UN climate summit will fail unless US sets big goal: EU

The UN climate summit in 2015 will fail unless the United States sets "a concrete and ambitious" goal to reduce its gr
The UN climate summit in 2015 will fail unless the United States sets "a concrete and ambitious" goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard warned

The UN climate summit in 2015 will fail unless the United States sets "a concrete and ambitious" goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard warned.

In an interview with AFP, Hedegaard said the European Union set the example for both Washington and Beijing when it pledged last Friday to cut EU by at least 40 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels.

"We can do that in Europe because it's in our own interests but that in itself cannot solve the climate change issue," she said.

"The American have to come forward with something ambitious, something tangible and something concrete," Hedegaard added.

"I believe that only the moment that the Americans have done so, then the Chinese will come forward," she said.

China and the United States are the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases which are blamed for global warming.

The United States must not only set a more ambitious target than it did in Copenhagen in 2009—when it pledged to reduce emissions by 3.6 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels—but actually stick to it, Hedegaard said.

"They are not even on track to reach the 3.6 percent that they pledged in Copenhagen. Last year their emissions increased, not decreased," she said.

Europe, on the other hand, is cutting its emissions and sticking to its more ambitious pledge to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, she argued.

European Union Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard speaks during a press conference in Manila on September 6, 2013
European Union Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard speaks during a press conference in Manila on September 6, 2013

The EU wanted to agree on the 2030 targets ahead of a summit in Paris in November and December 2015, where it is hoped the world will agree to a new series of the Kyoto climate accords which run until 2020.

The European Union accounts for 11 percent of the world's , compared to 16 percent for the United States and 29 percent for China.

Hedegaard still hoped that US President Barack Obama will deliver when Washington is expected to put its proposal to fight climate change on the table early next year.

Obama, who made the battle against climate change a core promise of his 2008 election campaign, has been stymied at the federal level by opposition from lawmakers.

In early June he announced a major initiative that aims to cut by 30 percent from power plants by 2030 from 2005 levels.

'Not a game'

The EU climate commissioner, who gave one of the last interviews before she leaves her job on October 31, expects a surprise from China.

Leaders from Beijing announced during the summit in New York last month that the "Chinese were now analysing when they could peak their emissions, and how can we do it as soon as possible," she said.

To do it by 2030 would be too late but a much earlier "peaking year" would "be a very important gift from China to the whole world," she said.

"They are now really serious on that," she added.

But Hedegaard, who fought fellow commissioners and member states to get the 2030 climate targets, is realistic, recalling that EU commitments for the Copenhagen summit in 2009 did not prevent its collapse and acknowledging that the same risk hovers over the Paris conference in 2015.

She worries that the French government will seek to minimise expectations to avoid paying the political price of failure.

"When something gets difficult the solution is lower the ambitions, but this is not a game, this is something quite serious," she said.

"The success criteria for Paris should be to make an agreement that makes it credible and likely that the world will stay below the (temperature gain of) two degrees Celcius. Nothing more, nothing less."

Scientists say the planet is currently on a path to see temperatures rise by perhaps four degrees to five degrees Celcius before the end of the century if nothing is down.


Explore further

Emissions drop puts EU just shy of 2020 goal

© 2014 AFP

Citation: UN climate summit will fail unless US sets big goal: EU (2014, October 28) retrieved 16 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-climate-summit-big-goal-eu.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 28, 2014
And yet the Earth hasn't warmed for almost 2 decades. And scientists are amazed and confused and spitting theories like watermelon seeds. But it is settled science.

Oct 28, 2014
Why does James G keep on saying the same nonsense over and over?

I guess I will repeat myself too: Look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

Oct 28, 2014
Meanwhile, Honeywell had a significant release of radioactive Uranium Hexafluoride.

It is obvious we cannot trust goobers with dangerous technologies.


Oct 28, 2014
And yet the Earth hasn't warmed for almost 2 decades.

