John Prescott has defended China’s role in the climate change summit, saying the blame for its flawed outcome must lie with the United States and Barack Obama.
The former deputy prime minister helped negotiate the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and was in Copenhagen acting as an informal bridge between the Chinese delegation and others.
As a frequent visitor to China, who knows many of its officials personally, Prescott fears privately that the Chinese will walk away from the talks if they continue to be singled out for blame.
In a letter to the Guardian, Prescott criticises the US climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who “said at Copenhagen emissions weren’t about ‘morality or politics’, they were ‘just maths’, with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030″.
In his letter Prescott claims that Stern’s arguments “ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita, which shows the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China’s six tonnes, whilst America’s GDP per person is almost eight times greater than the Chinese”. He also attacks President Barack Obama for suggesting there had been a period of “two decades of talking and no action. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, who followed a lot of that protocol’s policies. Indeed Obama’s offer of a 17% cut is wholly dependent on Congressional approval and will still be less than Kyoto targets.” Prescott is climate change convenor for the Council of Europe, with the role of exploring how to keep the talks on the road.
China itself defended its “crucial role” in saving the Copenhagen conference from failure, according to the state media’s first blow-by-blow rebuttal of European claims that China wrecked a climate deal.
In a florid account of prime minister Wen Jiabao’s 60 hours in Copenhagen, the Xinhua news agency said the premier staved off the “unrealistic and unfair demands” of Britain, Germany and Japan.
There is no direct criticism of the US, but Obama is described as “awkward” in the presence of the Chinese premier.
According to the lengthy defence of China’s actions, European nations repeatedly tried to impose secret drafts, unscheduled meetings and a hidden agenda on China and other developing nations.
The article, likely to have been approved at the highest level of government, notes that Wen walked out of a state dinner after hearing that an unscheduled meeting of leaders was being arranged soon afterwards to discuss a new draft text.
“It was really absurd that the country who called for the meeting never informed China,” the report says. “Premier Wen concluded that this was no small matter.
“Since the start of the conference, there had been cases where individual or small group of countries put forward new texts in disregard of the principle of openness and transparency, arousing strong complaints from other participants.”
Such accusations infuriate senior European negotiators, who claim China was fully informed ahead of Copenhagen of the plan for a new document, though it never agreed to the content.
Xinhua avoids mention of how and why China killed attempts to impose 2050 targets for reducing emissions. Beijing has consistently rejected such long-term goals, which it sees as a threat to itseconomic growth.It also fails to address claims that China torpedoed the inclusion of a 1.5C maximum global temperature rise, requested by small island states and African nations. Instead, it says, Wen showed sincerity by accepting a rise of no more than 2C by 2050.
Kyoto negotiator Prescott issues Stern Warning to US at Copenhagen
Former UK Deputy Prime Minister and EU Kyoto negotiator John Prescott issued a stern warning to the US that they must do much more to help a secure a deal at Copenhagen.
Speaking at the Danish Parliament to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Mr Prescott publicly criticised the US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern for saying emissions was ‘just maths.’
Mr Prescott, who is at Copenhagen as the Council of Europe’s Rapporteur on Climate Change, said:
“I was very concerned with remarks from the US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern in which he pointed out that China, by 2020, will be emitting far more than America.
“Todd Stern also said that with emissions “you’ve just got to do the maths. This isn’t a matter of politics or morality or anything else. It’s just maths.”
“Well let me give my interpretation of the maths. The US emits 20 tonnes of CO2 per person a year compared to about 6 tonnes for China, 2 for India and less than 1 for Africa. The US also, according to the World Bank, has a GDP per person seven times higher than China.
“Such remarks offend anyone with a sense of fairness and certainly goes against the agreed UN principle that governs climate change negotiations – that of common and differentiated responsibilities, as we emphasised in our Council of Europe resolution. In other words, the polluter pays.
“That attitude certainly makes the relationship and the possibility of an agreement between rich and poorer countries, much more difficult.
“It’s not just about maths. It’s about equity and social justice, which President Obama has talked an awful lot about in the last few months.”
Mr Prescott, who negotiated on behalf of the EU at Kyoto in 1997, said President Obama should make the most of his executive power to increase the US emissions target.
He added: “These two great nations of China and the US need to redouble their efforts to find an agreement.
“It is said that China’s target of reducing carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 underestimates what it will actually achieve.
“And the US President now has the power, confirmed by his courts, to act to reduce the threat of greenhouse gases to the heath of his nation without the necessary agreement of Congress.
“That’s why I think its possible that the US could maker a greater contribution than its target of a 17% emissions cut.
