Thursday, November 15, 2018
About Us
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
Connect With Us - Facebook RSS
<November 2018>
Liberty In The News
Liberty Events
Conference Proceedings
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Facts & Figures
Durban agreement: A solution that isn't
Liberty Institute, Denmark Sunday, December 11, 2011

Bjorn Lomborg
The final outcome at Durban is a classic climate negotiation outcome. At the brink of negotiation collapse, COP17 comes up with a text that can arguably be seen as a solution but won’t really do anything, says Bjorn Lomborg.

The final outcome is a classic climate negotiation outcome. At the brink of negotiation collapse, COP17 comes up with a text that can arguably be seen as a solution but won’t really do anything.

The final deal decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol, but it will be little more than symbolic with mainly the EU participating (where the EU has already promised to cut carbon emissions 20% below 1990-levels) along with a few other, small countries like New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.

The brokered deal decided to set up a legal structure for the Green Fund, but there is still no money.

Finally, and arguably the most important step was to bring in the big developing countries into possibly forging a legally binding treaty on cutting emissions by 2020. However, the final decision simply kicks the can far down the road, as there will be no decisions for the next 4-9 years. It begs credulity to believe that we could make all the big emitters cut their emissions when we have not even been able to get the rich world to do so the last twenty years.

In reality, the COP17 negotiations missed an important opportunity to change tracks. Instead of following the same path, that has failed since Rio in 1992 — prescribe large, immediate and implausible carbon cuts to unwilling nations — it should focus on the main problem. As long as green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels it will always be impossible to get significant reductions. If we instead focused on innovating the green energy price down below fossil fuels. If we could achieve that, we would have solved global warming. Therefore we should rather spend 0.2% of GDP on research and development of green energy. This would be a massive increase of green R&D, have much greater long-term impact and yet much cheaper than any standard climate deal.

This article was published in the Liberty Institute on Sunday, December 11, 2011. Please read the original article here.
Author : Dr Bjorn Lomborg, is Adjunct Professor, at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Denmark.
Tags- Find more articles on - Climate negotiations | emission reduction | Kyoto Protocol | UNFCCC Durban

Post your Comments on this Article

Comments will be moderated

More Related Articles
More Articles

An Initiative of
All rights reserved.