Jam-packed week of eco-socialist causes coming up!

Read more ...

COP23; to implement the Paris Agreement; the Systemic Constraints must be overcome

Original Article Link

At COP 21, Ban Ki Moon, in Paris, urged states to negotiate with

a global vision not with national vested interests (a paraphrase of statement at 

Cop21 press conference)

A global vision  would be to address article 2 of the UNFCCC and at a

minimum the following: (i) to immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuel, 

(ii) to calculate the carbon budget for each state,(iii) to divest in fossil fuels

 and to reinvest and invest in renewable energy, (iv) to conserve sinks

-such as old growth forests and bogs, to strengthen conservation of  biodiversity,

 (v) to abandon false solutions such as nuclear, geo-engineering and biofuels

which would all violate principles within the UNFCCC

 (vi) to compensate for historical emissions, and (vi) to institute a fair and just

transition for workers affected negatively by the new vision. (vii) to promote nature

based solutions and socially equitable and environmentally sound energy such as solar,

wind, tidal, and geothermal, (viii) end the exemption for miitary contribution to

greenhouse gas emissions, and (ix) reallocate the military budget and transfer the funds to address climate change

ARTICLE BEING REFORMATTED

COP23 must overcome the systemic constraints that undermined COP21 

Systemic constraints preventing the fulfillment of the commitment  to urgency

In COP21 in the preamble was  the “recognition that climate  change

represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human society

and the planet” yet the existence of the following systemic constraints prevented COP21 from embodying

this recognition:

 1. The best is the enemy of the good- the compromisers credo

 2 Baselines targets timeframes were all out of sync

 3. Expedient omission; global carbon budget: historical and per capita

 emissions

 4. A solution should never be equally bad or worse than the problem it Is intended to solve

 5.Some states are more equal than others

 6. The lowest common denominator; the  tyranny of consensus

 7 The failure to reverse the exemption for the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions

 8. Reluctance to use the international court of Justice

 9. Ignoring commitment for funding source

10.The shortness of institutional memory and the undermining of legal

 obligations from article 2 3 and 4 of UNFCCC

FIRST SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT

THE BEST IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD

All states should have acted to fulfill SDG 13 and on Ban Ki moon's call for negotiating with

 a global vision

In SDG13 on climate change, addressing climate change is described

as urgent; climate change could jeopardize the fulfillment of most of the

SDGs. and the key biodiversity areas.

Almost twenty years ago in 1988, at the Changing Atmosphere

 Conference in Toronto, the participants including representatives

 from government, academia, NGOs and industry expressed their concern about Climate Change

in the Conference statement:

“Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally

 pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequence could be

second only to a global nuclear war. The Earth’s atmosphere is

being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants

resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil

 fuel use ... These changes represent a major

threat to international security and are already having harmful

Consequences over many parts of the globe.... it is imperative to act now.

The Conference called for immediate action by governments,

 To Reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% of 1988 levels

by the year 2005 as an initial global goal. Clearly the industrialized

 nations have a responsibility to lead the way both through

their national energy policies and their bilateral multilateral

assistance arrangement.

 The time for procrastination has long since has passed.

At COP21, Ban Ki Moon, in Paris, urged states to negotiate with a global

 vision not with national vested interests (COP 21 press conference)

 In 2017, the global community is in danger of non-compliance with

 the purpose of the legally binding United Nations Framework on

Climate Change( article 2)

..."to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of

the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would

prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

 such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to

allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that

 food production is not threatened

What COP21 should have been was a new global vision with legally binding

actions to finally implement the binding commitments and adhere to the

principles in the legally binding 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate

change (UNFCCC)

Unfortunately, all the way through the negotiations, governments were

talking about their red lines: i.e. we will not agree to a document if x is in

 the text or if x is not in the text.

At COP 23.there must be no compromise to accommodate the Trump government

 and other major fossil fuel states; instead there must be a strong legally

binding document  that could be used to sue the US and other

non-cooperating fossil fuel states for violation of article 2 of the legally

binding UNFCCC to which all states are parties.

