Bergen Climate Change Conference | May 22nd - May 24th, 2021
-
Ikomar stood to speak.
"We cannot, nor will we, commit to reforestation. Such a thing would be beyond disastrous for Istkalen. The same, of course, goes for the promotion of greenbelt. What do you think would happen if the state seized the land, perhaps only a minority of it, perhaps a majority of it, of a smallholder, and said, 'Oh, we're taking away your livelihood to protect the environment! Now rejoice that you will be condemned to poverty!' We are perfectly fine with so much else, even, perhaps eventually, if it can be somehow done, that about the trains and whatnot, but not this, never this. We would like both of these to be removed, although perhaps combined with some sort of effort to promote some form of agriculture - agroforestry, perhaps, although that is a pipe dream, to an extent - if we are to sign this, so that Istkalen may be a signatory after the end of the occupation - which, by the way, seems will never come about, but no matter. I digress."
-
Mr. Key and Mrs. Mouri-Kudo, thank you for your statements. I definitely understand why this bill would be quite harsh regarding vehicles and fuels, and I detailed that section more. You can check the updated version.
Mr. Ikomar, member state governments are responsible for handling which areas to reforest. As of now, there isn’t an exact bar that the countries need to reach regarding forestation in the agreement, nor areas specified in the agreement for reforestation. It just says that signatory states shall actively engage in reforestation.
Now, with the new changes, is there anything anyone would like to add?
(OOC: Check the document again to see the new changes, highlighted in italic. This conference will end on June 10th, and then Bergen Agreement will go into effect.)
-
Aguilar stood up and then spoke: "I would like to ask for a minor time extension, as we are finishing to review the agreement."
-
Alright. Time extension is given.
(OOC: Time extension will last until the 13th)
-
After finishing the review of the document, which the Spanish delegation had been paying special attention to, Jesús Aguilar stood up with a clear idea of what he was going to say, and so he started to speak:
"Thank you Commissioner Birdane, Mr. Juncker, European Leaders.
I would like to say the Climate Treaty that is being discussed here has some sections that we are not willing to accept, even if the agreement itself is pretty acceptable. We are opposed to Articles 7 and 9 of Chapter 2, as we believe taxes should be decided by the nation within the European Union and that a Government shouldn't discourage the use of individual transport but to offer more public and efficent transport to start changing the people's minds. By thus, we request both articles to be removed from the agreement.
Finally, in Chapter IV, we believe the ban of single use plastics should happen in 2022, as Europe is ready to ban them. We also propose that the next European Commission, both the Premier Commissioner and the Internal Affairs Commissioner, propose a bill to the European Council to enforce this ban in the whole of the European Union. 2040 is, in my opinion, quite a joke for banning quite a replaceable product.
Apart from that, we are ok with the many other parts of the agreements, but we would like to hear a clarification of Chapter IV, article 3. Thank you."
-
John Peter Key listened toJesús Aguilar and responded "I wouldn't sign an agreement that doesn't have at least the carbon tax rates that are in this document now. The have a carbon tax allowed to be set at less than 50 Euros would be a joke of a carbon tax. Even 50 Euros is below the amount economists reccomend if better than nothing now on single used plastics i would oppose a ban in 2022. Quite franklythere are some products in which single use packaging cannot be replaced as of yet but are necessary. Its going to take more time to research alternatives and thats in the Duchies which has an advanced system of waste management and packaging industries, how can we expect nations like Nofoaga to replace all single used packing in one year, its not fair and not a reasonably burden unless maybe Spain would like to fund everyones transition to non-single use packaging by 2022 which I assume is not the case.
On removing promoting public transport there is no reason not to be promoting it and its not just an environment issue but one of congestion and accessibility too since many disabled or older people or just younger people cannot get around if public transport is not promoted and supported and even in the most rural areas its possible with the rise of apps and on demand transit schemes, we cannot all go round in individual cars all the time anymore the road capacity just cannot handle it even in the countryside without destroying our glorious country sides. Promoting public transport is a must in any agreement as we have no hope of reaching climate goals without reforming to boost public transport everywhere. No what I propose is that nations that can afford it voluntarily give aid to nations who can't afford a quick transition to public transport as an alternative to cars .
