By Sunil Patel
Green campaigners are warning that unless a legally binding deal on climate change can be agreed the Copenhagen Climate change talks will be seen as a failure.
They are warning that ‘a great opportunity could be lost’ unless a multilateral agreement on cutting emissions is reached between representatives from 192 countries.
A deal must be legally binding as global emissions of greenhouse gases are set to peak within five to ten years, according to GreenPeace.
It is claimed any action on the issue must be in the financial interests of all developing countries as they will face the biggest climate change problems.
If no agreement is reached on cutting global emissions between world leaders than a clear timetable would need to be established, says the environmental charity spokesman Charlie Kronick.
He said, “If governments are not held legally accountable then they will just opt of the deal and that would be in nobody’s interests.
Individual action alone will not be enough to make any impact on cutting emissions and there needs to be more action from governments and industry.
Better regulation from the government is required and improving the efficiency of the electricity sector, campaigners argue.
Charlie Kronick says it is a false argument to claim the low carbon approach is an expensive option.
He said, “It shouldn’t be presented as one or other, as better efficiency will save people money. The best value approach is the low carbon approach.”
Some climate change sceptics have claimed that the climate change argument is a way of getting extra taxes out of people.
But Michael Sackin, Friends of the Earth disagrees with this statement, “Look at the polar ice caps melting, if something is not done to stop it then it could be to the detriment of future generations, an issue like this requires mass movement in Britain.”
Mr Sackin is hopeful a global resolution on cutting emissions can still be reached, said, “Its nail-biting at the moment and I’m holding my breath. We’re at the tipping point here but I still think the big emitters like the US, China and India have to bring something to the table.
He added, “Great chunks of the earth would become uninhabitable and whole countries like Bangladesh would disappear under the sea.”
Murray Frankland, founder of Salt of the Earth said, “The rich nations have historically been the biggest emitters so they got to agree on a deal that is in everyone’s interests.
He added, “I think it would be better for nothing to happen than a botched deal as that would be in nobody's interests.”
Green campaigners are warning that unless a legally binding deal on climate change can be agreed the Copenhagen Climate change talks will be seen as a failure.
They are warning that ‘a great opportunity could be lost’ unless a multilateral agreement on cutting emissions is reached between representatives from 192 countries.
A deal must be legally binding as global emissions of greenhouse gases are set to peak within five to ten years, according to GreenPeace.
It is claimed any action on the issue must be in the financial interests of all developing countries as they will face the biggest climate change problems.
If no agreement is reached on cutting global emissions between world leaders than a clear timetable would need to be established, says the environmental charity spokesman Charlie Kronick.
He said, “If governments are not held legally accountable then they will just opt of the deal and that would be in nobody’s interests.
Individual action alone will not be enough to make any impact on cutting emissions and there needs to be more action from governments and industry.
Better regulation from the government is required and improving the efficiency of the electricity sector, campaigners argue.
Charlie Kronick says it is a false argument to claim the low carbon approach is an expensive option.
He said, “It shouldn’t be presented as one or other, as better efficiency will save people money. The best value approach is the low carbon approach.”
Some climate change sceptics have claimed that the climate change argument is a way of getting extra taxes out of people.
But Michael Sackin, Friends of the Earth disagrees with this statement, “Look at the polar ice caps melting, if something is not done to stop it then it could be to the detriment of future generations, an issue like this requires mass movement in Britain.”
Mr Sackin is hopeful a global resolution on cutting emissions can still be reached, said, “Its nail-biting at the moment and I’m holding my breath. We’re at the tipping point here but I still think the big emitters like the US, China and India have to bring something to the table.
He added, “Great chunks of the earth would become uninhabitable and whole countries like Bangladesh would disappear under the sea.”
Murray Frankland, founder of Salt of the Earth said, “The rich nations have historically been the biggest emitters so they got to agree on a deal that is in everyone’s interests.
He added, “I think it would be better for nothing to happen than a botched deal as that would be in nobody's interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment