UN Climate Talks Bangkok; That’s Another Fail Then
The latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pre COP18 meeting in Bangkok has just finished, having achieved absolutely nothing at all.
The Bangkok meeting was supposed to pave the way for advancing the global Green agenda at COP18 in November, instead confusion ruled as attendees disagreed about whether they are actually allowed to disagree:
Jonathan Pershing (USA): “In this forum, we don’t highlight the capacity which we don’t agree, we highlight where we agree and let the rest be silent.”
Burhan Gafoor (Singapore): “We need to think not just agree to agree, but agree to disagree, but at this point we are disagreeing about what we disagree about.”
Khalid Abuleif (Saudi Arabia): “I think we need to consider a space to agree to disagree.”
It gets more confusing, US negotiator John Pershing:
As Jonathan Pershing (or J.P as I like to call him) highlighted in yet another thrillingly patronizing lecture on the history of the UNFCCC, which included a strange new US interpretation of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” and “Fairness” that has nothing to do with equity, but also included a momentary insight – that there is no space within the UNFCCC to “agree to disagree”.
Agree to disagree is usually regarded to mean that those involved tolerate the opposing position, but do not accept the opposing position, a possible route for compromise thankfully ruled out by Pershing and his all or nothing approach.
The Bangkok talks have ended with no new agreements or deals, and huge loads of political Greenwash spin trying to convince the delegates, and the world that the COP18 negotiations are back on track:
A Japanese negotiator told RTCC these had been ‘slow, dull, calm and peaceful’ negotiations which were on the whole ‘positive’.
Which translates to we achieved nothing that is concrete and tangible, but there were some really nice people we had dinner with every night.
An ‘unofficial paper’ outlining how a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol could work has been produced, while discussions over the format of the Durban Platform have been termed ‘productive’.
Little progress appears to have been made over the future of the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) negotiating stream, with familiar disagreements between developed and developing countries. A text may or may not be released later today.
Discussions over finance were described as ‘useful’ but there have been no new pledges. It is accepted that a new round of Fast Start Finance needs to be agreed in Qatar, but concrete commitments have yet to be made.
However you try and spin it, Bangkok 2012 achieved nothing, political double speak like “productive” and “useful” are just euphemisms for failure and wishful thinking.
Posted on September 5, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Green Lies, Wealth Redistribution and tagged UN Climate Talks Bangkok, UNFCCC. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.