“So the world calls upon China, the US and Europe to make a greater contribution to secure a credible political agreement at Copenhagen. Or as the Council of Europe has called it, a New Earth Deal.
“Because if we don’t, our children and our children’s children will never forgive us.”
Ends
Full text of Mr Prescott’s address at the Danish Parliament
It feels that 12 years on I’m back at Kyoto. All those hopes and fears of an agreement (or lack of one) are running rife through the Bella Centre.
Having met and talked to a number of my former Kyoto negotiators here, we’re all agreed it seems to be following the same path.
So is this going to be Kyoto 2 or a separate Copenhagen agreement?
I have to say I’m in the Kyoto 2 camp.
It has to build on the existing treaty – not replace it.
That may involve a twin track process in the final political agreement that runs alongside Kyoto and leads to a legally binding agreement at a future COP.
I believe we’re 80% there on a deal, just as we were at Kyoto at this stage. This is particularly impressive as back in 1997 we found agreement from 47 industrial countries – now we’ve got to find consensus from 192!
However there’s still a long way to go and just as we experienced back then, there’ll be lots of walking and talking, and negotiations into the night.
Also as at Kyoto, Europe’s playing a major part in forging that agreement.
Gordon Brown in getting the leaders to come here for the final push and Ed Miliband working night and day as the Chair of the committee dealing with the finance for the agreement.
Ed is handling the pivotal issue that will make or break a Copenhagen deal.
There are of course other issues such more funding, greater emissions cuts, the timetable for an agreement along with verification of the commitments.
In fact our Council of Europe resolution called for the right to live in a clean, safe and healthy environment a human right.
However we really do need to avoid the elephant traps – the late issues such as a demand from G77 to commit the agreement to stabilising the increase in temperature from two degrees to 1.5.
I understand their motive and the intention but it threatens the possibility of an agreement in the last 60 hours, as the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has made clear. Failure is not an option here.
We must also be careful about intemperate language during these negotiations.
I was very concerned with remarks from the US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern in which he pointed out that China, by 2020, will be emitting far more than America.
Todd Stern also said that with emissions “you’ve just got to do the maths. “This isn’t a matter of politics or morality or anything else. It’s just maths.”
Well let me give my interpretation of the maths. The US emits 20 tonnes of CO2 per person a year compared to about 6 tonnes for China, 2 for India and less than 1 for Africa. The US also, according to the World Bank, has a GDP per person seven times higher than China.
Such remarks offend anyone with a sense of fairness and certainly goes against the agreed UN principle that governs climate change negotiations – that of common and differentiated responsibilities, as we emphasised in our Council of Europe resolution.
In other words, the polluter pays.
That attitude certainly makes the relationship and the possibility of an agreement between rich and poorer countries, much more difficult.
It’s not just about maths. It’s about equity and social justice, which President Obama has talked an awful lot about in the last few months.
These two great nations of China and the US need to redouble their efforts to find an agreement.
It is said that China’s target of reducing carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 underestimates what it will actually achieve.
And the US President now has the power, confirmed by his courts, to act to reduce the threat of greenhouse gases to the heath of his nation without the necessary agreement of Congress.
That’s why I think its possible that the US could maker a greater contribution than its target of a 17% emissions cut.
So the world calls upon China, the US and Europe to make a greater contribution to secure a credible political agreement at Copenhagen. Or as the Council of Europe has called it, a New Earth Deal.
Because if we don’t, our children and our children’s children will never forgive us.
So let the Copenhagen agreement be a testament to future generations that the world had the courage to find a global solution to the global problem of climate change.
John Prescott, the rapporteur on climate change of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), has called on the leaders of the United States, China and India to personally take part in the Copenhagen climate change conference in December.
Mr Prescott, a former British Deputy Prime Minister who played a key role in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, said: “These talks are vital for the future of the planet. These three countries can make the difference between success and failure.
“It is vital that their leaders are there, alongside the 60 other presidents and prime ministers who have already said they are coming.”
He was speaking at a meeting of PACE’s Environment Committee in Paris.
Mr Prescott has asked the President of the Parliamentary Assembly Lluis Maria de Puig to make a personal appeal to US President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, as well as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, inviting them to attend.
He added: “This could be settled, as at Kyoto, by political leaders in a last-minute deal on the principles and a road map, for finalizing by the COP. We need the three most important ones to be there.”
In a September resolution, the Assembly – representing 47 parliaments across greater Europe – called on developed countries, which are responsible for most past carbon dioxide emissions, to take the lead at Copenhagen by agreeing to “deep and early cuts” in greenhouse gases.
