The article “Dark Cloud over Climate Talks” by martin Khor (The Star, 12.10.2009) painted a rather dark pessimistic color to the mood at the recently concluded Climate talks in Bangkok, Thailand.

Developed nations perceived abandonment of their current commitment under Phase One of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a clear indication that there is a need for a more conducive approach in addressing climate change specifically relating to greenhouse gas emissions(GGE) dilemma.

This perception must not be viewed with pessimism or seen as a negative change of attitude by developed countries. Developing countries are also part of the problematic GGE equation apart from the Kyoto Protocol’s perceived rigid implementation platform.

There is no denying that the Kyoto Protocol imposed binding obligations upon developed bloc. However, corresponding non-commitment/inactions by developing countries are also a collective issue.

All signatories to the KP must therefore take the cue that if co-operation cannot be effected under the current KP, there is an urgent need to modify the ‘mitigation commitments’ by developed countries vis-vis the ‘mitigation actions’ on the part of developing countries. Such modification can be perceived as fair as it takes into view national interests and acceptable GGE achievement.

What is of crucial importance is the underlying commitment by all members towards total, if not gradual reduction, of GGE emissions on a global scale so that 2nd Phase of the KP can be initiated without major glitch in 2013.

Malaysia as a developing country, having achieved several milestones in its effort to implement GGE objectives, must therefore take the initiative to promote, re-ignite and re-define those ‘commitments’ in a form that are mutually acceptable to both developed and developing countries within the KP framework which is in fact, open to international modification and national interests alignment.

……………………………….
Jeong Chun Phuoc
Lecturer-in-law
Jeongphu@yahoo.com

There is no reliable data that carbon taxes could actually generate eco-businesses in ASEAN region. There are insufficient fundings for any wistful ventures in carbon taxes market. Investment in eco-technologies is like investing in biotechnologies. You don’t get to see instant results.

That is not the only problem. Most governments’ current eco-blueprints in ASEAN region are no way near the mark of sustainability performance due to competing policy interests between different Ministries within the respective countries.

The Kyoto Protocol’s timeframe in GHG performance is just unattainable even for developed countries like G-8. If developed countries as a bloc like G-8 are not able to achieve the targeted objectives within the specific time-frame, there is no way to expect developing countries in ASEAN region to leap-frog over G-8 countries in the carbon reduction performance.

I also doubt if carbon taxes would be a good alternative to stimulate carbon trading in ASEAN countries. Even in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia, carbon tax trading is still pretty much ‘a new kid on the block’ that requires market re-orientation in the neighborhood for the next decade or so.

Until there is concrete data/studies to show a real relationship between carbon taxes and an efficient economy that contributed to reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), carbon tax trading will remain a forgotten tax novelty in the environmental matrix equation.

…………………………..
Jeong Chun Phuoc
Lecturer-in-law
Jeongphu@yahoo.com