|
Climate change
as a global phenomenon requires global action. The strategies of
states are very multi-faceted and variable: next to the Kyoto Protocol
(KP), which sets forth binding reduction targets, are a number of
initiatives such as the Asian Pacific Partnership agreement for
Clean Development and Climate (AP6) with a voluntary, technology-based
approach, and the Action Program for climate protection put in place
at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles. At the 9th climate talk it was debated
whether these varied approaches are effective for climate protection,
and to what extent they complement or compete and thus hinder one
another.
Stimulating introductions on this topic were given by Dr. Karsten
Sach (German
Ministry of the Environment), Jennifer Morgan (WWF)
and Dr. Hartmut Grewe (Konrad
Adenauer Foundation).
A
far-reaching consensus arose from the proceeding discussion that
there could not be a single path to climate protection. There was
also agreement that clear and binding ‘top-down’ reduction
targets, like those mandated until 2012 in the KP, cannot be waived
in the future. Furthermore the potential of the carbon market to
internalize costs was emphasized. The participants also agreed the
binding approach must be applied to more countries in the middle-term
while considering the right to development of poor countries. At
the same time a few participants argued that only new, less cumbersome
decision making processes than those set forth by the Climate Convention
and the KP can solve the climate problem.
The cap-oriented approach must however be complemented by partnerships
and technology-based approaches. To this end the prompt development
and diffusion of climate-friendly technology was pointed out to
be of special importance. In this context it was argued that the
AP-6 initiative would not threaten the Kyoto process, as the AP-6
initiative has not yet developed political weight and thus is not
in direct competition with the instruments of the KP.
Some
participants criticized that the different approaches to protect
the climate have neither at the international nor on national level
yet been integrated into one coherent policy. Other participants
pointed out that the world was still in a “learning phase”
with view to the mechanisms of the KP. Therefore, an integrated
approach would currently not be practically or politically feasible
on account of its complexity. This stepwise approach was criticized
on the basis of the time pressure put on the global community with
regard to climate change.
There
was strong support of many participants, that both the will of political
decision makers as well as the general public must be won for climate
protection. To that end the public was expected to convey the urgency
of the problem and to pressure politicians to act. Furthermore,
it was pointed out that a change in the behavior of the populations
was needed to get a grip on climate change.
Also
discussed was the question of whether single nations should take
a leading role or if the focus should be on a concerted effort at
the international level. In this context it was pointed out that
global players should be more integrated in the climate protection
efforts. It was also pointed out that Germany could play a leading
role due to its upcoming presidency of the EU and as a host to the
next G8 summit. The German leadership was criticized especially
for its insufficiently ambitious design of the second National Allocation
Plan for European emission trading regime. Germany must be asked
to create a credible and symbolic policy. But besides this, the
importance of the EU to create trust in the market was underlined.
Recommended was an offensive ecologically-oriented industrial policy
that would improve energy-efficiency and create a framework to successfully
introduce climate friendly technologies into the market.
After
ample and lively discussion, these and other questions were pondered
over beer and flambé in a nearby restaurant.
Further
Links:
|
