Comments from feedback form - ""The AWG-LCA is the negotiatin..."

Comments from feedback form - ""The AWG-LCA is the negotiatin..."

"The AWG-LCA is the negotiating group tasked to deliver a new negotiating text which, is preparing for the June negotiating session."

So what is it exactly that they are doing? Negotiating negotiations for another negotiation? What exactly are they negotiating, anyway? This needs to be clarified.

Also :

"Luis Alfonso de Alba, Mexico's special representative for climate change, told Reuters, "Mexico does not want to raise false expectations but we certainly are ambitious".

Why is this sentence here? What expectations is the Mexican government ambitious about but not wanting to be over-ambitious about at the same time?

Sorry to be blunt, but I was more confused after reading this article than before I read it. Too much information, not enough narrative and thus it reads like a legal brief and I am left to wonder if the original author fully understands what the article is about. Turtlestack (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Turtlestack (talk)21:40, 3 June 2010

I think I have a general understanding of what's going on right now. But the UN is a very slow body with lots of moving parts so I may have missed something. The LCA has many things to do, but it sounds like you already have the gist of it. For a graphic rundown of what the LCA will be discussing please see Link and related material at Link. The AWGs are negotiating (and will be in the next meeting, I believe) what the text of the COP16 negotiative text will be. There's the pre-COP negotiations, and they come to a conclusion, that conclusion is then debated and modified at COP. The idea is at the end of COP to have a legally binding treaty that a majority of the countries agree to, but as with COP15 we see that is very difficult. Which leads on to the next point...

Regarding the quote from de Alba: He was referring to a pessimistic attitude that Yvo de Beor (current climate secretariat, who is stepping down) and other like Connie Hedegaard have when addressing the probability of the UNFCCC agreeing to a binding treaty, period. They both have expressed strong doubts about being able to pass anything in the future that will have meaningful effects and have almost written off COP16 before it even starts. Since the next COP is in Mexico, de Alba is (rightfully so) a bit sore about those comments.

Stepshep (talk)22:58, 3 June 2010