-
Aguilar stood up again and decided to answer. The United Duchies tried to be an eco-warrior, but that was just heading to scrapping the whole agreement. He started to speak:
"While I appreciate your comments, Mr. Key, I need to tell you that if you want to introduce a carbon tax in your country, feel free to do it; but don't drag the rest of the European Union with your taxing policies. Let me just give you some interesting data that my team and myself have found out about this proposal: it might be found politically difficult to set prices that are high enough to spur truly deep reductions. Once again, taxing isn't the way to tackle climate change, and I won't let anybody on this room to tell me how should I tax the Spanish people, same serves for any other country standing with us on this problematic article of the agreement.
When it comes to single use plastics, I obviously meant to those not related with packaging, which would be needed to be banned a little bit later, with 2025 being a realistic objective. Science advances fast, and 3 and a half years are more than enough time to find a feasible solution. Last week I ordered some food to go from Burger King because one of my children wanted to have some food from there and everything was storaged in paper bags and cardboard made products. If big companies can do it, I'm sure that small ones will be able to do it, same happens with countries, and 2025 seems more than reasonable to me.
Now, on the transport issue, I will try to be as clear as possible and also very critic: the donkey times are gone, we are not going back to that when 2 or 3 people travelled on a real 0 emmissions mean of transport. Individual transport must not and will not be discouraged by my government, because of a single reason: everyone deserves the chance to travel alone instead of using public transport, and if you disagree, then please put tolls in every road of your country and massive taxes and encourage public transport. For much we want to encourage transportation, it's technically impossible for many countries to encourage it because geography and many other external factors.
Finally, I would like to say something: if the tax isn't removed, Spain won't sign the Climate Treaty and will then apply its own agenda when it comes to Climate Change. We can cope with the other articles as far as there's room for us to apply what we believe it is correct and should be done. Thank you."
-
John Peter Key listened amd replied "I need top be quite clear we will not sign a document that is a paper weight. If it doesn't have some sort of carbon pricing or trading system or provisions to promote public transport then its useless as it will never solve the climate and environmental issues, the evidence is clear individual transport as the dominant transport is not compatible with environmentally friendly goals, even electric cars take up far more space and are inefficient and the amount of road needed to keep up with individual transport growth will lead to loss of environment, greenspace and trees and release carbon into the atmosphere.Encouraging public transport and promoting it is not "going to the days of the donkeys" nor is it anti-personal transport quite the contrary it will leave more road free for remaining road users benefitting them too.We should be encouraging where it is practicle cycling and public transport and thats all the agreement calls for which can be as little as promoting and investing in schemes for park and ride and investing in public transport alongside road and car infrastructure. We simply will not sign a weak agreement without these sorts of requirements in it as it will simply fail to make an impact , now the rates are negotiable but tax and carbon prices and public transport must be part of the puzzle to solve this crisis."
-
Černá just passed her phone to Mikaela Kligenberg so she could look at how Dášena has grown up and stood up to speak as Peter Key stopped his speech.
"Dear Mrs. Birdane, Czech Slavia takes an issue with Chapter III. Article 1. which states that "Signatory states shall ban the construction of non-renewable plants at least by 2030" The nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and it would be contra-productive to ban the construction of nuclear power plants. Especially when we take into account states that are as of now dependent on coal power plants, banning nuclear technology is blocking one way of lowering the dependency on nuclear energy. Counstruction of nuclear power plants should not be banned and the 73% of power share from renewable energy in Article II. of Chapter III. should ideally be lowered when taking account power generated by nuclear power plants. Thank you."
-
John Peter Key had not noticed that part yet and it was a good point raised he said "I second that it should be changed as we depend on nuclear to provide stable energy to our grid when wind and solar are down. Maybe any references to renewable energy should be changed to renewable and green energy to solve the problem while still banning dirty fuels."
