Mark Lynas's article (How do I know
China wrecked climate deal? I was in the room, 23 December) contrasted vividly with the views on the opposite page from experts. In my Council of Europe role, I held talks in Washington and Beijing, speaking to Premier Wen the day after his discussions with Obama, asking him to heed Gordon Brown's call to attend Copenhagen. All parties were disappointed there wasn't a legal agreement. But there wasn't one at
Kyoto either.However, Lynas's comments will sour future COP discussions to implement the necessary measures to limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. We require a more objective assessment of the Copenhagen accord, especially the relationship between the world's two major polluters – China and the US.At Copenhagen the US climate change special envoy Todd Stern said emissions weren't about "morality or politics", they were "just maths", with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030. But Stern ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita; the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China's six tonnes.President Obama's Copenhagen speech was also clearly critical of China. Moreover, he described 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, which followed a lot of that protocol's policies. The challenge for all parties is now to stop pointing fingers and focus on turning the accord at Bonn and Mexico into the global climate change agreement we desperately need.John PrescottCouncil of Europe climate change rapporteur• The dynamics of the select group of countries negotiating the Copenhagen accord is only part of the story. I was in the G77 plus China group meeting, advising a delegation, of which more than half the 120 countries complained that they had not seen any text from this group. We left to attend the plenary to obtain the text, o ...
Try our segmented RSS Feeds
