UPDATE - 0305 CET: The EU has decided to support the pact.
Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso were clearly less than delighted with it at their news conference.
Asked where EU leadership had been, Mr Barroso replied:
"We have been leading, but we were not leading when it came to lowering the ambition."
0043 CET Saturday: Now, we are totally - totally - into uncharted territory.
A US president has reached an climate change agreement with leaders of just four countries - although a few more clearly had a inkling of what was going on.
The White House announced the deal - this is supposed to be a UN convention, remember - and President Obama has gone live on US television telling viewers what it contains before many delegations in the UN conference even had a chance to look at the text.
It's not clear how those outside the little cabal of nations are going to play this.
The African Union is officially in favour so far, but they're having a closed door meeting that I understand is lively, with Senegal among countries opposing.
I've been told that some of the small island developing states have been "told" to sign up, but others are fuming and determined to oppose - especially as their key demand, inclusion of at least the indication that the world could eventually look at 1.5C as a target for temperature rise, was excised at the last minute.
Ask who the "villain" is, and - as I mentioned in my previous post - "China, China, China" is the refrain.
But there is considerable anger towards the US, too, as I indicated before.
The fact that the EU hasn't endorsed this "deal" yet it absolutely significant, as European leaders have until now been prepared to work with the US, though wishing it were in a position to pledge more.
Procedurally, there's no precedent. Asked how things stood, one observer replied with a six-letter word unprintable on a BBC webpage - it begins with an f.
It appears the document - which is written in the guise of a UN text - goes back to the plenary session, which will convene we don't know when.
If it's savaged there, does that make it a non-agreement? Does it become a UN non-agreement but become an agreement between a select few countries outside?
Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. Any international law experts out there who can advise?
Copenhagen has failed. The UN has failed to address the most important crisis in human history. This is now the time for sanctions, boycotts and embargoes. A new alliance is needed. An alliance of hope and peace and justice must be built to oppose the axis of pollution, extinction and self destruction.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/beyond-copenhagen.html