Posted by Julie-Anne Richards

The negotiations are starting to heat up now. The main thing being negotiated at this conference is how we go about agreeing a next phase in the Kyoto Protocol. A post 2012 climate change agreement. It is essential that this be strong enough to avoid dangerous climate change, by keeping temperature increase below 2^oC. 2^oC is likely to lead to widespread bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and other reefs around the world, and it won't be enough to save some of the Pacific Islands from becoming uninhabitable, but once we go over 2^oC we face full blown climate catastrophe with widespread food and water insecurity.

The thing that we need out of this meeting is a definite pathway forward to a second commitment period. The pathway needs to include a workplan at this meeting to work towards gaining a negotiating mandate (ie an agreement from Parties that we begin negotiating) at the next meeting, and then finalising of the whole kit and kaboodle in 2008. Believe it, or not, some people think that is too ambitious! But, its absolutely what we need if we are to move smoothly from the 1st commitment period in Kyoto Protocol to the 2nd commitment period.

The second commitment period needs to include targets to reduce climate change pollution for developed countries by at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2050. The wealthier developing countries will also need to come up with ways to reduce their emissions, if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. But, of course, as developed countries have caused the climate change we've got so far, its essential that they act first and make the biggest cuts.

Have you been reading ECO regularly? If you read the November 6 issue, you might have noticed the "Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow" article. Its a critical review of the previous COPMOP President (the Canadian Environment Minister) who rarely showed up to meetings in her time as President. The writers jokingly said it was because she spent too much time at the hairdressers. Well, it was supposed to be a joke, but some people didn't see the funny side. It caused an absolute furore in Canada, with commentators up in arms about sexist environmentalists. You can see Eco editions at www.climatenetwork.org

Note: the above is the opinion of Julie-Anne Richards, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Climate Action Network.