Climate Talks End: How Did the Poor Fare?

International leaders are leaving two weeks of climate negotiations fairly disappointed.  They didn’t even meet the lowest of their expectations from the negotiations.  However, they are leaving having “taken note” of a tentative, non-binding agreement reached by 5 world powers: the US, China, India, South Africa and Brazil

No one really fared well in this weak agreement.  But I am especially worried about the poorest of the poor that are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.  How did they fare?

The answer is still unknown.  The director of ONE, who attended the talks, sums up the situation:

Climate change is putting additional stress on poor countries – which is why they need additional funds to cope with it – on top of existing and promised aid levels. Promises of aid made by the G8 in Gleneagles in 2005 must not be lost in Copenhagen. Without a clear commitment that these climate funds are additional, the dollar amounts are next to meaningless.

This debate over ‘additionality’ might seem arcane, but within the details lie billions of dollars – and very real impacts on millions of lives. Without this additionality, Copenhagen adds up to nothing. 

So the hard work still remains.  Politicians might decide that the funds to help poor countries combat climate change can come out of money that has already been set aside for foreign aid.  We have to make sure this doesn’t happen. 

Many people thought the hard work of climate negotiations would happen in Copenhagen over the past two weeks.  However, it seems the hard work will now be ours in lobbying our governments to make real commitments to cut greenhouse gases and help poorer countries mitigate the effects of climate change.

This work starts with lobbying the U.S. Senate who will be working on a climate change bill in the spring.  Tell your Senators that funding to help poor countries deal with climate change must come on top of previously committed funds.  
 

Posted By (Stephen Donahoe) on Dec 19, 2009 12:00 AM CST
categories: Advocacy  Aid  Current Affairs  Environment  Global Warming  India  Poverty  Rural Poverty 

Submit Your Comment

Nickname
Comment
Enter this word:


Submitted by naj24 at: February 25, 2010
You mention the 2005 Gleneagles summit, and I am wondering how the Copenhagen talks compared. Were there similar pledges made or was there a renewal of interest in old pledges? It would be great to know if you're like me and unfamiliar with the outcomes of both summits.
 

ABOUT THIS BLOG

Our vision is a world without poverty. But to get there, it will take more than what has been done before. It will take a second look at the problem: a redefinition.

When we redefine the problem of poverty, we redefine the solution: Outreach International doesn't throw money at the cause, or give quick-fix handouts. We focus on the poorest of the poor, and the dignity they deserve. We are about lasting change, we are about people, we are about sustainable good. We will redefine poverty, and in the process, redefine our lives.

But how? This blog is a place to start. THis blog is for you. Use it to learn, interact, communicate, connect...and redefine.

ARCHIVES