-
I refuse to remove the carbon tax from this agreement. We need to hold companies accountable for how much CO2 they release to the atmosphere. I'm not sure where this research comes from but a carbon tax is one of the crucial steps regarding climate change. There are a dozen countries here that, if they sign the agreement, will also impose a carbon tax to comply with the agreement, not only Spain. Not cooperating only damages the European unity in the fight against climate change.
Regarding the transportation article, I have edited it like this, which I hope clears any confusion:
Signatory states shall promote the use of public transportover individual transportwhere possible.I also have amended the first chapter of the third article in accordance:
Signatory states shall ban the construction of non-renewable and non-green plants at least by 2030. -
John Peter Key:"I would also replace all other references to renewable energy with "renewable and green energy" so as to allow nations to use the amount of nuclear they feel is a appropiate." I propose this:
Chapter III - Renewable Energy and Green development
Signatory states shall ban the construction of non-renewable and non-green energy plants at least by 2030.
Signatory states shall generate at least 75% of their power from renewable or green energy by 2040
Signatory states shall ban the use of fossil fuels in power or heating by 2040.
Signatory states shall invest in battery storage for electricity to enable a fully renewable grid.Signatory nations shall commit to having all new buildings be built carbon neutral by 2040.
Signatory nations shall promote transit oriented development and green building materials wherever possible.
Signatory nations shall reduce use of carbon intensive materials in construction by 2040.
Signatory nations shall commit to an expansion of the greenbelt to protect the countryside. -
Aguilar, really dissapointed, spoke with his team after the Internal Affairs Commissioner did not allow Spain to avoid the Carbon tax. The Spanish President had already decided what to do, and it wouldn't be dissapointing: He would just apply its own agenda following the Climate Treaty, but without his sign on the paper or a Carbon tax which was the most horrible thing Europe could have thought about in decades. He stood up and spoken for the last time in the summit, as he would not sign the agreement, but stay until the very end of the summit:
"Ms. Birdane, after the decision taken by you about the carbon tax, I am deeply sorry to inform the whole room that the Kingdom of Spain won't be signing this agreement. We believe the European Union shouldn't tackle a crisis like the climate one by forcing national governments to collect even more money from the taxpayers, which is embarrasing for the Union in the middle of a sovereignty's boundaries problem. This doesn't help the European Union to solve that problem in my honest opinion.
Still, the Spanish delegation is always open to negotiate the signature of the agreement if they are exempted from the carbon tax. Meanwhile, Spain will follow its own agenda, trying to adapt to the many other sections of the agreement with partially or completely agree with. Thank you very much."
-
Istkalen will not be a party to this agreement if any exemption to the carbon tax is made or if a banning of single-use plastics occurs in 2022. We ourselves are not susceptible to the damage that either of these would bring; but it will not endorse such damage.
There is no way that other nations will be able to change significant parts of their manufacturing industries in simply two years. Similarly, exemption from the carbon tax will give Spain a great economic advantage, damaging others, and will leave the effort behind by years. Regardless of your or my opinion of sovereignty, united action is necessary; unlike the EACA, the issue this is combating is life threatening and worldwide.
Perhaps more acceptable to the Kingdom of SPain would be a cap-and-trade program?
-
Perhaps a solution is to have either a cap and trade or carbon tax programme implemented in every country with it up to the country. On single use ban I agree its hard for Duchies to transition all products from it by 2022 never mind any nation not in a fortunate wealthy poisition.We cannot let Spain have an economic advantage by exempting one party from the carbon tax as others will then want exemptions too undermining the whole agreement making it a useless paperweight of an agreement.
-
Sauli Niinisto, the Prime Minister of Mennrimiak, the hosting country of this agreement, had just been there, silent, listening to what each one had to say, but things were getting absurd by the moment, nations refusing to sing if certain thing its not there and others opposed to eachother, "Its Everydays bread" thought Sauli to himself having seen this time and time again on every European wide meeting he had been too, Just that now the Alkharyan IAC was there instead of juncker,then he thought for a moment and decided to leave the meeting, he already knew how it was going to end, with 5 countries signing one way or another, and others not signing at all, like Reitzmag that didnt even attend, so the meeting was worthless for him, He took his papers and left the room as quietly as he had been the entire meeting.
The Kingdom of Spain
