22 dic – Miliband chiede la riforma dei negoziati

Dopo il caos di Copenhagen, Ed Miliband chiede pubblicamente la riforma dei processi di discussione e decisione della Convenzione ONU sui Cambiamenti Climatici.

Miliband parla “candidamente” dei successi e insuccessi di Copenhagen. Riguardo ai successi, sottolinea come “non avremmo visto i progressi che ci sono stati nel corso dell’ultimo anno se non ci fossero state la campagne [per il clima] nel mondo. [...] La sfida per noi tutti è non perdere passione e momentum”.

-----------------------------------------------------
22 December - Miliband urges reform of negotiation process

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has issued a public call for reform of the United Nations climate change negotiations, which transpired to be 'a chaotic process dogged by procedural games'.

'We would never have seen the progress we have seen over the last year if it hadn’t been for the campaigning efforts worldwide,' he said.

------------------------------------------------------------

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has issued a public call for reform of the United Nations climate change negotiations, which transpired to be 'a chaotic process dogged by procedural games'.

Writing in The Guardian on 21 December, Mr Miliband reflected that 'The procedural wrangling was, in fact, a cover for points of serious, substantive disagreement,' Mr Miliband wrote. 'The last two weeks at times have presented a farcical picture to the public.'
'We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way. We will need to have major reform of the UN body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted.'
He said that while the 'vast majority' of developed and developing countries believed that a legally binding agreement was the only way to deliver a 'lasting accord that protects the planet', some leading developing countries currently refused to countenance this.
He pointed to China for vetoing two key elements of the Accord that had the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries:
• An agreement that the political accord struck in Copenhagen should lead to a legally binding outcome; and
• An agreement on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80% reductions by developed countries.
'Indeed, this is one of the straws in the wind for the future: the old order of developed versus developing has been replaced by more interesting alliances,' he said.
Despite his critique of the process, Mr Miliband asserted that real progress had been over the past 12 months – partly catalysed by the deadline of Copenhagen – and in the Copenhagen Accord itself, notably on issue of finance for poor countries.
He said countries signing the accord had for the first time:
• endorsed the science that says that countries must prevent warming of more than 2 deg C;
• agreed that developing countries, including China, as well as developed countries must set out emissions commitments for the next decade;
• Agreed that these commitments be listed and independently scrutinised, with reports to the UN required every two years; and
• Established an unprecedented commitment among rich countries to finance the response to climate change: $10bn a year over the next three years rising to $100bn a year by 2020.
'The challenge for all of us is not to lose heart and momentum,' he wrote. 'Today many people will be feeling gloomy about the results of their efforts.'
'But no campaign ever wholly succeeds at the first time of asking. We should take heart from the achievements and step up our efforts. The road from Copenhagen will have as many obstacles as the road to it. But this year has proved what can be done, as well as the scale of the challenge we face.'
Later on 21 December, Mr Miliband told a conference organised by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in London that it was important to be 'candid' about where the negotiation failed as well as succeeded.

'We would never have seen the progress we have seen over the last year if it hadn’t been for the campaigning efforts worldwide,' he said, attributing that to the reason for 113 world leaders turning up in person.

He conceded that the negotiations did not deliver the outcomes the UK had hoped for. 'If that's the case some people in the room might be thinking 'if that's the case why did we sign this and why did you not reject it out of hand and simply start again?',' he said.

He revealed that the Government did consider whether this was an Accord that was worth signing but concluded: 'We were most moved by the voices of the Maldives and Ethiopia who said 'actually, however imperfect this Accord is, we want to have the money starting to flow and we want to note the progress that has been made. That was the reason we decided to ahead with this Accord.''

http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/achievements/december/22-dec-negotiations-reform

Una Finestra sulla Gran Bretagna #2: 20 Dec, The Guardian, 'The Road from Copenhagen'

"Dove possiamo andare da qua?" Ed Miliband, Segretario di Stato per l'Energia e i Cambiamenti Climatici del Regno Unito parla al The Guardian della strada DA Copenhagen: quello che Copenhagen ha realizzato, quello che c'e' ancora da fare, quello che c'e' da imparare. Con un avvertimento:

"Oggi qualcuno si puo' sentire deluso riguardo ai risultati dei suoi sforzi. Ma nessuna campagna ha mai avuto pieno successo al primo tentativo. Dovremo ricominciare dai successi ottenuti e incrementare i nostri sforzi. Ma quest'anno ha dimostrato cosa puo' essere fatto, come pure la scala della sfida da affrontare."