SECOND SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT

BASELINES,  TIMEFRAMES AND TARGETS , WERE ALL  OUT OF

SYNC

At COP21. the  proposed "contributions were not  legally binding

commitments  and they ranged in baselines from

1990 to 2010, from percentages  from 20- 30 + % and targets  

from 2010 to 2030. 

Given the urgency, now in 2017 there must be real commitments

consistent with existing and emerging science such 

as 20% below 1990 by 2017,  30% below 1990

levels by 2018, 50%below 1990 levels by 2020, 65 % below 1990

 levels by 2025, 75% below 1990 levels by 2040 and 100%

below 1990 emissions by 2050,  decarbonization with 100% ecologically

 sound renewable energy,  

THIRD SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT:EXPEDIENT OMISSION CARBON BUDGET ETC

Apart from a long list of what they are going to do without being

 compelled to do anything, there were several expedient omissions in the final

document, first there was no mention of fossil fuels- including oil, coal or gas,

historical or per capita emissions and above all there was no

mention of the carbon budget and fair shares of the carbon budget.

At the press conferences the total carbon budget was a big

issue with scientists and NGOs.

Total carbon budget is estimated at  2900 gigatons   from

pre-industrial time in order to keep below 2 degrees and that

 in 2011 1900 gigatons of co2 had been used  up thus about

1000 gigatons remains 

At the current rate of 35.7 gt per year, in 2015 there would

only remain around 860 gt

IPCCC – estimates the total remaining emissions from 2014/2015

 to keep global average temperature

below 2°c (900/ 860gtco2 ) will be used in around 20 years

at current emission rates

carbon budget pdf

the emission pledges from the us, EU, china, and India leave little room

for other countries to emit in a 2°c emission budget (66% chance) of the 35 giga

 tons: it is startling that it was ignored in the agreement.

This evidence is significant for supporting  the urgency of having legally

binding internationally determined mitigation commitments.

Accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

 scenarios provide us with a global carbon budget that

will be consumed in 10–20 years at current emissions levels,  and entail

very significant levels of risk.

FOURTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT

A SOLUTION SHOULD NEVER BE EQUALLY BAD OR WORSE

THAN THE PROBLEM IT IS INTENDED TO SOLVE

 Some proposed solutions are false solutions. Such as nuclear 

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/nuclear-energy-is-not-a-solution_b_5305594.html)

Such as geoengineering

(Geoengineering is not a solution)

Such asBIOFUEL (agriculture land grabbing still a huge problem in eastern Europe/

Stop africa land grab

FIFTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT

SOME STATES ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER

From COP15/16 to COP21 the systemic constraint some states are more

equal than others was evident:

All three COPs  discounted the evidence of the scientists and ignored the

pleas of the developing countries.

in COP15, the developed states' negotiators were relying on the 2007  

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report . At a press conference,

a member of the IPCC stated: “at 2 degree rise the poor, the vulnerable and

the disenfranchised would not survive, at a 1.5 degree rise, they might”

 in the Copenhagen Accord, the 2 degree rise was agreed to and the developing

countries were ignored with their pleas for  the temperature not to rise above

1.5 degree and some like Bolivia urged the Conference to agree to keep the

Temperature rise below 1 degree.

In COP23. there must be compensation for historical  emissions which

have impacted vulnerable states, to avoid all false solutions such

as nuclear, geo-engineering and biofuels which would all violate principles

within the UNFCCC,  

SIXTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT THE LOWEST COMMON

DENOMINATOR THE TYRANNY OF CONSENSUS

a global vision would have been the striving for consensus with  a fallback

 of  75 % especially within each article

At COP21 until the last versions, article 22; allowed for fallback

article 22 (voting)

1. each party shall have one vote,

3. without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 15 of the

 convention, the parties Shall make every effort to reach agreement on all

matters by consensus. if such efforts to reach consensus

have been exhausted and no agreement has been reached, a decision

shall, as a last resort, be adopted by a three-fourths majority vote of the

 parties present and voting.

