Us against them?
It had just hit 2am in Doha and everybody was looking at each other with a wee bit of anger. Everyone was tired, obviously. Mugs of coffee were scattered all over the table. Thus far the negotiations have centred on two fronts; on one side there is a conglomerate of state parties who do not want to push through the agreements and another struggling to do the complete opposite.
One of the issues that has caused quite some uproar is the position of the U.S, yes Obama’s U.S, and New Zealand concerning accounting. Basically they have refused to advance the accounting rules, hence stalled the negotiations in relation common accounting. It is like throwing the spanner in the works. Essentially, common accounting is crucial in terms of quantifying emission reduction.
The commitment problem
Annex 1 countries (the most developed in the world) are still not coming out clearly and transparently concerning their targets. Common accounting rules are important in assessing progress towards the goals set out in addition to evaluating the effort that is put into realizing this ambition. These rules are crucial in strengthening the international carbon markets. This lack of commitment jeopardizes the robustness of the carbon markets mechanism.
The countries which are hindering the development of the common accounting rules are making it very difficult to realize the targets that have been set: less than a 2 degree increase in warming, and a significant reduction in emissions around the world.
This also has an effect on the issue of surpluses. As mentioned in an earlier post, the issue of surpluses is crucial and sensitive. In spilling the surpluses to the past the 1st commitment period for the Kyoto protocol, countries would not have to account much for their emissions as the shift will focus on buying emission permits. That is an eventuality we do not want to even consider.
Tiny Bites
Essentially the U.S and New Zealand wanted to maintain the status quo, as they do not want to further enhance the common accounting rules.
South Africa took a different view from the two “fossil giants” preferring the advancement of the rules in order to enhance transparency and accountability.
Canada have not expressed a favourable position regarding finance, and are increasingly being recognized as “COP 18 villains” together with Russia, Ukraine, Poland New Zealand among a few others.
Norway have been making massive steps in the contribution towards efforts to reduce emissions, however, it has been found that they have not reduced their emissions because extraction and consumption of oil and gas has increased. They have been put to task about this.
Conclusion
The up-shot is that there is a desire and urgency to enhance a 2nd commitment period with regards to the Kyoto protocol. However, there are some parties which are less than willing to see this through. They are less than transparent when it comes to the commitment of a 2nd post-Kyoto period.
About the Author
