by AUGUSTINE GEOFREY OWUOR, 11/12/2009 5:09:43 PM
    Sorry, nico, Australia diesn't have a population problem. We just have a population concentration problem. We have six states and, surprise, surprise, we also have six major metropolitan concentrations. We seem to have this perverse core belief that the purpose of a state is to produce an ever bigger, uglier and less livable city. But if we had two extra states in Qld and two or three more in NSW and one or two more in Victoria and another in the Pilbara, we would have another seven new capitals and the nodes of population and wealth concentration that they provide. And in this way our population can continue to grow, in a sustainable manner that maintains the prosperity of the whole country while reducing the unsustainable pressure on the existing metropolitan centres. To believe that we have the luxury of choosing and maintaining a small population on a planet with 9 billion people is worse than naieve, it is folly. We either share it, on our own terms, or they will simply lose patience and take it from us.
    Posted by Ian Mott, 11/12/2009 5:57:16 PM
    OK, so we are over stocked - which mob should be culled? Humanely of course with pain relief so the rest of us can continue in the way we are accustomed and can’t afford. China is out because where would we refill our national credit card, who else is cashed up to buy the farm or make the stuff we are now too lazy to make. Yep, all too difficult so let’s plant trees to replace pastures that are already absorbing CO2, that should work! What? Not economic to do so? Rubbish, the land, trees and water absorbed went for a song – just ask the receiver. Venice has the technology sorted for coastal cities so no problem there. Dog paddle could become the international sport of choice assuming contestants could last out between events. As a backup plan, install a giant sun shade ready to roll down just in case unscheduled solar activity might increase the earth’s temperature. So there you go all done and dusted without attending the Copenhagen junket with all the other crazies. My plan B for earth cooling will need funding but should work as well as anything else out of Kyoto or Cop 15.
    Posted by sendherdownhughey, 12/12/2009 2:14:26 PM
    One option is to sit on your hands and do nothing, and let the world go to hell in a handcart, which seems to be Sender's bottom line. Another option (you need to be an optimist, but it's better than doing nothing) is to keep networking with people of good will, to keep up political pressure for humane progress, to keep funding rural research so as not to lose productivity. And stabilise population, through education, women's health and family planning. It works, at least in the context of a free society - that is not constrained by religious or political fundamentalism. (Education again.) As for the idea of more and more cities, it reminds me of a letter to the editor a year or so ago: "We welcome migrants, but only if they bring their own water with them." I would add, and as long as they don't build freeways on arable land. Oh, and don't forget: despite strident denial, there is a high probability at least of serious climate change. Ask your insurance company.
    Posted by nico, 14/12/2009 7:27:38 AM

    post a comment


    Screen name  *
    Email address  *
    Remember me?
    Comment  *
     
    We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
    The National Farmers Federation has been helping guide an international lobby of farmers to force recognition particularly of improved land management and soil carbon sequestration.
    The National Farmers Federation has been helping guide an international lobby of farmers to force recognition particularly of improved land management and soil carbon sequestration.
    Related Coverage
    ARTICLES
    MULTIMEDIA
    09 December, 2009
    10 December, 2009
    POLL
    Q: Which do you think is the best method for reducing Australia's carbon emissions?

    Emissions Trading Scheme
    (8.7%)

    Carbon Tax
    (11.7%)

    Laws regulating behaviour
    (7.7%)

    Direct Govt investment in renewable energy
    (42.9%)

    Direct Govt payments for emissions reductions
    (5.2%)

    None of the above
    (23.8%)

    Total Votes: 762
    Poll Date: 06 December, 2009

    Most popular articles




    Stock & Land







    Weather brought to you by:

    Weatherzone

    Classifieds

    Front Page

    Current Issue
    Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
     SEND...
     SAVE...
     SHARE...