4. for the purpose of this article, 'parties present and voting' means parties

present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.

In a press conference of the UNFCCC secretariat I suggested that to avoid

 descending to the lowest common denominator, perhaps principle 22

could apply to each article. if there were a fallback to 75% in article 2  over

80 percent of  the states would have agreed to keep the temperature

below 1.5 and to have a legally binding mitigation commitments for the

major greenhouse gas emitters.

SEVENTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINTTHE FAILURE TO REVERSE THE EXEMPTION

FOR THE CONTRIBUTION TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS

TO  END THE EXEMPTION OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF MILITARISM TO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

It appears that  the United States had insisted on the inclusion of this

Exemption at the time of the Kyoto protocol.

 Pentagons hidden impact on climate change

 At a 2007 Conference on Climate Change. I worked with the peace Caucus and

The anti-military Caucus on the following:

MILITARISM: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. DPI/NGO CLIMATE

 CHANGE CONFERENCE AT THE UNITED NATIONS

Excerpts from the September 7, 2007 Declaration, prepared by the NGO

 Ant-military caucus and the NGO Peace Caucus was presented to the Chair,

Rajendra K. Pachauri, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We call upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to

 investigate and estimate the full impact on greenhouse gas emissions

by the military and demand that each state release information related to

 the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of all weapons systems,

military exercises, from war games, weapons testing,

military aviation, environmental warfare, troop transfer, military operations, waste generation, reconstruction after acts of violent interventions etc.;

We support the call for the disbanding of NATO, whose collective activities have

 contributed to not only the perpetuation of the scourge of war and the violation

 of international peremptory norms, but also the substantial release of

greenhouse gas emissions:

(ii) call upon the member states of the United Nations to act on the

commitment in Chapter 33 of Agenda 21, to reallocate military expenses;


(iii) call upon the United Nations General Assembly UNGA to acknowledge the

inextricable link between climate change and conflict over resources such as

oil, water etc.;


(iv) call upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to

investigate and estimate the full impact on greenhouse gas emissions by

the military and demand that each state release information related to the

greenhouse gas emissions from the production of all weapons systems, military

exercises, from war games, weapons testing, military aviation, environmental

warfare, troop transfer, military operations, waste generation, reconstruction after

 acts of violent interventions etc.;


(vi) support the call for the disbanding of NATO, whose collective activities

have contributed to not only the perpetuation of the scourge of war and the

violation of international peremptory norms, but also the substantial release

of greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment on military influence 

At COP16,, “The US military operates in the shadows of climate

negotiations, having demanded that their emissions be exempted from

scrutiny or regulation. This absolutely cannot continue: the climate

crisis has reached the point where all of life – now and for future

generations – is threatened. We cannot just ignore the largest polluter

on earth, that  fights more wars over access to oil, and continues to feed

this vicious cycle!” Ironically, even the Pentagon recognizes that climate

change is a “threat multiplier”, that will result in mass migrations, and far 

more wars and conflicts, threatening US “national security”.

But their response is more of the same: build up fortress America, and

run the military on liquefied coal and biofuels to reduce reliance on foreign

 oil. Their total disregard for human rights around the world is apparently from

a 2003 Pentagon report, which calculated dispassionately:

 “Deaths from war as well as starvation and disease will decrease population size,

which overtime, will re-balance with carrying capacity.”

(militar

isms-contribution-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210)

At COP 21, Ban ki-Moon urged states to negotiate with a "global vision" not

with national vested interests.

 There is an unclear relationship between the UNFCCC and what came

out of Paris. Unless the voluntary contributions become revised and

firm commitments, made to address the global carbon budget and to keep well be

low 1.5 degrees, the Paris Agreement will undermine

Article 2 of the UNFCCC, (stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations

 in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous

anthropogenic with the  climate system)

A global vision  to implement article 2 would be, at a minimum, to

immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuel, (no tar sands, no pipelines

and no tankers) to divest in fossil fuels, and reinvest in socially equitable

and environmentally sound renewable energy, to not use “transition”

to justify reinvestment  in the continuation of the fossil fuel industry, to

calculate the carbon budget for each province, to enforce fair  share of the carbon

 budget, 

To commit  to 25% reduction of GHGs emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, 35%

 below 1990 by 2025, 50% below 1990 by 2030, 60 %

elow 1990 by 2035. 75%below1990 by 2040 to 100 % below 1990 by 2050 to

 decarbonisation by 2050, and 100% socially equitable and

environmentally sound renewables.

