MEDIA REACTION: CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT

UNCLAS KATHMANDU 001169



STATE FOR SCA/INSB, PM/CBM, PM/PRO



STATE FOR SCA/PPD, PA/RRU



SIPDIS



E.O. 12958 N/A

TAGS: KMDR, KPAO, PGOV, OPRC, NP

SUBJ: MEDIA REACTION: CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT



1. SUMMARY: Nepal's major English daily The

Kathmandu Post (circulation: 30,000) published an

OP-ED on December 28 titled "Double-crossed in

Copenhagen" that said "big Asian brothers" China and

India betrayed poor and vulnerable countries like

Nepal to shake hands with the United States. The

article, written by a Nepali journalist working for

the BBC in London, said that in the name of climate

change, the summit was a venue for reshaping global

politics. It argued that since no specific carbon

reduction target was made, temperatures will rise

mainly because of the United States and emerging

economies like China and India, which will mean more

climate change-induced calamities for developing

countries.



EXCERPTS:



2. "Christmas and year-end holidays have not kept

the world's major global players from defending

themselves for what they did to fail the climate

summit in Copenhagen last week. A good 10 days since

the big bang ended in a whimper, they are still

engaged in a blame game. U.S. President Barack Obama

has come out with his explanation on how he had to

'rescue the summit'."



3. "It [the summit] rather became a venue for

striking backroom deals and reshaping global

politics, all in the name of climate. Big brothers

from almost all the regions ganged up as they did

not want a deal to happen mainly on economic and, to

some extent, strategic grounds. Unsurprisingly, the

U.S. led the gang."



4. "No wonder then that the Americans were for a

deal that would be outside Kyoto and the UN climate

regime. But how come China and India, that so much

advocated both the Kyoto Protocol and the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change, shook hands

with the U.S.?"



5. "No doubt the developed countries other than the

U.S. too had their vested interests like pushing a

market mechanism in the fight against climate change

and getting the developing world to make emission

cuts while securing their own carbon spaces in the

atmosphere. But at least, they had specific targets

- even that would have been outside the Kyoto

regime. The U.S. did not want that, and so too, it

later emerged, the BASIC countries. Left out in the

cold are the poor and most vulnerable countries like

Nepal thanks to the double-cross by their G77 de

facto leaders China and India."



6. "Now that there is no specific carbon reduction

target, temperatures will rise mainly because of the

U.S. and emerging economies like China and India;

and that will mean even more climate change-induced

calamities. Worse yet, the accord has not drawn any

mechanism to channel climate funds which will make

adapting to the inevitable climate change impacts

almost impossible. So much for the solidarity

between the developing countries led by the two big

Asian brothers."



BERRY