加载中…
个人资料
绿色
绿色
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:19,270
  • 关注人气:12
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
正文 字体大小:

《哥本哈根大会的失败应归咎于丹麦,而非中国》

(2010-01-06 10:11:49)
标签:

哥本哈根

lohas

乐活

绿色

杂谈

马丁•克诺尔题为《哥本哈根大会的失败应归咎于丹麦,而非中国》的文章

 

选自《中国日报》的文章。

 

Blame failure of Copenhagen summit on Denmark, not China

By Martin Khor (China Daily)

Updated: 2010-01-02 08:07

哥本哈根气候峰会的失败应归罪于丹麦,而不是中国。

作者:Martin Khor (《中国日报》)

 

 

It's been several days since the chaotic end to the Copenhagen climate conference but the aftershocks from its failure are still reverberating. The pointing of fingers in the blame game does not help the regaining of trust needed for the positive resumption of talks early this year and to complete them by December 2010, the new deadline agreed to in Copenhagen.

哥本哈根气候峰会硝烟的结束已经有几天了,但人们对峰会失败的打击仍然反响强烈。伸着指头相互指责,对于重获信任以尽快在今年恢复对话毫无帮助,对于实现在峰会上制定的新的目标——在2010年12月完成任务,也是毫无帮助的。

 

First, the misinformation put out in the past few days has to be corrected. The UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, has turned on China as the villain that "hijacked" the conference. The main "evidence" they gave was that China vetoed an "agreement" on a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050 and an 80 percent reduction by developed countries, in the small meeting of 26 leaders on Copenhagen's final day.

首先,必须纠正在过去几天里散布的错误信息。英国气候变迁大臣Ed Miliband,把中国说成是“挟持”了峰会的罪魁祸首。他们的主要“证据”是中国否定了在峰会最后一天,由26国首脑所召开的小型会议达成的一项“协议”。这项“协议”称将于2050年全球将减排50%,发达国家减排80%,

 

 

There was indeed a "hijack" in Copenhagen, but it was not by China. The hijack was organized by the host government, Denmark, whose prime minister convened a meeting of 26 leaders in the last two days in an attempt to override the painstaking negotiations taking place among 193 countries throughout the two weeks and in fact in the past two to four years.

的确有人“劫持”了哥本哈根峰会,但不是中国。是主办国丹麦“劫持”了峰会。在峰会最后两天,丹麦首相集合了26国首脑召开会议,试图僭越过去两周内甚至过去两到四年里193个国家之间的艰难的谈判。

 

 

That exclusive meeting was not mandated by the UN climate convention. Indeed, the developing countries had warned the Danish prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, not to come up with his own "Danish text" to be negotiated by a small group that he himself would select, as this would violate the multilateral treaty-based process, and would replace the documents carefully negotiated by all countries with one unilaterally issued by the host country.

联合国气候公约并没有批准这项排他性的小范围会议。的确,发展中国家的人们曾警告过丹麦首相Lars Lokke Rasmussen,让他不要组织小团体就他的“丹麦版文件”进行洽谈,因为这样做会破坏整个基于多边协议的过程,所有国家谨慎谈判的结果也会被主办国单方面发表的文件所取代。

 

 

Despite this, the Danish government produced just such a document, and it convened exactly the kind of exclusive group that would undermine the UN climate convention's multilateral and democratic process. Under that process, the 193 countries had been collectively working on coming to a conclusion on the many aspects of the climate deal.

尽管如此,丹麦政府仍然制造了这样一份文件,他们也确实集结了这样一个排他的小团体,这会破坏联合国气候公约基于多边和民主原则的谈判过程。在此过程中,193个国家曾经共同努力,以期在环境协议的方方面面达成一致。

 

Weeks before, it had become clear that Copenhagen could not adopt a full agreement because many basic differences remained. Copenhagen should have been designed as a stepping stone to a future successful outcome accepted by all. Unfortunately, the host country Denmark selected a small number of the 110 top leaders who came, to meet in secret, without the mandate or even knowledge of the convention's membership.

几周前,由于许多根本矛盾的存在,人们已经明确意识到哥本哈根峰会不可能达成完全一致的协定。哥本哈根峰会应该作为一个奠基石,为将来得到一个各国都能接受的成功的结果奠定基础。不幸的是,主办国丹麦从110名首脑中挑选了一小部分进行秘密会晤,而这竟是在未得到公约的成员国的批准的情况下进行的,甚至没有知会他们一声。

 

The selected leaders were given a draft Danish document that mainly represented the developed countries' positions, thereby marginalizing the developing countries' views tabled at the two-year negotiations.

每位被挑选的首脑都发了一份丹麦文起草的文件,这份文件主要代表了发达国家的立场,因而忽视了在两年的谈判中那些发展中国家的意见。

 

Meanwhile, most of the thousands of delegates were working for two weeks on producing two reports representing the latest state of play, indicating areas of agreement and those where final decisions still had to be taken.

同时,一千多名代表中的大部分人两周以来都在做两份代表最新状况的报告,以说明在哪些方面达成协议,而哪些方面还未作出最终决定。

 

These reports were finally adopted by the conference. They should have been announced as the real outcome of Copenhagen, together with a decision to resume and complete work next year. It would not have been a resounding success, but it would have been an honest ending that would not have been termed a failure.

大会最终采纳了这些报告。哥本哈根峰会本应该宣布,这些报告以及关于明年恢复和完成工作的决议,正是本次峰会的真正成绩。这不是个成功的结果,不会获得赞扬,但起码这会是一个诚实的结果,而不会被说成是一次失败。

 

Instead, the Copenhagen accord was criticized by the final plenary of members and not adopted. The unwise attempt by the Danish presidency to impose a non-legitimate meeting to override the legitimate multilateral process was the reason why Copenhagen will be considered a disaster.

相反,哥本哈根协议遭到了全体成员的批评,他们都不接受这个结果。人们之所以认为哥本哈根峰会是场灾难,正是由于丹麦政府不明智的企图造成的,他们试图用一个不合法的集会,取代一个合法的多边协商过程。

 

The accord itself is weak mainly because it does not contain any commitments by the developed countries to cut their emissions in the medium term. Perhaps the reason for this most glaring omission is that the national pledges so far announced amount to only a 11 to 19 percent overall reduction by the developed countries by 2020 (compared to 1990), a far cry from the more than 40 percent demanded by developing countries and scientists.

哥本哈根协议本身是软弱无力的。主要是因为在这个协议中,发达国家没有就中期减排作出任何承诺。这些让人们最为关注的承诺没有列入协议,可能的原因就是,发达国家承诺与1990年相比,截至2020年,仅减低总排放量的11%-19%,远低于发展中国家和科学家所要求的减排40%的标准。

 

The imperative for the negotiations next year is to agree on what science says is necessary for the world to do (in terms of limits to temperature rise or in global emissions cut) but also on what is a just and equitable formula for sharing the costs and burdens of adjustment, and to decide on both simultaneously. Learning from Copenhagen's mistakes, countries should return to the multilateral track and resume negotiations in the convention's two working groups as early as possible.

明年谈判的任务是在多方面达成一致,不仅在科学家认为全世界都应该行动的方面(包括限制温度上升和全球减排),还包括为共同承担调整所需的成本和负担而建立一个公平公正的规则方面,这两方面应同时达成一致。各国应该吸取哥本哈根峰会的经验教训,尽快回到多国会话的轨道上,早日恢复联合国气候公约两个工作组的谈判工作。

 

This is an abridged version of an article that first appeared in the Guardian on Dec 28

这是12月8日首次发表在英国《卫报》上的文章,有删节。

 

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有