SUNITA NARAIN: Ninety-two. I was in Berlin when the Berlin Mandate was set. That was ’95 when the Berlin Mandate was decided upon. I was in Kyoto when we talked about the Kyoto Protocol in end of 1997. And every conference had definitely difficulties. Definitely we’ve had difficulties between the North and the South. But I think the kind of distrust that you have at this meeting, the kind of bad organization that you have, the lack of process, the lack of transparency, the enormous effort there seems to be to somehow fix the deal—and that’s completely unacceptable. And I think, you know, if it’s the Danish government or if it’s the US government working with the Danish government, I think the only lesson to them is that they really cannot do this and get away.
Time. I think what is really being lost today is time. We know that climate change is urgent. We need to do something about it. We need to reduce the emissions that we have. And this conference was to come after two years of negotiations.
And yet, what you have at this conference is a complete breakdown, and it’s not because of the developing countries. It’s not because of India and China. That’s, you know, just hiding behind two countries. It’s very clear: it’s because the United States wants to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol. They want to dismantle the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is based on the notion of equity. They want to bring to—in fact, they want to replace it with a completely different multilateral system. So there is a breakdown here, and there are countries responsible for it, but my suspicion is, on Friday, when President Obama does descend to the city, the world media is going to blame the poor nations and not the rich nations.
Well, I think there’s both overt pressure and there is pressure from—you know, which is hidden pressure. When you look at—firstly, we need to understand what’s the deal that the rich nations want. The rich nations want a deal in which, without Kyoto, they have an agreement, which is based on pledge and review, a system in which every country, including the United States, puts up a number and says this is what they will do domestically. So there is no multilateral framework which will make every country agree to a certain target for reduction. And we know that the US has put on the table a very small number, three percent below 1990 levels, when it needs to cut 40 percent. That’s the deal they want.
To get that deal, there is enormous pressure. There is pressure on our governments to be able to agree, to sign on it. There is pressure on poorer nations with the offer of money to break them from the G-77. There is all kind of pressure. And my fear in this, as an environmentalist, is that what we are doing is really not good for climate change, because we are not working towards an effective agreement. We’re undermining a good agreement
How is the Obama administration different from the Bush administration, George W. Bush? Or is it?
SUNITA NARAIN: Well, I think if President Bush was in kindergarten, President Obama is in first grade, but nothing more than that. Well, it just means that President Bush didn’t understand—rejected the very notion of climate change for a long time. He also rejected the Kyoto Protocol. And he said that the US will do nothing about it. President Obama accepts that climate change is real, which is welcome, but he also rejects the Kyoto Protocol, and he also puts on the table a very weak target for his country to do. He has not shown leadership at the scale that is needed in the world. The world has a crisis, and we need leaders who can face up to that crisis. And as yet, President Obama has not shown that.
No comments:
Post a Comment