Does anybody have a definitive answer to
the question as to what exactly it was about the
final US proposal that was unacceptable in the
eyes of Trittin and the other European negotiators
who refused to accept it? Again, one story that I
saw claimed that it was ultimately the demand for
using market trading mechanisms. But, then that
story was shown to be wrong in other areas, such'
as claiming that Dominique Voynet was willing to
accept the US proposal, when according to other
stories later she was not, and indeed got into a
big argument with UK's John Prescott about it.
I suspect that it is true that the US muddied the
waters by making its first proposal which was clearly
unacceptable, whatever happened to the later one.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa & Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, December 01, 2000 7:03 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5321] Failure ofClimate Change talks and US forests
>
>
>To: All Activists
>From: Jim Jontz
>Date: December 1, 2000
>
>HAGUE TALKS END WITHOUT AGREEMENT
>
>No agreement is better than a bad agreement, but it is disappointing
>that the international climate change talks ended in The Hague this past
>Saturday without resolving any of the important issues around
>implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. In the end, the U.S. retreated
>from its original meritless proposal to claim as much as half of the
>nation's obligation for carbon sequestration from "business as usual"
>forestry. But the Europeans didn't feel comfortable with what the U.S.
>put on the table at the last minute, and no agreement was reached.
>
>If there is good news from The Hague, it is that forests are at the
>center of the controversy over how industrialized nations meet their
>obligation to reduce greenhouse gases. Failure to reach an agreement
>now could, in fact, result in a better agreement later -- IF forests are
>addressed in a much more responsible manner than they were at COP-6.
>
>Environmental groups were united in rejecting the U.S. proposal to count
>"business as usual" forestry for a substantial part of its obligation.
>Business as usual forestry means giving the U.S. and other nations
>credit for doing nothing, in essence, except for managing forests the
>way they would have been managed anyway. That's not doing anything for
>climate, and it's not good for forests, either! Just look at the
>massive clearcutting of the South to feed chip mills, the short rotation
>logging of industry land in the Northwest that is killing salmon, and
>the pitiful state of logged over areas in Maine's North Woods to
>understand why "business as usual" isn't acceptable.
>
>In the end, the U.S. still insisted on counting some "business as usual"
>forestry. Had trust in the U.S. evaporated because of the ridiculous
>proposal they put on the table early in the week? Did the U.S. wait too
>late to put a serious proposal on the table that the Europeans could
>consider? It is disapointing that an agreement wasn't reached, but what
>is equally disappointing -- and perhaps a source of hope -- is that the
>issue of what kind of forestry activities would be counted never really
>got on the table at. The U.S. should give up on "business as usual"
>forestry: "that dog don't hunt." But what about real protection of
>forests, real steps to reduce the role of logging in generating
>greenhouse gases, and real steps to increase the natural capacity of
>forest ecosytems to collect and store carbon? Regrettably, neither the
>U.S. nor the Europeans considered how qualitative limits could promote
>the right forest activities, protection and restoration.
>
>Look at our nation's landscape. Eastern forests have an enormous
>capacity for regeneration: ample rainfall, good soils, a long growing
>season in the South. Open space is desperately needed, as is relief
>from the industrial forestry practices that are murdering biodiversity
>in areas like the Southern Appalachians. Look at the Northwest too,
>including the North Coast of California, the Coast Range of Oregon, and
>the "checkerboard" lands east of the Cascades. Massive industrial
>logging has resulted in forests that are a pale shadow of their former
>selves. Why wouldn't the U.S. want rules that would open the door for
>restoration of these forests, soaking up enormous amounts of carbon and
>providing the many other public benefits of healthy, mature forests?
>
>The U.S. should wake up to the opportunities that would be created by
>proposing strict rules limiting forestry activities under Kyoto to real
>forest protection and restoration. A greater commitment to reducing
>emissions, and forest rules that limit creditable activities to real
>forest protection and restoration -- how could the Europeans turn down
>such a proposal? Unfortunately, it was never made at The Hague. Let's
>hope that it can be made at the next international climate meeting in
>Germany this spring, for the sake of climate and forests both.
>
>For more information contact Darcy Davis, NW Climate and Forest
>Organizer, American Lands, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or by
>phone (503) 978-0132
>
>
