What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

What is the EU’s Position on a Legally-Binding Agreement?

Amidst a scandal over a leaked Danish negotiating text, pressure is growing on E.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Amidst a scandal over a leaked Danish negotiating text, pressure is growing on E.U. countries to boost their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and firm up their commitment to a legally-binding, comprehensive agreement on addressing climate change.

 

The E.U. will hold its final quarterly meeting of the year this week in Brussels and environmental groups are pressuring the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany to commit to stronger emissions reductions targets before arriving at COP15. The E.U. has previously pledged to reduce its emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and would increase that commitment to 30% if other developed countries commit to similar targets. Now, environmental groups are demanding that the E.U. raise their pledge to a 40% reduction by 2020, given recent emission reduction offers from countries such as China, India, and South Africa and in order to meet the recommendations of the IPCC, the U.N.’s climate science organization.

The leaked Danish text, published yesterday in the Guardian, has exposed several E.U. countries to criticism that they are reneging on prior commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and that they are part of an effort to ram an agreement through COP15 that does not address the concerns of many poor and low-lying island nations. There are several significant aspects of the leaked document. It includes requirements for developing countries’ to cut their emissions, a provision that runs counter to responsibilities in Kyoto for developed nations to recognize their historic responsibility for global warming through emissions cuts. And, the proposal, if implemented, would erode the U.N.’s role in financing climate adaptation. Several European countries took part in negotiating the text.

In response to the leaked text, Sudanese Ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, speaking on behalf of the G77, said: “The G77 member states will not walk out of these consultations or negotiations at this late hour because we cannot afford failure. We have to reach a fair and just deal. However, we will not sign an unequitable deal.”

In a dramatic move this afternoon, COP15 talks have been temporarily suspended. The small island nation of Tuvalu called on UNFCCC nations to consider its proposal for legally-binding climate agreement. It proposal had been crafted in a bottom-up fashion and would create a legally-binding climate deal that included demands from poor and developing nations. But it did not get support for a hearing on its proposal. Importantly, the E.U., along with the U.S., did not support a hearing of Tuvalu’s proposal.

Addressing the E.U.’s role in climate negotiations and the call for boosting emissions targets, Martin Kaiser Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director, told me: “We expect a statement from Brown, Sarkozy, and Merkel on their commitment to a legally-binding agreement and increasing emissions targets. Cutting emissions twenty percent below 1990 levels if below the recommendations of the IPCC and far below what aggregate emissions cuts require for keeping temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.”

While the G77 has committed to remaining at the negotiating table, stark divisions are emerging between developed nations; developing countries, such as Brazil, China and India; and the poor and low-lying countries. Commitments this week from the European Union on its support for a legally-binding agreement and greater emissions cuts could bridge these gaps ever so slightly. But it may be a gap that is already too wide to close in the remaining days of COP15.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x