Nations agree to look at planes, ships in climate deal
BANGKOK (AFP) — More than 160 nations agreed Friday to consider how to reduce rapidly growing emissions from air and sea travel as they worked toward drafting an ambitious new treaty on global warming.
The late-evening deal came amid signs of a compromise on another sticking point -- a Japanese proposal on setting industry standards that developing nations viewed with suspicion.
Rich and poor countries are sharply divided on how to tackle global warming, despite growing fears that rising temperatures could put millions of people at risk by the end of the century.
The five-day conference in Bangkok was tasked with setting the first step to complete a pact by the end of next year to follow the landmark Kyoto Protocol, which requires rich nations to slash gas emissions blamed for warming.
"I am confident we will be able to bring this work forward," said Harald Dovland, the chair of the meeting.
A statement approved here by countries in the Kyoto treaty said they would look at how to "limit or reduce emissions" in aviation and shipping.
The air and marine transport industries account for some three percent of greenhouse gas emissions. But the Kyoto treaty did not cover the two sectors, which are by nature hard to classify under individual nations.
Delegates and environmentalists said there was an effort to water down the text by countries that are transport hubs, such as Singapore, or remotely located, such as Australia.
The statement also gave a vote of confidence to carbon trading, in which rich countries and companies trade credits for slashing carbon output, raising the chances that such growing markets will be included in a post-Kyoto deal.
But the conference was split by a dispute over a Japanese proposal to hold talks soon on the so-called "sectoral approach," in which each industry is judged separately on eco-friendliness.
Developing nations fear the sectoral approach makes Kyoto easier to meet for rich countries, which already have cleaner technology, and that it could be a backdoor way to legally require them for the first time to cut emissions.
"Whatever attention is given to the sectoral approach can only be one part of reduction measures" by developed nations, said Li Liyan, a senior Chinese negotiator.
Daniel Mittler, climate and energy adviser for Greenpeace International, was more blunt.
"The Japanese proposal is the main stumbling block. This meeting should be about saving the planet, not the G8 summit," Mittler said.
Japan, which is far behind in meeting its Kyoto obligations as its economy recovers from a recession, hopes to shape the next global climate treaty when it hosts a Group of Eight (G8) summit in July.
Developing countries including fast-growing China have no requirements to slash emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, leading the United States to shun the treaty.
But the United States and developing nations all committed at a major conference in December in Bali, Indonesia, to be part of negotiations for another deal that covers the period after 2012 when Kyoto's obligations end.
The Bangkok talks are officially tasked with simply setting a work plan to meet the Bali goals. A draft text sets three meetings next year until a final deal is reached in late 2009 in Copenhagen.
In a compromise, a late-session draft text says that the Japanese sectoral approach will be discussed in the second of the three meetings.
The draft text also includes discussions of how to bring the United States into the process of cutting emissions.
Nearly all delegates agree that the toughest issue -- how much to slash gas emissions after 2012 -- will have to wait until after the United States has a new president in January. All three major candidates seeking to succeed Bush have pledged tougher action on global warming.
Observers said the Bangkok meeting was largely about nations staking their positions.
"They're setting the table for a meal and they haven't really digged in," said Alden Meyer, strategy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US pressure group and a veteran watcher of environmental negotiations.
"That means there's no food fight, but that will come down the road when it gets serious," he said.
