Copenhagen stalls in second week
12/14/2009

Tensions between rich and poor nations at the Copenhagen summit threatened to boil over whilst Tony Blair calls for compromise, reports Envido.

Online PR News – 14-December-2009 – – Latent tensions between rich and poor nations at the Copenhagen summit threatened to turn up again yesterday when it emerged that a number of African leaders could boycott the crucial final days of the talks.

While the first week of talks delivered significant progress in a number of areas, key issues surrounding carbon emission targets and funding commitments remain unresolved. Diplomats from several African countries said their leaders may not attend the summit unless a draft agreement is finalised within the next few days. They manifested the fear that failure to finalise a draft agreement will result in their leaders being pressured to sign up to a deal that goes against their best interests when they attend the final two days of the talks.

Diplomats for some of the world's poorest nations signalled they would rather their leaders stayed away than have them exposed to negotiating tactics from industrialised countries. China and India supported this concern and as a result they want to see the draft agreement completed before world leaders arrive to sign the document.

An African diplomat told the Guardian that it was "more than probable" that many heads of state will boycott the talks if a draft agreement is not in place within the next three days.

Speaking at an event yesterday organized by Climate Group, Tony Blair argued that an agreement based on the most ambitious funding and carbon emissions commitments put forward by each country would serve to drive global investments in low-carbon technologies, and accelerate action in those areas where cutting carbon emission can be delivered quickly, such as reducing deforestation and improving energy efficiency.

He said that once Copenhagen starts the transition to a low-carbon economy, interim assessments every five years or so could serve to check whether or not the process requires accelerating. It would mean a big change in policy that would itself have a highly incentivising effect on the future development of technology and the propensity of business to invest in clean energy and use it.