|
German officials unhappy with climate pact
KEHL AM RHEIN, Germany, Jul 29, 2005 -- United Press International
German officials said the climate pact between the United States and five Asia-Pacific nations is not an alternative to the U.N.-endorsed Kyoto treaty. His remarks came shortly before a top U.S. diplomat commented on the agreement at a conference in Laos. The official, Robert Zoellick, deputy secretary of State, said Thursday the agreement would be "a complement, not an alternative, to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Treaty." Climate experts fear, however, the new agreement undermines Kyoto. The alternate pact includes the United States, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea, which account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse emissions and nearly half the world's population. The United States and Australia have repeatedly said they disagree with the guidelines of the 1997 Kyoto treaty, which binds member countries to significantly reduce carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases until 2012. So far, 141 countries have ratified the accord, including China, Japan, South Korea and India. Concrete goals are different for each country, depending on their current state of emissions, and whether they are industrialized or developing nations. The United States pulled out of the treaty early in the first Bush administration. The countries can also engage in the so-called emissions trading, where leeway can be bought if guidelines can't be met. The new agreement, called Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, intends to keep fossil fuel power sources, but wants to create incentives to make them cleaner and greener. Latest technologies, the six states argue, can spark economic growth, and -- at the same time -- reduce greenhouse emissions. The agreement takes into account regional energy favorites, such as coal. The fossil-fuel source will be burned "cleaner," the countries promise. Some European critics of the agreement say the partnership's blueprint could have been written by industry lobbyists. Australia, for example, is one of the largest coal exporters on the globe. Virtually all German environmental experts have joined Trittin in criticizing the agreement. "The new pact sets no standards to reduce emissions, it has no time-line and it's not binding," Gabriela von Goernen, climate expert at Greenpeace Germany, said Thursday in a telephone interview with United Press International. "The whole thing is a paper tiger." Zoellick said Thursday the United States is investing $5 billion yearly into energy-related technology development and energy-efficiency research. Zoellick said the six countries will participate in a multilateral "knowledge exchange" when it comes to energy efficiency. Von Goernen said the six countries should focus on reducing greenhouse emissions sooner rather than later -- and technology transfer alone cannot achieve that. "In Australia and the United States, energy consumption is on the rise," she said. "There are no signs of increased energy efficiency." The European Commission's environment spokeswoman Barbara Helferrich told the BBC that "if it's simply technology and clean coal...we do not expect it to have a real impact on climate change." Bernd Brouns, energy and climate expert at the Wuppertal Institute, a German think tank, told UPI the alternate agreement "is not necessarily a step backward for global climate protection," he said. "But it has the potential to become dangerous, as a second multilateral agreement could undermine the process sparked by Kyoto." U.S. officials have repeatedly termed Kyoto not only harmful to the U.S. economy, but also ineffective in reducing greenhouse emissions. Kyoto does not hold developing countries such as India and China to stringent enough standards, they argue. Kyoto proponents, however, say one has to take into account emission numbers per capita. China emits 2.89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5.41 million from the United States (20.1 tons per capita), and 3.17 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). News Provided By |