To compensate for historical  emissions which have impacted vulnerable states,

to avoid all false solutions such as nuclear, geo-engineering and

biofuels which would all violate principles within the UNFCCC,  

EIGHTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT:

RELUCTANCE TO USE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT AGAINST

THE MAJOR EMMITTERS FOR THEIR VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF

 THE UNFCCC

Legal Remedy

Once there is a legally binding agreement, then the delinquent states

should be taken to the International Court of Justice for failing to discharge the

obligations under the UNFCCC.

In addition, major greenhouse gas-producing states must be forced to

 implement the actions that would discharge the obligations incurred

when they signed and ratified the UNFCCC (provisions of the UNFCCC

have become international peremptory norms and as such are binding)

and theIr legal obligations and be forced to repay the emission debt.

Historic emissions should be calculated and an assessment made of the

degree of dereliction of duty in the implementation of the UNFCCC.

From these assessments, provisions must be made to compensate the

states that have been most damaged by the failure, of the major

greenhouse gas emitting states, to discharge obligations under the

Convention. In such cases, a fund should e set up to assist vulnerable

 states in taking delinquent states to the International Court of Justice, including

the Chamber on Environmental Matters (Compositionof the Chamber for Environmental Matters.

There  should be a campaign to have all states respect the jurisdiction and decisions of the nternational Court of Justice.

NINTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT.

IGNORING COMMITMMENT FOR FUNDING SOURCE

 Forty years ago in 1976, in Habitat I all member states  affirmed:

The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be

prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote

general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international

 control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. part of the

 resources

thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for

 humanity and particularly the peoples of developing countries (II, 12

Habitat 1)

and at UNCED , all states made the commitment; 

to implement the following 1992 commitment

”to reallocate resources at

present committed to military purposes (Article 16e,Chapter 33, Agenda 21,

UNCED).

The funds should be transferred to implementing the above to institute

fair and just transition for workers and communities  affected by the above.

In conclusion. If these systemic constraints will be overcome,, hopefully,

COP23 will finally address the urgency of climate change  

and there will be a legally binding agreement supported in each article by

at least 75% vote, Then the states  which have agreed to the strong legally

binding document to implement the UNFCCC  could take the rogue states

 to the international Court of Justice for violating  Article2 of the UNFCCC

At COP 21, Ban Ki Moon, in Paris, urged states to negotiate with

a global vision not with national vested interests (a paraphrase of statement at 

Cop21 press conference)

A global vision  would be to address article 2 of the UNFCCC and at a

minimum the following: (i) to immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuel, 

(ii) to calculate the carbon budget for each state,(iii) to divest in fossil fuels

 and to reinvest and invest in renewable energy, (iv) to conserve sinks

-such as old growth forests and bogs, to strengthen conservation of  biodiversity,

 (v) to abandon false solutions such as nuclear, geo-engineering and biofuels

which would all violate principles within the UNFCCC

 (vi) to compensate for historical emissions, and (vi) to institute a fair and just

transition for workers affected negatively by the new vision. and (vii) to promote nature

based solutions and socially equitable and environmentally sound such as solar,

wind, tidal, and geothermal.