John Prescott MP, the Climate Change Rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Xiamen, China talking about how even toilets can harm the environment.
John Prescott meeting students at Chongqing University
Former UK Deputy Prime Minister and Kyoto Protocol negotiator John Prescott today said the days of free markets and old ecomonic growth must end if the world is to tackle climate change.
In the prestigious Nanqiang Lecture at Xiamen University in China – where he today (Wednesday Sept 9) becomes an honorary professor – Mr Prescott, who is the Rapporteur for Climate Change for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will say:
- The current EU proposals may not be enough to get China, India and the developing countries on board;
- A successful deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen must be judged on per capita emissions;
- There must be tight regulation and discarding of the old economic growth model fuelled by high carbon and non-renewable energy sources;
- Social justice and the reduction of poverty in the developing countries must be at the heart of any deal;
- Britain can help countries like China make the transition to a low carbon economy.
Mr Prescott, who is leading PACE’s ‘New Earth Deal’ campaign for a fairer climate change deal at Copenhagen, says in the speech:
“At the UN COP15 Conference at Copenhagen, negotiators from the Parties of the Convention will discuss a series of agreements which will either supplement, amend or continue the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.
“These agreements will cover a number of issues. My own preference would be to create a Kyoto 2 which could be ratified by a significant number of the 184 nations which currently support the existing Kyoto agreement.
“There is also a general acceptance of the required CO2 levels needed to reduce climate change damage. In order to keep the average global temperature increase below 2˚C, an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 will be required.
“This will place a global ceiling on carbon emission outputs. The present level of CO2 output is 425 parts per million (ppm) and is growing each year, meaning that by 2050 it will be over 475 ppm.
“The EU formula recommends a ceiling of 450 ppm. Whilst Sir Nicholas Stern (Now Lord Stern) said that it is possible to work to 550 ppm although this would be dangerous as it may exceed the 2 degrees centigrade forecast increase.
“However, other economists in the EU say that the 450/550 ppm level would be too expensive to implement and that a 600 ppm level by 2050 would be more reasonable but would increase the risk of a higher global temperature.
“This has led to some developing countries demanding that emissions targets for developed countries should be set at 40% in 2020 and 90% by 2050. The IPCC estimates that an 80-85% reduction is necessary by 2050.
“A carbon ceiling with targets will ration economic development in one form or the other. The EU deal of carbon targets of 20% – 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 could be disadvantageous to the growth of developing countries and the need for a consensus. Consequently, carbon targets set for countries must reflect their respective capabilities to grow and their timetables for their peaks in carbon outputs
“These global and national CO2 limits will inevitably threaten the old model of high carbon intensive economic growth which produced many of the problems that we face today, largely as a result of the growth of the wealthier developed countries.
“The increase of global economic and population growth and differing levels of development will intensify the pressures for increases in CO2 levels nationally or regionally.
“Developing countries quite rightly want to meet the demands for greater prosperity, more jobs and the reduction of poverty in their countries which is related to the role of economic growth which is always higher in the early stages of industrial development.
“A climate change agreement which challenges the normal rate of economic growth will require a universal consensus. One that recognises the character and quality of economic growth, together with social justice and equity on a scale not witnessed in international agreements before.
“It is no longer possible for the operation of free market conditions and competition to dominate free and uninhibited growth outside of a form of regulated freedom.
“The present global financial crisis caused by the major wealthier nations is contrasted visibly with the performance of the Chinese banks which played a much more sustainable and regulatory role in finance, as in the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s and again in the 2009 banking crisis.
“It is no longer possible, or indeed globally beneficial, that a few strong and rich countries can dictate the global conditions for finance, trade and food production. It is clear that regulatory changes are required in order to secure global sustainable growth and prosperity.
“Global solutions in this new century will require a global consensus with equitable policies, although not necessarily equally applied. The principle of common but differential responsibilities and respective capabilities should be at the heart of a Kyoto 2 Copenhagen agreement.
“Global solutions for the global problems of climate change are fully accepted by all. Failure would be calamitous for all nations but more so for the developing countries presently hit hardest by the global financial and trade problems.
“To secure the global consensus, due recognition of the needs of developing countries to secure economic growth and prosperity is required. These countries embrace the people on this planet suffering the greatest poverty and deprivation. Fairness and social justice demands that this issue be at the heart of any agreement.
“It will be difficult to find a universal consensus based on the EU proposals in its current form. Its commitment to a climate change formula of targets, global temperatures and carbon emissions along with global market and carbon pricing will need considerable negotiations on which I wish them well.
