Earth Equity News

Binding U.N. Agreements Unlikely in 2010. By Lisa Friedman, ClimateWire, February 8, 2010. "Washington's climate policy analysts from environmental groups are quietly abandoning -- at least temporarily -- the once sacrosanct notion that nations must agree to legally binding emission targets. Several experts with ties to the Obama administration either personally or through their organizations said in recent interviews they don't view a new global treaty as likely or even desirable by the time countries meet in December for the next U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico. Action is the new buzzword, it seems. The climate conference in Copenhagen last year ended in chaos -- but still with promises from the world's major global warming polluters to slash emissions. Policy leaders now say they want negotiators to focus on achieving goals, not sparring over ideologically fraught legal language...

"'Everybody's saying they want legally binding, but there's at least four or five mutually contradictory visions of what legally binding means,' said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists... But in Washington, many are now arguing that rather than spend more time dancing in that minefield, nations should focus on what really counts: reducing or scaling back the growth of global warming pollution. 'We may need to put off decisions on legally binding until the dynamics change, and there is both more agreement on the substance and more trust between the major countries in the negotiations,' Meyer said. So far, the Obama administration continues to declare support for a binding treaty, as long as nations like China and Brazil are held to the same legal standards. But the increasingly loud drumbeat from respected analysts could provide important cover for U.S. officials if America once again fails to bring a signed climate bill to the next U.N. summit."