David Miliband

Foreign Secretary

FCO Logo
« Access Denied | Main | Clean coal »
Wednesday 09 September, 2009

Useful summits?

At Paris' Sciences Po University yesterday I said that if Europe successfully led the way to global climate deal, the EU would come to be recognised as an "Environmental Union". It is an uphill struggle towards a deal because of the competing pressures on time, money and political capital around the world.

Less than 100 days before the Copenhagen meeting the detailed negotiations need a political lift. One opportunity is the SIX EU summits with third countries between now and December - South Africa, Brazil, USA, India, Russia, China.

The Swedish presidency, which will lead the EU delegation, say climate change will be the centrepiece of the summits. At each there needs to be hard talking about the components of a deal - targets, financing, technology.

Posted at 13:14 09 September 2009 by David Miliband  |  Comments[4]

  • Share this with:
Comments:

Dear Mr Milliband, May I suggest you spend some of the next 100 days looking into the climate sciences? Global temperatures have been stable in the 2002-2008 period, and this raises questions about the whole Global Warming paradigm that need to be answered before embarking on potentially ruinous policy adventures. All the Best, Hugh

Posted by Hugh on September 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM BST #

Sir, the SIX EU summits with six countries- India, China, USA, Brazil, South Africa and Russia- will play very important role in the success of Copenhagen Treaty. EU should move forward for a waiting success. With political willingness, there will be success at Copenhagen. [Prabhat Misra, blog: http://www.mynature-myfuture.blogspot.com]

Posted by Prabhat Misra on September 10, 2009 at 03:20 PM BST #

This determination is admirable, but all the time you were speaking the name of Kingsnorth kept coming to mind.

Posted by OwenE2 on September 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM BST #

Dear David. Now that the UK Met Office and Hadley's Climate Research Unit cherry picked data has been found to be somewhat of a scam. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 I wonder if government climate research finance could be spread a little more evenly to scientists that don't cheery pick, lose decades of raw data, deny data for peer review etc etc. A ballanced debate, with ALL the data included is required. I suspect though, those scientists/organisations that shout the wildest doom & gloom predictions will get the most funding. Thank you for your time.

Posted by David Wilkinson on September 29, 2009 at 09:36 AM BST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed