China trying legally binding climate treaty – Voice of America

The head of the delegation of China at the UN climate talks in South Africa have marked the country willing to accept a legally binding agreement to cut emissions. While the deal will not come until after 2020, many at the Conference hope China’s move will affect other major polluters and developing countries.

The European Union has urged other Governments at the UN Climate Conference, which is known as COP17, to adopt legally binding mandate to cut carbon emissions blamed for global climate change.

EU Commissioner for climate change, Connie Hedegaard, the European delegation will discuss business with the world’s biggest polluters – China.

“China has always been supportive of a legally binding outcome, and that is the question-the key to China-will be legally binding agreements mean that China is also closely bound,” said Hedegaard.

The head of the delegation of China, Xie Zhenhua, answer this question by saying China would agree to the deal if certain preconditions are met.

They include that of the European Union agreed to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires each country to cut carbon emissions, and the terms of the contract law will distinguish based on individual countries ‘ National ability. “

Speaking through an interpreter, Xie also said the Government must first meet the promises they made in the reduction of the two Copenhagen climate summit and Cancun before considering a legally binding agreement, no sooner than 2020.

Like the PRC told reporters on the ground floor of the Durban’s International Conference Center, upstairs, leaders of civil society groups led a press conference outlining their complaints about the US position in talks.

United States, the second largest polluters behind China, oppose a mandate to cut emissions that are legally binding, and said the emission reduction targets when it need not be considered until 2020.

Some members of the panel suggested that China’s willingness to agree to the legal framework in order to cut emissions can help motivate other countries.

Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

“I think that China and the United States needs to actually have a conversation here on the ground and may, in fact, it is not a conversation happens between the negotiators, but perhaps it is Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama speaks at a senior level, because it does not forget that the theatre not only here the struggle, this is the case in the capital go home” said Naidoo.

China and the United States have actually described a similar policy here at COP17. They have both called for countries to meet the targets set at the previous Conference prior to discuss further action. China says it has set a target to cut emissions by 17 percent in the next five years, while the United States has committed to cutting the number of the same by 2020.

But the United States has accused of holding progress in talks, while China’s policy has been warmly welcomed.

Harjeet Singh, “climate justice Coordinator” for the Group ActionAid, said the difference is that in comparison with the United States, China has a more ambitious climate policy.

“They have laid down some strict laws in place that is very strong, they make sure that their industry is much less pollution,” said Singh. “See the investment they’ve made in green technology and all of this occurred when China is not under any legally binding agreements, and has done a lot of its own.”

Despite the efforts of China, a new report from the Global carbon project, a group of scientists who are connected to Britain’s University of East Anglia, said developing countries, including China, have contributed to the biggest annual increase in carbon emissions on record.

Report, published Sunday in the journal Nature climate change, say carbon dioxide emissions rose 5.9 percent worldwide by 2010, despite a brief dip in air pollution during the global financial crisis.

According to reports, China’s own emissions rising 10.4 per cent.

This entry was posted in Legal. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.