Ya know: repeating something wrong doesn't make it true (not even in chuch).

Oct 28, 2014
Hmm... wonder if the AGW Cult's False "Profit" Al, is going to burn 23 instead of 24 times the average household power.

Oct 28, 2014
See this? http://phys.org/n...rid.html

In the early 1980's, I integrated several alternative energy systems in my system for my thesis. It ran on pollution.

Filthy fuels will be gone.

Oct 28, 2014
Wonder how the AGW Cult's False "Profit" Al will survive.
http://www.forbes...ry-mole/

Oct 28, 2014
America need not take the lead on anything in the world if we choose not to. Why isn't the EU talking to China to take the lead? Why do we always have to bite the bullet? This attitude is very tiresome. It's not only global warming it's about every problem in the world? "Let the US do it."

Oct 28, 2014


Bartley, China leads the world in investment in alternative and renewable energy. Here is how we will do it.

http://phys.org/n...rid.html

No coal. No nukes. No filth.

http://ecowatch.c...85916837

Oct 28, 2014
BTW, bartley, I gave you a five star for asking the right question.

Oct 28, 2014
And yet the Earth hasn't warmed for almost 2 decades. And scientists are amazed and confused and spitting theories like watermelon seeds. But it is settled science.


Oh it hasn't has it?
Look again denier.....

https://c479107.s...7576.jpg

Scientific tip to you - the climate system is ~93% the oceans.

Now go away and learn some.
Science that is.
FFS


Oct 28, 2014
Why do we always have to bite the bullet? This attitude is very tiresome. It's not only global warming it's about every problem in the world? "Let the US do it."


Because you created these "other problems" by stomping around fighting imaginary enemies and turning friends into foes ever since the cold war ended.

And now you're playing martyrs, "Oh woe, we have to bomb yet another country and overthrow yet another foreign leader to serve our own interests. Why does it always have to be us?"


Oct 28, 2014
It has to be us because the Deniers won't do it.They would rather choke on toxic coal exhaust than admit they were wrong again.

Nov 02, 2014
All that has happened is the seasons have moved by around 3 months. If you look at what is happening around you instead of the dial, you will see it.
this has been going on for several hundred years and is, IMO, a natural cycle.

But i am sure we can tax it so it goes away..

Nov 02, 2014
Whew! For a few decades after earning my Master of Science in this field and watching as our fears became realized, I actually thought we were in Global Climate Change, had perturbed our complex interacting systems,and resulted in a change of our climatic stable state.

It is such a relief to find out those thousands and thousands of professionals were wrong, and btb is right!

Nov 02, 2014
this has been going on for several hundred years and is, IMO, a natural cycle
@btb101
no, it isn't a natural cycle: http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
the amplitude of the cycles simply can't explain the observed temperature change
please note that there are study references to fact check in the article

if, however, you know of some reputable science published in a peer reviewed journal (that has not been retracted or corrected) that impacts the subject which proves your point, you should be linking it here, not just making unsubstantiated conjecture based upon delusional conspiracy thought processes which are unfounded


Nov 02, 2014
China and the United States are the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases which are blamed for global warming.


We're also the worlds largest food producers, largest industrial chemical producers,a nd largest high and medium tech producers.

WTF, we do everything better, with a few exceptions, so what are we supposed to do? Just give up doing what we do best? The rest of the world would suffer in terms of technology and industry for the tools we make that they buy from us.

We are working on Wind and Solar, it's just hard given the energy requirements of our production. Making a Terrawatt worth of Wind Turbines is going to cost a TRILLION dollars in investments. That's not something even the U.S. could just spit out on a whim...and we need a couple Terawatts worth to completely replace Coal and make electric the majority commuter vehicles.

Sure it's possible, we've all worked out schemes that work, but real funds have to be acquired.

