Host Mexico urges higher ambitions at climate talks

CANCUN, Mexico Wed Dec 1, 2010 1:44pm EST

1 of 7. Children look for recyclable materials from Managua's municipal landfill November 29, 2010. A bloc of left-wing Latin American nations will push lofty goals at world climate talks this month but without the fireworks they set off during the failed negotiations in Copenhagen last year. Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua all refused to sign the final Copenhagen Accord in December 2009, saying it was not ambitious enough and was cooked up secretively by big powers. With the next round of climate negotiations in the Mexican resort of Cancun from Nov. 29 until Dec. 10, the left-wing Latin American bloc is once again set to play a high-profile role in the quest for a binding pact to slow global warming.

Credit: Reuters/Oswaldo Rivas

Related Video

CANCUN, Mexico (Reuters) - Mexico is pushing parties at the United Nations climate change meeting to strive for the best possible deal, although even the most ambitious agreement will fall short of what is needed to deal with climate change.

Acknowledging that thorny issues such as agreeing to a second round of greenhouse gas emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol are unlikely to be resolved at the talks at the beach resort of Cancun, Mexico's top climate change diplomat told reporters that he felt a major step forward could be made.

"The big challenge is not to just capture in a United Nations document the commitments and actions of developed and developing countries, but to find a way on one hand to increase these ... and find a mechanism to keep going," said Luis Alfonso de Alba at a news conference.

Progress on a new global climate change agreement has been slow as developed countries complain that the United Nations' 1992 climate convention is outdated, focusing too much on them when China's rapid economic growth has made it the world's top carbon emitter.

Most countries agreed on a formula at last year's Copenhagen summit whereby industrialized countries would cut their emissions while emerging economies took "climate actions" to slow growth in greenhouse gases. Objections by some nations prevented it, however, from being formally adopted by the U.N.

"Kyoto covered at most 28 percent of global emissions and had goals that barely surpassed 5 percent of global emissions," de Alba said. "In Cancun we are hoping to come out with a package of emissions reductions that will certainly, if what countries have announced is made concrete, will surpass 18 or 19 percent on a global level."


The cuts envisioned by parties at Cancun fall short of what scientists say is needed to limit the rise in average global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, de Alba said, but a deal would breathe new life into the multilateral process.

The Cancun meeting has seen so far little of the rancor and inflexibility that marked the Copenhagen summit as negotiators appear to have accepted that a incremental approach is the best that can be hoped for at this time.

The most controversy has come from Japan's claim that extending the Kyoto protocol is "meaningless" without a broader pact that includes China and the United States, the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases.

The stance of Japan, and some other countries including Canada and Russia over Kyoto, has prompted accusations by environmental groups and some developing countries that rich nations are trying to shirk their commitments.

"Everyone is for the continuity of Kyoto, but in some manner this is linked to complimentary or additional efforts. What we have to be aware of is that we have a brief period to take decisions but this period ends in 2012, not the end of Cancun," de Alba said.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
KommiesSUK wrote:
Commie leeches … those that can’t compete thru sloth and lack of natural ability attempt to hamstring the winners.

Thankfully, our Chinese competitors have no delusions about “helping hands” and the myth of “Climate Change”. Therefore, only the dimwitted taxpayers of the declining West will be on the hook for this wealth transfer.

Nov 30, 2010 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
aelemay wrote:
There is not a single article on this subject which does not make the assumption that CO2 is the cause of global warming (now called climate change)and that it is man’s contributions which at fault. The cry is “if we could reduce our CO2 emissions climate change would stop.”

What a giant lie. The correlation of global temperature with CO2 concentration depends on what period is chosen. A case for global cooling is just as persuasive if we chose the period from 1940 to 1970. The so-called scientists chose a period of rising temperatures from 1970 to 1998. So, why is the earlier period rejected and the later period used?

Well, we have to look at the history of the UN’s effort to fund itself and it’s view that they are the source of a new world government. Twice before the UN proposed a world-wide energy tax. These failed, but now it’s the climate which needs to saved with this tax. The greed-induced panic says “the world is warming.” Well, its not, it’s cooling according to satellite measurements.

So, if the correlation with CO2 is not demonstrated, why are the models of climate change based on this theory predicting never ending warming? Well, the models are wrong, have always been wrong, and will forever more be wrong. But, their authors claim they should be used to set public policy.

They ignore the fact that there is a theory which correctly predicts future climate which is based on the variations in the sun’s energy and cosmic ray profile. In this model CO2 is a very small player. So, the so-called scientists have committed the mortal sin of science: discarding a theory which works for one which does not — but serves their financial needs. After all there is nothing man can do to alter the Sun’s variations, so therefore all the billions of dollars of study money would cease to be spent.

If we look at the honesty track record of those who advance the CO2 theory it is full of fraud, deception, and bad science. These so-called scientists have used their prestige and credentials to line the pockets of investors in the climate control business, scientists whose grant proposals make no sense, but further the panicked reaction of bureaucrats, members of congress and the press.

There is no proof CO2 concentrations cause warming, just the opposite case of warming causing increased CO2 emissions is just as likely to be true. There is not even any evidence that CO2 has anything but a tiny effect on climate.

No, the jig is up. It’s all a fraud, a gigantic fraud perpetrated by naive or dishonest scientists and the environmentalist anti-capitalists.

The best course of action is to do nothing, cancel the research grants and sue the press for promoting fraudulent public policy.

The solar model (remember it works!) predicts 30 years of cooling, but the fraud promoting warming alarmists would have us think it is warming.

These people would have us think up is down, left is right, warm is cold. Have they no shame?

Nov 30, 2010 9:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ROWnine wrote:
The steel companies moved to india and china to take advantage of international scab labor costs and avoid enviormental regulations, they got tarrifs lowered or removed and now they claim that they are emerging economies. Bunk in addition the trade deficits are under represented because they often do not reflect the cost of shipping or the cost to the importing country in lost payroll tax revenues and additional social services offsets by the loss of wage earners. In addition, since the number laborers and office staff are reduces government looks the other was at top heavy retirement plans and to keep the deffered tax status of the exec.s (whos bene’s are back in vogue) have encouraged plans being transfered to unions like the recent auto maker deals. You can’t save an economy by taxing sales clerks when our imports are less then say Canadas (because they have a GST & PST) and if we don’t make it, we don’t engeneer it, loose our familiarity with it and can’t teach it. Free trade ain’t free the king has no clothes and the loyal subjects can no longer support the “emerging economies” we don’t have the confiscated WWII plunder to redistribute we done spent it and then some.

Nov 30, 2010 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.