Tiempo Climate Newswatch

The European Union was heavily criticized for not committing additional funds to assist the developing country response to climate change as the Accra Climate Change Talks came to a close. "A serious and equitable response to climate change will require rich countries to pay billions in public funds to help poor countries develop in a sustainable, low carbon manner. So why has the European Union, which likes to claim global leadership in the response to climate change, turned up with empty pockets again?" asked Nelson Muffuh, adviser to Christian Aid, speaking on behalf of a number of African non-governmental organizations. The World Bank announced last week that developing countries would require 170 billion US dollars between now and the year 2030 to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Developing nations continued to resist pressure to expand the number of countries covered by binding emissions reduction targets.

Long-standing obstacles remained firmly in place at the Accra talks. The United States, for example, continues to refuse to accept binding emissions targets and this position is unlikely to change before the presidential elections later this year. Japan, Canada, Russia and Australia were also accused of stalling tactics. Nevertheless, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, is confident that progress is being made. "Governments are very committed to this process. I feel sure that the train will reach Copenhagen as planned," he said. Agreement on a post-Kyoto framework needs to be reached by the time of the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. Agreement does seem likely on the inclusion of deforestation-related measures in any post-Kyoto framework, backed by a new financial mechanism. The possibility of sector-specific emissions reduction targets, aimed at high-polluting industries, was a major focus of discussion in Accra. It has been agreed that developing countries will not have to accept binding sectoral targets, though voluntary sectoral initiatives may be included in an upgraded Clean Development Mechanism. The next negotiations will take place in Poznañ, Poland, in December 2008.

A meat-eating diet results in almost twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as a vegetarian diet, according to a new study from the Institute for Ecological Economy Research in Berlin. Going vegan, giving up meat and dairy products, would reduce emissions more than seven-fold and, if all the vegan food was organic, the overall reduction would be by a factor of seventeen.

"The cow is a climate bomb," warns Thilo Bode of Foodwatch. Producing a kilo of beef generates almost three times the emissions generated in raising a kilo of pork. Meat should become a luxury food once more; "it's time we went back to the days of the Sunday roast," says Bode. The study concludes that, overall, the worst source of agricultural emissions, making up 30 per cent of the total, is the draining of wetlands during land conversion, as a result of the carbon released from the soil.

"Governments should urgently review their energy subsidies and begin phasing out the harmful ones," says Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). "Many fossil fuel subsidies are introduced for political reasons but are simply propping up and perpetuating inefficiencies in the global economy," he continued. Steiner was commenting on a new UNEP report on the role of energy subsidies in generating climate change. The study estimates that energy subsidies, which are almost all for fossil fuels, total about 0.7 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP) each year. "Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP," the report concludes.

"Some countries spend more on subsidies than on health and education combined... they stand in the way of more environmentally friendly technologies," warns Kaveh Zahedi, climate change coordinator at UNEP. In India, liquefied petroleum gas subsidies, intended to get fuel to poor households, totaled US$1.7 billion in the first half of 2008 but they are mainly benefiting higher-income households. The report calls for smarter subsidies, such as tax breaks, financial incentives or other market mechanisms, which could generate benefits for the economy and environment if properly targeted.