Veronica Caciagli

Climate Change Officer

British Consulate General Milan

----------------------------------------
Ed Miliband
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009 20.30 GMT

"Where do we go from here? That is the question we are all asking ourselves after Copenhagen. We have to begin by understanding the lessons of what went wrong but also recognise the achievements that it secured.

This was a chaotic process dogged by procedural games. Thirty leaders left their negotiators at 3am on Friday, the last night to haggle over the short Danish text that became the accord. To get a deal we needed urgent progress because time was running out. Five hours later, we had got to the third paragraph.

The procedural wrangling was, in fact, a cover for points of serious, substantive disagreement. The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this. That is why we did not secure an agreement that the political accord struck in Copenhagen should lead to a legally binding outcome.

We did not get an agreement on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80% reductions by developed countries. Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries. Indeed, this is one of the straws in the wind for the future: the old order of developed versus developing has been replaced by more interesting alliances.

Would it have been better to refuse to sign and walk away? No. Of course it was right to consider whether we should sign. But to have vetoed the agreement would have meant walking away from the progress made in the last year and the real outcomes that are part of this accord, including finance for poor countries. Some of the strongest voices urging that we agree the accord were countries like the Maldives and Ethiopia.

Countries signing the accord have endorsed the science that says we must prevent warming of more than 2C. For the first time developing countries, including China, as well as developed countries have agreed emissions commitments for the next decade. If countries deliver on the most ambitious targets, we will be within striking distance of what is needed to prevent warming of more than 2C. These commitments will also for the first time be listed and independently scrutinised, with reports to the UN required every two years.

We have also established an unprecedented commitment among rich countries to finance the response to climate change: $10bn a year over the next three years – starting to flow now – rising to $100bn a year by 2020, the goal first set out by the prime minister in June.

In the months ahead, these concrete achievements must be secured and extended. We must work to ensure that developed nations in particular, such as Australia, Japan and the EU nations, deliver on the highest possible emissions cuts. And as the US Senate considers its legislation, it is important it delivers not just the 17% reductions offered so far but the deepest possible.

Finance for poor countries must flow straight away, which the decision agreed last Saturday enables us to do. We must also agree new ways to raise revenue to meet these commitments, which the working group established by the accord will propose.

We should also mobilise all the countries that want a legal treaty to campaign for it. The voice of small island states and African countries were the most resonant at these talks. For their people, most vulnerable to climate change, they know we must have a legal framework. Together we will make clear to those countries holding out against a binding legal treaty that we will not allow them to block global progress.

There is a wider question, too, about the structures and nature of the negotiations. The last two weeks at times have presented a farcical picture to the public. We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way. We will need to have major reform of the UN body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted.

The challenge for all of us is not to lose heart and momentum. The truth is that the global campaign, co-ordinated by green NGOs, backed by business and supported by a wider cross section of the public, has achieved a lot. We would never have had targets from so many countries, the engagement of leaders, and the agreement on finance without this sort of mobilisation.

My fear that Copenhagen would pass people by without comment turned out to be unfounded. But the lesson of Make Poverty History is that we must keep this campaign going and build on it. It needs to be more of a genuinely global mobilisation, taking in all countries.

Today many people will be feeling gloomy about the results of their efforts. But no campaign ever wholly succeeds at the first time of asking. We should take heart from the achievements and step up our efforts. The road from Copenhagen will have as many obstacles as the road to it. But this year has proved what can be done, as well as the scale of the challenge we face."

Com'e' finita? - Part I: Il Copenhagen Accord

E' finita alle 3 del pomeriggio del giorno dopo. La COP15 ha deliberato, attraverso una Decisione, di "prendere nota" dell'Accordo di Copenhagen:

"Decision -/CP.15

The Conference of the Parties,
Takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009.

Copenhagen Accord

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of the following delegations present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen: [List of Parties]

In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,

Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,

Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,

Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work,

Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.


4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.


5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.


7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 . 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention.s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Una Finestra sulla Gran Bretagna #1: 21 Dec, BBC news, 'What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?'

What Copenhagen changed and did not change.