TENTH SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINT;.THE SHORTNESS OF

INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY AND THE UNDERMINING OF LEGAL

OBLIGATIONS FROM ARTICLE 2 3 AND 4 of UNFCCC

 COP21 suffered from the shifting baseline syndrome; shortness of institutional memory A global vision is not just recalling (as was done in COP21)

but abiding by Articles 2 3 and 4 in the legally binding UNFCCC

tHE FOLLOWING IS EXCERPTS FROM THE UNFCCC FOR BACKGROUND

UNFCCC Objective article 2

COP23 needs to advocate stronger actions  than were proposed in the

UNFCCC was in 1992  preamble; historic emissions is the following:

Noting that the largest share of historical and current global

emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed

countries, that per capita  emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and

 that the share of global emissions originating in developing

countries will grow to meet their social and development needs,

COP21 suffered from the shifting baseline syndrome

Ban Ki-moon urged negotiators to negotiate with a global vision;.

a global vision is not just recalling (as was done in COP21) but abiding

by articles 2 3 and 4 in the legally binding un framework convention on

climate change UNFCCC

ARTICLE 2 OF UNFCCC

that the conference of the parties may adopt is to achieve, in

accordance with the relevant provisions of the convention,

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient

to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure

that food production is not threatened and to enable economic

development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

In COP21 there was the following:

holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below

 2 °c above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the

temperature increase to 1.5 °c above pre-industrial levels, recognizing

that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

At 1 degree rise in temperature, however, there is already  de-stabilization of

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that

is causing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

 that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate

system. a global vision  would be to address article 2 would be at a

 minimum to immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuel, to calculate the

carbon budget for each state, to enforce fair  share of the carbon budget,  

to divest in fossil fuels and to reinvest in renewable energy,

 to commit to decarbonisation by 2050,to conserve sinks (not  just as a

means to offset emissions), to avoid all false solutions such

as nuclear, geo-engineering and biofuels which would all violate principles

within the UNFCCC and to compensate for historical  emissions.

UNFCCC ARTICLE 3 PRINCIPLES (for background info)

 In their actions to achieve the objective of the convention and to

implement its provisions, the parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the

following:

 UNFCCC  3.1. the parties should protect the climate system for the

 benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of

equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated

 responsibilities and respective capabilities. accordingly, the developed

country parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the

 adverse effects thereof of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various

response strategies;

(h) promote and cooperate in the full, open and prompt exchange of

relevant scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and legal

information related to the climate system and climate change, and

to the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;

(i)            promote and cooperate in education, training and public awareness

(ii)          related to climate change and

encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of

non-governmental organizations; and

 (j) communicate to the conference of the parties information related to implementation, in accordance with article 12.

Article 4 2. the developed country parties and other parties included in

annex i commit themselves specifically as provided for in the following:

(a) each of these parties shall adopt national1 policies and take

 corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting

its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting

and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. these policies and

 measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term

 trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the

convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade

to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol would

contribute to such modification, and taking into account the

differences in these parties' starting points and approaches, economic

structures and resource bases,

the need to maintain strong and sustainable economic growth, available technologies and other individual

circumstances, as well as the need for equitable and appropriate contributions by each of these parties to

he global effort regarding that objective. these parties may implement such

policies and measures

jointly with other parties and may assist other parties in contributing to the

achievement of the objective of the convention and, in particular, that of this

subparagraph;

4.2 (b) in order to promote progress to this end, each of these parties shall

communicate, within six months of the entry into force of the convention for

 it and periodically thereafter, and in accordance with article 12, detailed

 information on its policies and measures referred to in subparagraph

(a)  above, as well as on its resulting projected anthropogenic emissions by

(b)   sources and removalsby sinks of greenhouse gases not controlled by the

(c)  Montreal Protocol for the period referred to in subparagraph (a), with the aim

(d)   of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic

(e)   emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled

by the Montreal protocol. this information will be reviewed by the

conference of the parties, at its first session and periodically thereafter, in

accordance with article 7;

 in 1990 average co2 levels (concentrations) in the atmosphere were 320

 ppm,

 that the global rise in temperature from 1850-1990 was 0.78 degrees c and that

the annual emissions of co2 in 1990 and 2015 were 22 and 39 gigatonnes respectively

