快猫短视频

THE breakdown of talks aimed at tackling global warming had its roots in
disagreements between Europe and the US over whether they had struck a secret
deal three years before in Kyoto. The US insisted the deal allowed it to use its
huge forests to avoid reducing carbon emissions. The Europeans denied such a
deal was struck.

In the end it was the Greens who halted talks at The Hague to finalise the
Kyoto Protocol, the landmark agreement designed to limit the human impact on
world climate. Three key European Union environment ministers鈥攖wo of them
leading members of national Green parties鈥攃ouldn鈥檛 stomach concessions on
using forests as carbon sinks offered to the US in a pre-dawn deal between
British deputy prime minister John Prescott and US chief negotiator Frank
Loy.

After Prescott quit the meeting, the Europeans rejected last-ditch compromise
proposals made by the US, and surprised the Americans by refusing to submit
counter-proposals. Now Europe faces the charge that it has thrown away a deal
that may never be on offer again.

Prescott and Loy had produced a complex rule book for carbon trading and
using forests to soak up emissions of CO₂. Advisers to Dominique
Voynet, the French environment minister and head of the EU delegation, told her
that the package could allow industrialised countries to increase their CO₂
emissions by up to 7 per cent by 2010. This compares with the average
Kyoto target of a 5 per cent cut. But nobody was sure about the figures, time
was running out and everyone was tired after all-night talks.

The EU鈥攍ed by leading Green Party members Voynet and German environment
minister Jurgen Tritten, and the radical Danish environment minister Svend
Auken鈥攖hen rejected the package. Recriminations quickly flew. Voynet
blamed Prescott for giving away too much to the Americans. Back in London,
Prescott鈥攚ho earlier in the week had boasted to journalists about how the
detail of negotiations often passed him by鈥攁ttacked Voynet for being too
tired to handle the detail.

Voynet explained afterwards: 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 want any old agreement. We didn鈥檛
want to break the spirit of Kyoto.鈥� And European delegates said privately that
they feared opposition to the Prescott deal back home. They may have been
influenced by demonstrators who walked the corridors in the final hours
shouting: 鈥淓U, stay strong.鈥� Greenpeace climate coordinator Bill Hare declared
that: 鈥淣o deal is better than a bad deal.鈥�

But one leading European campaigner for the World Wide Fund for Nature told
快猫短视频: 鈥淲e probably would have supported the deal.鈥� And Philip
Clapp, president of the US National Environmental Trust, said: 鈥淭his is likely
to have been the European nations鈥� best opportunity to achieve a strong climate
treaty. After January they could face a Bush administration. There is no excuse
for having walked away.鈥�

Behind the failure and recriminations lies one critical unanswered question.
Did the EU renege on a secret deal brokered in Kyoto that guaranteed the US
carbon credits for a 鈥渄o nothing鈥� policy in its forests?

The Kyoto Protocol allows countries to claim carbon credits for planting
forests to soak up CO₂ from the atmosphere. These credits can be used
to offset increased emissions of the gas by industry. But in the final
negotiations in Kyoto, delegates also agreed another clause, known in the jargon
as 鈥渃lause 3.4鈥�, which allows countries to 鈥渦ndertake additional activities鈥� to
gain more credits.

For three years, this ambiguous clause has hung over the Kyoto Protocol. The
US delegation arrived in The Hague insisting that it had reached an
understanding in Kyoto that the clause would give the US credits for CO₂
absorbed by every tree already planted in 鈥渕anaged鈥� forests, even if the
trees were planted years ago. Forests in the US are believed to absorb about 300
million tonnes of carbon a year.

Eileen Claussen, who retired as US climate negotiator just before Kyoto and
has followed the talks in detail since, says: 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 personally hear the
promises, but the US thought they were guaranteed some tonnes in Kyoto for
`business as usual鈥�.鈥� Current US negotiator Roger Ballentine agrees: 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why
we went into the Kyoto talks offering a zero-cuts target and ended up taking a 7
per cent cut.鈥� And as talks at The Hague proceeded, Loy offered to set a ceiling
on these 鈥渄o nothing鈥� credits of 125 million tonnes a year鈥攋ust 7 per cent
of current US emissions.

But EU delegates insist there was no such understanding. Voynet accuse Loy of
wanting to 鈥渞enegotiate鈥� the Kyoto Protocol. In the final moments, the US is
believed to have reduced its ceiling on 鈥渄o nothing鈥� credits to 70, or even 40
million tonnes. But the EU refused to budge.

British delegates, who played a crucial role in negotiating the Kyoto
agreements, deflect suggestions that there might have been a secret deal. But
they agree that promises on sinks were critical to American acceptance of the
Kyoto protocol, and that the protocol left 鈥渕any loopholes鈥�. Either way, the
dispute poisoned the atmosphere in The Hague.

鈥淭here was and is a deal there. If we鈥檇 had another half day we鈥檇 have made
it,鈥� claimed Prescott鈥檚 deputy, Michael Meacher. But the conference hall was
booked for an oil industry congress.