BBC News, article by Tom Brookes and Tim Nuthall, The European Climate Foundation

----------------------------------------------

The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said "from chaos comes order". It is difficult to foresee the order that may result from the chaos of the Copenhagen climate change conference (COP15), but as the dust settles, traces of a path forward are becoming visible...

The outcome - a decision to "take note of" an accord drawn up by a core group of heads of state on Friday evening - is far from the legally binding treaty which some had expected and for which many hoped.

However, this does not change the fact that the Copenhagen conference was a unique moment in history.

What Copenhagen changed:

- With 110 world leaders present and a single issue on the agenda, there has never been a meeting like this. The countries that brokered the text, the US, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the EU, also reflects a world in which the balance of power has significantly changed in the last 20 years.

- At a fundamental level, the conference redefined the debate between countries in terms of awareness of climate science and support for action. There is no longer any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every country on the planet.

- Public awareness has also massively increased. The vast campaigns run around the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by governments, NGOs and business and the media coverage of the issue and the summit have made addressing climate change widely understood and discussed from the pubs of rural England to the bars of Beijing.

- The other very important change is that green growth is now the prevailing economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for business was buried at Copenhagen. Countries from both developed and developing worlds have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving forward.

What it did not change:

-That combination of political will, economic direction and public pressure was not enough to overcome the concerns over sovereignty that many countries have in the context of international law. The final decision reflects the fact that many countries only want to be answerable to themselves. They will co-operate, but not under the threat of legal sanction.
There is no quantified aggregate target for emissions reduction such as the 50% by 2050 that was in early drafts - as it stands, targets are yet to be announced and they may be at the low end of what was promised, locking in ever greater emissions.

-The reference to transparency in the text is significant as it will mean that for the first time actions by countries can be assessed globally, but there is no verification of the actions undertaken in the developing world unless they are paid for by the developed world.
Also, there is very little detail on any of the elements it does mention.

- The accord does refer to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, as well as the need for quantified action by both developed and developing countries - but it's unclear how the target will be achieved.

The deal at COP15, as it stands, leaves the world on a pathway for temperature rises of 3C and above.

It remains to be seen whether committed targets on emissions, which are due to be made at the end of January, will make a difference. There will also be a review of progress in 2015 which may offer the opportunity to adjust any targets in light of the science.

Many hoped the COP15 would lead to legally mandated co-ordinated international action, but it appears that the outcome will be intergovernmental policy co-ordination with a focus on the implementation of national strategies. The move to green growth is no longer in doubt, but the details, actions and time frame remain unclear at best.

Will a new world order result from the chaos? The jury is out."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8424522.stm

By Tom Brookes and Tim Nuthall

The European Climate Foundation

18 Dic - Dichiarazione congiunta Aziende italiane per Copenhagen

In seguito alla tavola rotonda organizzata in occasione della visita in Italia di Stefania Omassoli, Strategy Manager presso il Carbon Trust, alcune aziende partecipano a una dichiarazione congiunta su clima e business:

"La questione dei cambiamenti climatici e della transizione verso un’economia a basso contenuto di carbonio e’ fondamentale per l’economia italiana [...]"

"Il tema dell’efficienza energetica e’ cruciale riguardo alle politiche industriali e per il clima [...]"

"E’ in atto un superamento del paradigma dominante: si passa da un’idea di sviluppo sostenibile come cornice in cui l’impresa agisce per generare valore, al nuovo concetto di green economy: l’ambiente non costituisce un costo ma un’opportunita’ per nuovi business – un business pulito e amico dell’ambiente, ma pur sempre generatore di valore."

"A Copenhagen, e’ necessario che l’Italia occupi una posizione di leadership rispetto alle negoziazioni in corso. Le aziende si aspettano chiarezza sugli indirizzi futuri e si augurano che l’Italia prenda scelte coraggiose. Chiedono una strategia di obiettivi ambiziosi che ponga l’Italia all’avanguardia sui temi della low carbon economy nello scenario internazionale."

Istituto ref., Ricerche per l’Economia e la Finanza
Italcementi
Pirelli Ambiente
Ambienta SGR
Ernst & Young
Prof. Salvatore Zecchini
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Statement 18 dicembre 2009...

Premessa

In occasione della visita in Italia di Stefania Omassoli, Strategy Manager presso il Carbon Trust, si e’ tenuta la tavola rotonda dal titolo “Verso un’economia a basse emissioni di carbonio: Opportunita’ per le aziende in vista di Copenhagen”. La Tavola Rotonda e’ stata realizzata dall’Ambasciata Britannica di Roma e dal Consolato Generale Britannico di Milano, con il patrocinio della Regione Lombardia e dell’IReR, Istituto Regionale di Ricerca della Lombardia.

