Norway is a major driver in Cancun. Unfortunately, our contributions are based on a quota system that is far too far ahead of time.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
This is a contribution to the "Engaged utterance" column in Ny Tid 05.11.2010. In the column come various idealistic organizations are speaking. The participants are: ATTAC Norway, Nature and Youth, African Youth, Skeiv Ungdom, Changemaker, One World, The Future in Our Hands, Bellona, the Joint Council for Africa, the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation, MSF.
Environment. The ongoing climate negotiations in Cancun are characterized by pessimism. No one believes in anything near a binding cut-off agreement. Norway is, as usual, a driving force for an agreement, but is also among the largest emitters. Had it not been for hydropower, developed long before the climate problem was known, Norway would have had emissions at par with the oil states in the Middle East, and even with hydropower we emit ten times more per capita than the globe can tolerate.
Why is it so difficult to come to an agreement when there seems to be broad agreement on the need for large cuts in emissions?
Two explanations are central. First, there is a lack of real willingness to pay. The financial crisis has presented the world with challenges that both state leaders and their voters perceive as more acute than the climate crisis. People are mobilizing in the streets against welfare cuts, wage cuts and pension cuts, while politicians are doomed to use the resources to defend confidence in banks, currencies and government finances through rescue packages and budget cuts. Soberly, the fear of cuts in already adopted climate measures is greater than the hope of new measures.
Third, you have to have a fair deal. While justice is good, the desire for justice becomes a barrier, with the principle that each country should legally commit itself to limiting its emissions. The degree of difficulty becomes easy to understand if you translate "binding limitation" to "emission allowances". If the emissions are to be halved, the total amount of allowances can reach an annual value of many thousands of NOK billion. The aim of the climate negotiations is thus to agree in practice on a distribution of this enormous "quota wealth". In the end, this is about equalizing global injustice between rich and poor countries. And note: There is no vote here, must agree for there to be an agreement. The model climate negotiations are based on, ie proposes that through consensus, enormous values should be distributed between countries such as China, the USA, Cuba, the EU and Burundi. The quota approach makes it extremely difficult to reach the goal.
The UN system, represented by the head of the UNFCCC Secretariat, Christiana Figueres, has naturally realized this. During the summit in Cancun, therefore, no binding emission ceilings will be negotiated. In order to get the process on track after the failure in Copenhagen, the negotiations focus on individual elements where agreement can be within reach, and in particular on the financing of measures in developing countries, and the prevention of deforestation. Norway, and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, play a positive role in both of these arenas, which are important, but which nevertheless avoid the most important thing: namely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in rich countries such as Norway, where most of the collected CO2- the concentration in the atmosphere has been created, and where emissions are still several times greater than in China, measured per capita.
Norway is by far the smallest barrier here too, with our clear offer of obligations. In 2020, Norway is willing to reduce our annual emissions quota from the current 50 million tonnes, to approximately 35 million. The weakness of Norway's contribution here is that it presupposes agreement to establish the quota system that has been abandoned in Cancun. Norway has for said it was willing to technologically transform our economy into a low-emission economy. We have said we are willing to spend about two weeks on oil revenues to buy allowances in a system that may never come.
Bellona believes that Norway should focus on what we do in the meantime, until Stoltenberg's perfect quota system is in place, because this interval can be very long. Broad technology investment in industry and investments in renewable energy mustn't implemented to achieve the climate goals, and close cooperation with developing countries to ensure them access to clean, renewable energy, development and welfare. It is clear that the world can afford to solve the climate problem, we just must not get lost in negotiations! ■