Note in 1992 there was no discussion about offsets  etc. so  if offsets what

percentage reduction  below 1990 levels would the contributions have to be

to reverse the temperature to ..78 c

UNFCCC 4.2 (c) calculations of emissions by sources and removals by

sinks of greenhouse gases for the purposes of subparagraph

(b) above should take into account the best available scientific knowledge, including of the effective capacity of sinks and

the respective contributions of such gases to climate change. the

conference of the parties shall consider and agree 1

this includes policies and measures adopted by regional economic integration organizations.  on methodologies

these calculations at its first session and review them regularly thereafter;

UNFCCC 4.2 (d) the conference of the parties shall, at its first session, review

the adequacy of subparagraphs

(a)  and (b) above. such review shall be carried out in the light of the best

(b)  available scientific information and assessment on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant

technical, social and economic information.

based on this review, the conference of the parties shall take appropriate action, which may include the adoption

of amendments to the commitments in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.

the conference of the parties, at its first session, shall also take decisions regarding criteria for joint

implementation as indicated in paragraph (a) above. a second review of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall take place not later than 31

December 1998, and thereafter at regular intervals determined by the conference of the parties, until the objective of the convention is met;

UNFCCC 4.2 (e) each of these parties shall : (i) coordinate as appropriate with other such parties, relevant economic and administrative instruments

developed to achieve the objective of the convention; and

(iii)         identify and periodically review its own policies and practices which

(iv)          encourage activities that lead to greater levels of anthropogenic

(v)           emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal

(vi)         Protocol than would otherwise occur;

UNFCCC 4.2(f) the conference of the parties shall review, not later than 3

 December 1998, available information with a view to taking decisions

regarding such amendments to the lists in annexes i and ii as may be

appropriate, with the approval of the party concerned;

UNFCCC 4.2 (g)

Any party not included in annex 1 may, in its instrument of

ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or at any time thereafter,

 notify the depositary that it intends to be bound by subparagraphs (a) and

(c)  above. the depositary shall inform the other signatories and parties of

(d)   any such notification.



 

 UNCED 4.3.

the developed country parties and other developed parties

included In annex ii shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the

agreed full costs incurred by developing country parties in complying with

 their obligations under article 12, paragraph 1. they shall also provide

such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed

by the developing country parties to meet the agreed full incremental

costs of implementing measures that are covered by paragraph 1 of this

 article and that are agreed between a developing country party and the

international entity or entities referred to in article 11, in accordance with

that article. The implementation of these commitments shall take into

account the need for adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and

the importance of appropriate burden sharing among the developed country parties.

       UNFCCC 4.4. 

the developed country parties and other developed parties included in

annex ii shall also assist the developing country parties that are

particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting

costs of adaptation to those adverse effects.

developed to achieve the objective of the convention; and

(iii)         identify and periodically review its own policies and practices which

(iv)          encourage activities that lead to greater levels of anthropogenic

(v)           emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal

(vi)         Protocol than would otherwise occur;

UNFCCC 4.2(f) the conference of the parties shall review, not later than 3

 December 1998, available information with a view to taking decisions

regarding such amendments to the lists in annexes i and ii as may be

appropriate, with the approval of the party concerned;

At COP 21, Ban Ki Moon, in Paris, urged states to negotiate with

a global vision not with national vested interests (a paraphrase of statement at 

Cop21 press conference)

A global vision  would be to address article 2 of the UNFCCC and at a

minimum the following: (i) to immediately end all subsidies for fossil fuel, 

(ii) to calculate the carbon budget for each state,(iii) to divest in fossil fuels

 and to reinvest and invest in renewable energy, (iv) to conserve sinks

-such as old growth forests and bogs, to strengthen conservation of  biodiversity,

 (v) to abandon false solutions such as nuclear, geo-engineering and biofuels

which would all violate principles within the UNFCCC

 (vi) to compensate for historical emissions, and (vi) to institute a fair and just

transition for workers affected negatively by the new vision. and (vii) to promote nature

based solutions and socially equitable and environmentally sound such as solar,

wind, tidal, and geothermal.