Nov 02, 2014
Also, because Republicans believe that governments shouldn't build infrastructure nor own utilities, they would never allow the congress to directly make the alternative energy systems. At best, the republicans would want subsidies, but only if their particular constituents benefit from it enough to give them "kickbacks" on their profits.

In general, and for reasons that make no sense other htan personal short/medium term greed, republicans dislike anythign positive futurist, and dislike anything the government might do that would actually unify our own economy and pay for itself. For some reason they like debs and deficits, even though they complain about them all the time. As long as the debt and deficit come from poorly prosecuted wars, Republicans are okay with it. If it comes from investing in a system which will pay for itself, a buyout or an energy infrastructure,) the republicans don't want it. Piss on them.

Nov 02, 2014
China needs a couple Terawatts of wind, hydro, and solar in order to pay for their industry which has been acquired through a combination of exported former U.S. industries and their own economy beginning to boom.

India? They still have 300 million people who do not have electric power in their nation, even as the middle and upper class live at U.S. standards. Imagine when another 300 million catch up in India...

Where is this power coming from? It will have to come from wind, water, and solar...Terawatts worth of it...and they still need land for farming..and Solar (the most energy dense) is bad for them during monsoon season because they will have massive floods and cloud cover...

Nov 02, 2014
We can bitch and complain about lack of conversion to alternative power, sure I think the U.S. can do more, but the Republicans don't want it for some damn reason. They have too much stock in oil companies and military suppliers.

Anyway, building these systems is more complicated than just picking some random open land and putting turbines on it. You need the wind to reliably blow at a certain level or it's useless. You also don't want to build wind turbines in locations where they will have a high likelihood of being hit by a category 4 or 5 storm, because they'll be destroyed, and Indian Ocean Cyclones are historically the most destructive in human casualties due to terrain and intensity.

So Wind near the coast would make sense if they only had at worst category 3 storms, but a cat 4 or 5 wipes out your entire energy infrastructure, not just some downed power lines...it will wipe the floor with both wind and solar farms...

Nov 02, 2014
You invest that heavily in wind and solar near the coast, and you get hit by a 30 year storm? 500 billion dollars damage anyone? A trillion? Not counting normal cyclone damage to homes, businesses and bridges, loss of life...

You just think economic damage is done by them now. Wait till this happens and a whole energy infrastructure gets wiped.

Taht's what you have to plan for. There's a reason we don't have a giant network of wind and solar farms in Florida and the bahamas (yes there is some).

Nov 02, 2014
"There's a reason we don't have a giant network of wind and solar farms in Florida"
-------------------------------------

Yeah, until recently, it was technology and the cost of installation. I would rather have a PV array in a hurricane than a nuke.

BTW, did you notice how wind not only continued to provide power for wind farms during the great storm in Great Britain last month, but also provided over 50% of the electricity then?

Nov 02, 2014
Four to five degrees in the next eighty-five years. Where are those run away predictions from 1992?

Nov 02, 2014
Apparently Joe has no idea what a change of one degree C makes in crops and weather, with growing areas shifting to places unprepared or inappropriate for them. The increase in temperature also means storms will be more violent, as they are driven by evaporation from the heating of the seas.

Nov 03, 2014
Such a challenge that that crop yields have only increased in the past 30 years.

One day you kids will learn how to make a rational and logical argument, but that would require you to stop pretending to be something that the rest of us already know you aren't.

Nov 03, 2014
One day you kids will learn how to make a rational and logical argument, but that would require you to stop pretending to be something that the rest of us already know you aren't.
@joeblow
TROLL COMMENT
reported

rational arguments are like thus:
AGW exists
there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it
http://iopscience.../article
there is evidence it affects weather and causes extreme fluctuations
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
there is evidence of a conspiracy of big money against the science for higher profits
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
there is evidence of CO2 as a major effect
http://www.scienc...abstract
deniers thing there is a worldwide conspiracy between people who cannot even agree on a breakfast food

and you call US not rational or logical?

you are stupid
and a TROLL

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more