In the new this week...

CLIMATE SUMMIT FOR A LIVING HIMALAYAS

Following on from my news post on the the 12th November, the 'Climate Summit for a Living Himalaya' concluded on the 19th of November and was claimed to have been highly 'successful' with the publication of a 'Framework of Cooperation' which the four countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal) will incorporate into their economic and social structure to increase resilience against climate change. However, after reading the framework, it seems that all of the activities that have been agreed on are rather ambiguous and do not carry any specific targets or mechanisms to test that they are actually being carried out. For example 'enhancing ecosystem management processes to minimise the impacts of climate change induced disasters' (Climate Change Summit for a Living Himalayas, 2011: 3) Additionally, a substantial proportion of the activities involve knowledge sharing, rather than investing funding into trans-national projects to reduce climate change. Despite its limitations, the summit represents a growing awareness by governments that climate change could have significant impacts of the world's economy and social systems. Even if the activities stated in this framework are small, it is a step in the right direction to alter how we conceptualise and consume the earth's resources.

COP/CMP7: WORKING TOGETHER-SAVING TOMORROW TODAY

Hot off the press, the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) began today in Durban, South Africa. The COP serves as a meeting by the parties that have signed the Kyoto Protocol, but also allows other member states to observe the meeting, but are not allowed to participate in any decisions being made. With another 'climategate' scandal occurring days before the beginning of the conference, many are uncertain how the 17th Conference will pan out.

One of the main points that will be discussed at the conference is whether parties will sign up to a second Kyoto Protocol with the first treaty ending at the end of 2012. Although many EU countries and developing countries support a second protocol (the only legally binding agreement to reduce carbon emissions), some developed countries such as Japan, Russia and Canada have stated that they will not sign on. With the UNEP stating that global carbon emissions need to be reduced by 44GT- well below current levels- if any attempt is to be made to remain below the  2°C target by 2020, the conclusions of the conference will highly significant (Telegraph, 28th November 2011). The impacts of climate change are global, crossing borders and reaching into even the remotest regions. Thus, it will be interesting to follow the discussions in the conference as they develop in the next few weeks?

I would be interested to hear what any of you think on this issue? Do you think that a second protocol is needed or do you think a different approach is required to reduce carbon emissions, and if so, what?

 For the latest updates on the conference and to learn more about the main points that will be discussed in the next two weeks visit the UNFCCC website.