Questa e’ stata l’occasione per discutere sulle opportunita’ per l’economia italiana nella transizione verso un’economia a basse emissioni di carbonio. Si e’ parlato di quali sono gli ostacoli e i passi che potrebbero sostenere lo sviluppo di una low-carbon economy e di quali siano le aspettative delle aziende verso le negoziazioni sul clima di Copenhagen.

Nei giorni di Copenhagen, le aziende e le organizzazioni coinvolte vogliono inviare un messaggio ai negoziatori italiani.

1. La questione dei cambiamenti climatici e della transizione verso un’economia a basso contenuto di carbonio e’ fondamentale per l’economia italiana. Questo e’ vero sia per I settori tradizionalmente associati ai temi ambientali, come quello delle energie rinnovabili, ma anche per altri settori industriali. Le aziende italiane possono e devono scommettere sull’innovazione, la qualita’ e il risparmio energetico, per vincere le sfide di competitivita’ poste dal mercato globalizzato.

2. Il tema dell’efficienza energetica e’ cruciale riguardo alle politiche industriali e per il clima: per diminuire i costi delle aziende e della collettivita’; per conseguire gli obiettivi di CO2 richiesti dalla comunita’ scientifica e da trattati internazionali; per facilitare la transizione a una low-carbon economy; per incrementare la competitivita’ italiana sul mercato internazionale.

3. Da parte delle aziende, e’ in atto un superamento del paradigma dominante: si passa da un’idea di sviluppo sostenibile come cornice in cui l’impresa agisce per generare valore, al nuovo concetto di green economy: l’ambiente non costituisce un costo ma un’opportunita’ per nuovi business – un business pulito e amico dell’ambiente, ma pur sempre generatore di valore.

4. Si avvertono comunque delle difficolta’ nello sviluppo delle tecnologie pulite: I maggiori ostacoli evidenziati riguardano gli scarsi investimenti in ricerca e sviluppo, la mancanza di big player, la scarsa massa critica da parte delle PMI, la mancanza della piu’ volte auspicata semplificazione amministrativa. In questo momento economico, si riscontra anche una maggiore difficolta’ di accesso al credito. Un altro tema che necessiterebbe di approfondimento sono le infrastrutture, e in particolare le smart grid.

5. Rispetto a questo settore cruciale per l’economia del futuro, l’Italia rischia di perdere il momento e dipendere da tecnologie estere. Ci sono alcuni settori in cui l’imprenditorialita’ italiana puo’ rivestire ancora un ruolo di protagonista mondiale: in particolare, nei settori del solare termodinamico, energia da biomassa, geotermia, meccanica fine, elettronica di controllo, in parte nell’industria del fotovoltaico – ma non solo.

6. A Copenhagen, e’ necessario che l’Italia occupi una posizione di leadership rispetto alle negoziazioni in corso. Le aziende si aspettano chiarezza sugli indirizzi futuri e si augurano che l’Italia prenda scelte coraggiose. Chiedono una strategia di obiettivi ambiziosi che ponga l’Italia all’avanguardia sui temi della low carbon economy nello scenario internazionale.

Istituto ref., Ricerche per l’Economia e la Finanza
Italcementi
Pirelli Ambiente
Ambienta SGR
Ernst & Young
Prof. Salvatore Zecchini


Note per la Stampa

Climate change…al Consolato Generale Britannico di Milano

Attraverso la campagna Engaging Business, Promoting Prosperity, si propone di promuovere lo scambio di esperienze tra aziende italiane e britanniche, al fine di cogliere le opportunità aperte dalla transizione a un mondo e un'economia a basso contenuto di carbonio. Questa è un'economia più sana e sostenibile nel tempo, in cui la crescita economica si sposa alla maggiore attenzione alle modalità di produzione e consumo: si riducono gli sprechi, si produce energia in maniera delocalizzata, si fa dell'efficienza e dell'innovazione una virtù da utilizzare come vantaggio competitivo. La transizione infatti porterà con sé numerosi vantaggi: dalla crescita dei posti di lavoro a nuove opportunità di business. Vantaggi da cogliere adesso.

