Tags

, , , , , ,

Dear Delegate,

I am sure that there is no need to remind you of the outcomes of previous Climate Change Conferences.Afficher l'image d'origine

They all failed.

In the vain hope that any one of you might read this:

HERE IS THE REASON WHY and THE SOLUTION.

The debates that are likely to dominate the Paris talks will not be about emissions but about – Money.

If nations can meet and agree equitable goals on the climate, on economic development, on social and environmental issues, and do so in a spirit of cooperation, this alone will be a huge achievement.

That as you know this is hoping for a “miracle.”

We already know that the commitments made, and likely to be made by December, will not by themselves be enough to hold the world to no more than 2C of warming.

So far, countries have made formal emissions pledges. They cover more than 65 percent of current global emissions. The pledges vary. Some are absolute targets expressed as tons of carbon dioxide per year in 2030; others are targets measured against business as usual, or promises to reduce emissions for every dollar of economic activity.

The EU is to cut its emissions by 40%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030. The US is to cut its emissions by 26% to 28%, compared with 2005 levels, by 2025. China is to agree that its emissions will peak by 2030.

Nations responsible for about two-thirds of global emissions have come up with their targets known in the UN jargon as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs – but some countries, most notably India.

Are the current pledges enough to keep global warming below 2 degrees C?

Nobody can be certain.

Serious doubts remain as to whether these promised cuts will be nearly enough to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

There are too many scientific uncertainties about exactly how sensitive the atmosphere is to growing concentrations of greenhouse gases. We could get lucky, but equally there might be tipping points that could suddenly accelerate warming.

In the Unite Nations own words it is attaching a set of “sustainable development goals,”  on to the Conference which will take over from the millennium development goals that were pegged to 2015.

These will include issues such as access to clean water and sanitation, access to energy, gender equality, education and health. ” Those SDGs will have a profound effect on whether the world can meet its climate change targets, and meet them in an equitable fashion that allows poor countries to lift their citizens out of poverty while not passing climate thresholds.”

While these United Nations aspirations are essential Climate Change has to tackled without interference.

Poor nations want all the money to come from rich country governments, but those governments are adamant that they will not provide such funding solely from the public purse. They want international development banks, such as the World Bank, to play a role, and they want most of the funding to come from the private sector.

There is strong disagreement over how this should be done.

At Copenhagen, where the finance part of the deal was only sorted out at the very last-minute, rich countries agreed to supply $30bn ($20bn) of “fast-start” financial assistance to the poor nations, and they said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.

These pledges are already backsliding.

This is a hugely contentious issue:

Why because any core agreement, will be contested over issues such as “loss and damage”, by which developing countries want assistance on coping with extreme weather events, likely to be made worse by climate change. An agreement on this is still possible.

African countries, and others with little or no responsibility for climate change, want a separate fund to compensate them for “loss and damage” resulting from climate disasters such as extreme heat, wild weather, floods, and droughts. This would be a 21st century equivalent of war reparations — for climate crimes rather than war crimes.

This will be one of the main obstacles to a Paris deal.

While you as a negotiator will be mired in the paragraphs, sub-headings and addenda of texts thick with square brackets denoting unresolved issues, heads of government have the power to sweep aside such details and order them to agree.

What can we expect before Paris?

Most delegates believe that funding issues are the most likely deal breakers in Paris.

That would be bad for the world.

So here is the solution:

Make Profit for Profit Sake Pay;

By placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all new drilling and mining Licences.

A commission rate ranging from 0.005 to 0.25 percent would generate between $15 and $300 billion per year, of which a substantial amount could be allocated to promote international peace and development and Climate Change.

This would create a perpetual Funded Fund to contributed to rectifying the very thing that caused the problems in the first place.   Greed. 

There will be one further week of negotiations, in October, before the Paris meeting agrees, so there is much work to be done on the software to make this possible.

Yours faithfully,

Robert De Mayo Dillon,Afficher l'image d'origine

World Citizen.

 

 

 

Advertisements