The oil nation Saudi Arabia would not agree that the cause of climate change is the use of fossil fuels. Norway is accused of downplaying a sentence about emissions, but says it is a shocking misunderstanding. This is just some of what unfolded behind the scenes before the UN climate panel issued its “last warning” last week. A report that will shape the world’s climate policy for years to come. But it is not just the scientific report that will be leading the way for policy. Many decision makers only read the summary. Line by line is discussed and influenced by 195 countries with their own interests. Now a report has been published which reveals what the countries wanted to change. The minutes were written by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), the only website to listen to the discussions. Here are three examples of how countries influenced what was included in the summary: Saudi Arabia did not want to include the oil facts TAKING THE WORD: The minutes show that Saudi Arabia was among the countries that spoke the most. Norway is also on the top list. The picture is from a celebration of the king in 2011. Photo: AP Finland suggested writing that the main cause of climate change is the use of fossil fuels – ie oil, gas and coal. Saudi Arabia strongly opposed the inclusion of this sentence. It ended up that Finland’s proposal was not included. Saudi Arabia has not responded to inquiries about this from media that have tried to get in touch. China would delete main findings WORST: China is the country that emits the most of the gases that warm the planet. Photo: Aly Song / REUTERS The researchers state that we must cut two thirds of our emissions to have a chance of reaching the 1.5 degree target. China suggested removing the details around this. Norway, the USA, France and the UK tried to block the proposal. It ended with the concrete numbers being moved from the text to a table. – The revised text makes the conclusions clearer and easier to read and understand, says a spokeswoman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the newspaper Bloomberg. Unsafe vacuuming of the atmosphere UNPROVED: In 1979 there was a vacuum cleaner concert in Oslo. Now smart people are trying to turn the horn upwards. Photo: NTB Vacuuming the atmosphere to remove pollution is something many hope we will achieve in the future. We don’t quite know how yet, but the main report states that we have to make it happen in order to achieve our goals. Denmark and France were among the countries that wanted it to be clear that this technology is unproven and risky, so that no one can sit back and think that we have the solution to all our problems. Saudi Arabia, China, New Zealand and the Netherlands blocked the proposal for various reasons. It ended with the uncertainty being noted in a less visible place. Norway was able to change the minutes OLJENASJON: This picture is from the Oslofjord at the end of the 70s. Photo: Er Thorberg / SCANPIX In a viral Twitter thread, a British climate journalist accuses Norway of watering down the language about emission cuts. This has also been reproduced in several international media. – I think it is shocking that we are being blamed for this, because it is not true, says Aurora Stenmark in the Norwegian Environment Agency. The background was that it was stated in the minutes that Norway had been allowed to change the wording from “deep, rapid and lasting emission cuts” to “strong emission cuts”. Stenmark says that she herself took part in discussing the wording in this particular section, and that Norway did not ask for these words to be removed. She believes that Norway was concerned that it should be stated that it is urgent to cut emissions. The Norwegian Environment Agency contacted the website, and now the minutes have been changed so that Norway is no longer mentioned. Climate journalist Ajit Nranjan wrote that Norway watered down the importance of emission cuts. This was the report for the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) before the Norwegian Environment Directorate contacted the website. Now it no longer says who initiated this discussion. This is how the text finally looked in the summary of the report. news is informed that the website changed the report because they noticed the uproar and saw that this part of the report was misleading. – Norway’s objection to the language led to the change, but it was the authors of the report who proposed the final sentence, writes Matthew TenBruggencate in an email. He is a communications advisor at the institute that runs the website. READ MORE: Here the Norwegian Environment Agency comments on the accusations Why did Norway talk so much? There were seven Norwegians at the meeting. According to the report, Norway was among the countries that spoke the most. – We are active because this is important, says Stenmark. She says that Norway fought for a clear and understandable language. In the minutes, it appears, among other things, that Norway proposed to simplify from “atmospheric composition” to “air pollution”. The proposal was not approved. GOOD ATMOSPHERE: Aurora Stenmark says it’s calm when the countries discuss, even though there are many strong opinions. Photo: Ismail Akkan / news She emphasizes that everything in the summary is scientifically correct. The authors behind the report itself have the last word. – It sounds strange that the countries approve sentence by sentence, but that is also the great strength of the summary, says Stenmark. – The process means that the countries become familiar with the content and agree on the professional knowledge base. It is extremely important for the upcoming climate negotiations. READ ALSO: 196 Norwegian climate scientists to news: I don’t think we will reach the 1.5 degree target
ttn-69
This is how the UN’s climate message was watered down – news Urix – Foreign news and documentaries
