From BusinessGreen:
Yesterday, more than 60 state and regional governments that together represent 15 per cent of global GDP reiterated their commitment to ambitious low carbon targets, regardless of the outcome of the Cancun climate summit.
Officials gathered at The Climate Group think tank's latest annual Climate Leaders Summit in Cancun said that the on-going negotiations at the neighbouring UN climate change talks would not derail existing green initiatives at a city and regional level designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts.
"We are proving that while a global agreement is important, we do not need to wait for it to start building the path to a new low carbon future," said Jean Charest, premier of Quebec and co-chair of the States & Regions Alliance. "As our national counterparts meet here in Cancun to continue the negotiations, states and regions are continuing to show the leadership necessary to make practical headway on climate action."
His comments were echoed by Steve Howard, chief executive of The Climate Group, who said that city and state governments were developing "laboratories for low carbon development" that should provide international leaders with evidence that environmentally sustainable policies can help drive economic growth.
"A clean industrial revolution is not only possible, but it is well underway in the world's leading states, cities and regions," he said. "The subnational governments in our Alliance are not waiting for a global agreement but are forging agreements of their own to lead a growing global market for low carbon goods and services already estimated at $4.7 trillion."
At The Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg writes, Is China on a Path to Redemption in Cancún?
In an apparent effort to make up for last year's debacle at Copenhagen – where China fired up developing countries into opposing a deal and delivering diplomatic snubs to Barack Obama – officials this time have opted for a constructive, low-key approach, say negotiators and observers.
"There is more camaraderie here than I saw in Copenhagen. I see more dialogue and much more intense engagement between the US and China and less shadow boxing," said India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh. "China has moved."
Some reports have even suggested that China, now the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, was prepared to adopt legally binding emissions targets and subject its voluntary C02 reductions to international monitoring and verification.
"It's a huge step in the right direction," said Fred Boltz of Conservation International. Jennifer Morgan, an analyst for the World Resource Institute, immediately hailed the move as a "game changer".
The US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, has said repeatedly that America will not support emerging deals on climate aid and technology transfer, or preventing deforestation unless there is also progress on its prime demand of verification.
For China, as for the other emerging economic powers like India and Brazil, the issue of international verification of their efforts to reduce emissions is very sensitive. But the Chinese climate change envoy, Xie Zhenhua, did not list the issue as a deal breaker at a press conference.
• • • • •
See greenmedia's diary, The Biggest Obstacles to a Climate Deal at COP16.
See boatsie's diary, pakistan: climate = a human problem.
See citisven's diary, LocaPower to the People! - Cancun can because locals can.
• • • • •
At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:
Now, President-elect Obama, could you please explain to Secretary Gates that quoting a neoconservative like Donald Kagan is no longer allowed; that Kagan’s quote is thinly veiled American exceptionalism -- damn near imperialism -- and everyone in the world outside the U.S. knows it? So much the less acceptable is entertaining Kagan’s son Robert’s (co-founder of The Project for a New American Century, don’tcha know) wacky idea, also held by too many others, that invading Iraq counts as "preserv[ing] the peace."
While I agree with those saying that the change in staff at the Pentagon under Secretary Gates – getting rid of the Bush underbelly, as it were -- is a welcome sign, I do not see any concomitant change in vision reflected in Gates' Foreign Affairs article. The American people deserve to know that elections do have consequences, and that this sort of continuity, ideological continuity, will not be tolerated.