“However, the EU’s failure so far to commit the funding necessary for the developing countries’ transition is a matter of major concern. Its carbon emissions targets are felt by some to be insufficient.
“The United States, Australia and Canada have average emissions of 20 tonnes per capita. The EU and Japan, 10 and 12 tonnes per capita. China is 5 tonnes per capita, India 2 tonnes and North Africa less than 1 tonne.
“If one is to take into account per capita the figures this clearly illustrates the difference in prosperity between rich and poor nations which is almost exclusively a North/South split. The difference is considerable and inevitably must mean that to ensure any fairness in the approach to curtailing the use of CO2, per capita measurements must be at the heart of any agreement.
“Economic growth should be more equal in all parts of the country with less environmental damage, but whilst also continuing to reduce the levels of severe poverty. In China, the number of people living on less than 1 dollar a day has been reduced by 300 to 400 million people.
“More than a third of the people on this planet, 2.6 billion, live on less than 2 dollars a day according to the World Bank. Social justice requires the continued reduction of such levels of poverty to be a key part of the criteria in any final Copenhagen agreement.
“In the UK, we made many mistakes during our industrial growth, with the production of high levels of pollution and polluted cities. We have learnt from our mistakes and have worked hard over the last decade to make our cities greener, safer and more sustainable, moving towards a low carbon economy.
“Hopefully developing countries such as China and others can use the experience we have gained so as not to make the same mistakes as early industrialised nations did with the climatic consequences we are now witnessing.
“By cooperating on other technological developments, such as clean coal technologies, carbon capture and storage, developing countries and developed countries can work together towards securing a more sustainable and low carbon economic growth in the future.
“Bilateral developments in the exchange of investment research between developing and developed countries will be a crucial aspect of technology finance transfers in order to achieve a more even growth in the global economy to the benefit of its citizens.
“Many of the measures under active discussion at Copenhagen are present in my concept of a Plan B. What I am attempting to do is add an element of justice and fairness into its outcome. We need to think realistically about what might happen at the negotiating table in Copenhagen, not what we would like to happen. We also need to think about the political realities that some of the major players face domestically.
“That will require us to consider a plan that essentially means that developed countries will have the greatest burden to carry in measures required to tackle the climate change problem that they are responsible for.
“The essential principles that must be acknowledged in any future agreement are that it must be universally applied to all countries, that it must recognise the different rates of growth for each country requiring transition policies that reflect this.
“It must involve targets for all and a criteria that recognises poverty and the right to industrial development developing countries.
“And yes, that will mean that developing countries will emit more than they do now. Though mitigation plans will reduce carbon outputs.
“It will require accountability and transparency in the transition plans and appropriate funds in order to allow the development mechanisms to assist developing countries to move to a lower carbon model of growth.
“It will also need to essentially recognise that the richer countries must carry the greater financial responsibility for the problem they have created.
“It may be that all the detail will not be agreed in Copenhagen in December. That we don’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s. But there are a couple of years for that to be achieved. Though its principles and framework needs to be agreed at Copenhagen similar to the Bali action plan.
“Yes we need to be ambitious; but we also need to be realistic. But what should not be up for question are the principles:
that there are common principles agreed by all
that equality is at the core of those principles
and that, therefore, requires agreement to per capita as its direction of intent which in turn leads to a solution that has, at its very heart, social justice
“We know that history has taught us that in the 19th century nations learnt to produce on a massive scale.
“In the 20th century, nations learnt to consume on a massive scale.
“And in the 21st century, we are going to have to learn to sustain on a massive scale.
“The world faces two major challenges – securing a reduction in mass poverty and managing climate change.
“They are interdependent and Copenhagen will be judged upon them.”
Mr Prescott will also visit the schools during UN Climate Week and deliver a presentation on the need to get a fair deal at Copenhagen in December.
The schools, which are being visited as part of Mr Prescott’s New Earth Deal campaign, are:
Globe Academy, London – Monday September 21st 9am
Pudsey Grangefield, Pudsey, nr Leeds – Tuesday September 22nd 9am
Parrs Wood High School in Didsbury, Manchester – Tuesday September 22nd 2pm
Yardley’s School, Birmingham – Wednesday September 23rd 9am
The New Earth Deal campaign also includes:
· The Road to Copenhagen Climate Change Conference held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France in September attended by politicians and environmentalists from more than 60 developed and developing nations.
It will be opened by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Rajendra Pachauri and feature a contribution from Vice President Al Gore
· A social networking website www.newearthdeal.org where people can learn about the issues, follow the campaign on Twitter and Facebook, do their own climate change deal and have it automatically sent to their Council of Europe politician and national environment minister.