Visita http://www.versocopenhagen.blogspot.com/ e http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/.

Per maggiori informazioni:

Veronica Caciagli
Climate Change Officer
Consolato Generale Britannico di Milano
Tel: 02 72300246/340 5801614
Email: veronica.caciagli@fco.gov.uk

17 December: 1.000 aziende per il clima - 1,000 companies for the climate

Piu' di 1.000 aziende nel mondo hanno firmato uno statement in cui richiedono ai leader mondiali un accordo ambizioso rispetto ai temi del cambiamento climatico. L'accordo nasce dall'unione di 6 grandi associazioni – The Prince of Wales' Corporate Leaders Group, WWF Climate Savers, i gruppi statunitensi Ceres e Bicep, il Climate Group e il brasiliano Business Council for Sustainable Development.

"Ci sono state delle dicerie qua al Bella Centre che le grandi aziende preferirebbero cautela e lo status quo invece che un trattato vincolante e che stabilisca degli obiettivi di riduzione dei gas serra vincolanti. Questa percezione e' sbagliata. Piu' di 1.000 aziende di tutti i continenti, per la maggioranza aziende internazionali, chiedono un accordo vincolante e ambizioso che riduca le emissioni di CO2 e acceleri l'innovazione pulita a livello globale. [...] Se le aziende possono, perche' non possono i leader politici?"

Le aziende firmatarie includono Barclays, BP, British Airways, General Electric, IBM, Enel, ENI, Barilla, Telecom - solo per citarne alcune. Di seguito l'articolo in inglese uscito su BusinessGreen.com.

Veronica Caciagli
Climate Change Officer
British Consulate General Milan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
World's largest firms issue last-ditch call for Copenhagen deal

More than 1,000 firms employing more than 20 million people issue statement arguing that a robust Copenhagen agreement makes business sense.
James Murray, BusinessGreen, 16 Dec 2009

More than 1,000 businesses, including many of the world's largest firms, have today issued a final call for world leaders gathering in Copenhagen to deliver "a strong, legally binding deal" to tackle climate change.

Six of the world's largest green business groups – The Prince of Wales' Corporate Leaders Group, WWF Climate Savers, the US-based Ceres and Bicep groups, the Climate Group, and the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development – have today issued a joint statement insisting the business community supports ambitious action to cut carbon emissions.

"There are rumours floating in and around the Bella Centre that big business would prefer caution and the status quo instead of a treaty that is bold and sets comprehensive reduction targets," the statement reads. "That perception is incorrect. More than 1,000 businesses from all continents, most of them global players, are advocating for a strong, legally binding deal that reduces carbon pollution and accelerates clean energy innovation on a global scale."

It goes on to argue that businesses want a deal that would provide incentives to invest in low-carbon R&D, protect economies from the impacts of climate change, and allow businesses to make long-term investments in clean technologies.

The coalition of groups said that together their members represent more than $11tr (£6.8tr) in market capitalisation, employ more than 20 million people and last year generated at least $2.6tr in revenue.

The statement is backed by businesses from every continent and firms that operate in some of the world's most carbon-intensive industries, as well as many household names, including Barclays, BP, British Airways, General Electric, IBM, News Corporation, Nike, Starbucks, and Virgin, to name but a few.

"One thing is for certain: today, there are many businesses delivering the real deal," it states. "The companies participating in [these] initiatives... show that taking climate action makes business sense. The question is, if businesses can do it, why can't world leaders?"

Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Craig Bennett of the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change said it was important for progressive businesses to get their message across to world leaders.

"The problem is there is no such thing as a united business community and it does not take a huge number of groups to take a critical position and predict job cuts to scare policiticians," he said. "The threat of job losses is often more scary to politicians than the promise of opportunities, which is why we must work to reassure political leaders of many businesses' support."

He added that despite the apparently slow progress of the talks, there was still a chance a deal could be struck as world leaders begin to play an increasingly prominent role. "The impression I get is that there is still a real sense that a deal can be done," he said. "A lot of it rests on the finance and if some of the industrialised countries put a bit more on the table in the final days, it could secure the deal we want."

17 December - 119 leaders at Copenhagen

A Copenhagen stanno arrivando 119 capi di Stato per discutere di clima e di strategie di riduzione dei gas serra. Qua l'elenco.
-----------------------------------------------
119 leaders arriving to Copenhagen. Here they are.