The PACE Environment Committee has also partnered with the environmental movie ‘Age of Stupid’ allowing access to use clips from the film in its school presentations and on its website.
The UK school tour will be launched on September 21st in London by one the Age of Stupid’s stars, windfarm developer and environmental activist, Piers Guy. His battle against nimbys (‘not in my back yard’ campaigners) opposing his windfarm development in Bedford, England will feature in the presentation.
Ends
For interview bids with Mr Prescott in China please contact Victoria Roberts at victoria@game-changer.co.uk or telephone 0203 393 7390 & mobile 07971 688972
Notes to Editors
• The Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg (France), now covers virtually the entire European continent, with its 47 member countries. Founded on 5 May 1949 by 10 countries, the Council of Europe seeks to develop throughout Europe common and democratic principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights and other reference texts on the protection of individuals.
• The Road to Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will be held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France from September 27-30.
• The first phase of the UK New Earth School Tour will launch on September 21st and visit London, Leeds. Manchester and Birmingham.
• The Age of Stupid is the new four-year epic from McLibel director Franny Armstrong. Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite stars as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance? It received its global premiere in the US on September 21st. You can find out more at www.ageofstupid.net
Jonathan Watts, Asia Environment Correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 September 2009 17.57 BST
With the world’s population growing to nine billion by 2050, the Britain’s former deputy PM predicts far more crucial and complex talks in Copenhagen than in Kyoto
John Prescott, the former UK climate negotiator, called on developed nations today to accept a new model of economic growth that would create a more equitable spread of carbon emissions in the world. Speaking to the Guardian in Beijing, Prescott said talks at Copenhagen would probably not be decided until an 11th-hour crisis, but that no global consensus could be reached without a fairer spread of emissions.
Since helping to bang heads together to set the first targets on carbon in Kyoto in 1997, Prescott said the world had started to develop a new model of restraint.
“The reality is that the world has found a rationing process. It is not … get growth as fast as you can and get the jobs and sod the rest,” he said. “The world will have 9 billion people by 2050. If you still want growth and prosperity, do you keep on the model you have now? It’s immoral.”
Prescott has no say in the final decision this time but will attend the talks in Copenhagen as a rapporteur for the Council of Europe, allowing him to be a vocal observer. His remarks address a core issue: how to allow developing nations such as China and India to grow their economies and lift billions from poverty without generating enormous greenhouse gas emissions, as past growth in the developed world did.
But his experience as a former deputy prime minister and key figure in the Kyoto talks sheds light on some of the problems that are likely to lie ahead of negotiators in Denmark in December.
He said Kyoto was about setting a framework, whereas Copenhagen is an attempt to get every country involved. Although the US and China are now far more involved and the science is more widely accepted this time, he believed negotiations will be “10 times harder” than those of 1997 because more countries are taking part and the issues are more complex.
A deal will depend on a last minute display of political will, he predicted.
“The deal at Kyoto came when politicians sat down and faced the reality that we were we going to have a breakdown (of talks),” recalled Prescott. He said he and the Japanese, European and American negotiators huddled in the early hours to achieve a breakthrough. “We got together in a room. I rang Al Gore (the then US vice president) and said we were closing the hall soon because they are going to have a wedding. The Japanese said, ‘We will go one point more, so long as it is less than America. And the Americans said we will go for one point more providing it is lower than Europe. At which point I said if we have to take the moral stand then we will.”
Prescott has since been accused of giving too much ground at Kyoto, but he said compromise would probably be necessary again if a deal is to be secured. He also emphasised that any deal must be seen to be equitable.
“If we are deciding a global formula not to suffer consequences of climate change, we had better make it fair to achieve a consensus because that is the key at the end of day. ”
Although, he said, none of the nations are showing their hands yet, he predicted politicians would have to find an agreement.
“The science is so clear. For policymakers to just walk away from that would be disastrous. I can’t believe they will do it.”
In line with many developing nations, Prescott says targets should be set according to emissions per person rather than percentage cuts from past levels, as was the case in Kyoto. If wealthy citizens try to maintain their high-polluting nations, he predicted a political crisis.
Although his time as UK transport secretary saw a massive expansion of car ownership, Prescott said he had called on China to do more to promote public transport and limit traffic congestion.
Tomorrow, Prescott will travel to the southern Chinese city of Xiamen, where he will receive an honour that runs against his UK reputation as a mangler of language. ” I am a little bit embarrassed. I am going to Xiamen university, where they will make me an honorary professor, which will create a lot of comment in Britain.”
