DURBAN: The US today made clear that the target of keeping the global average temperatures from rising more than two degree above pre-industrial era - when catastrophicclimate change kicks in - was not a strict cap for it.
After the UN's Inter-governmental panel on climate change had warned that the rise of global temperatures beyond this limit would lead to unchangeable and catastrophic changes on the planet all the countries decided at Cancunlast year that they would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to ensure temperatures remain within safe limits.
But at Durban on Wednesday the US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern said, "we don't think it is an operational cap that you must meet ...we don't see it as akin to a national target."
When asked if he had said in internal discussions with other countries that the 2 degree target embedded in the Cancun Agreement was 'aspirational', Stern said the US had a 'nuanced position' and went on to suggest that that while it would work as guide and a goal post it was not to be achieved like a strict target.
He also made it evident that the US was not even on the same page as the BASIC countries - South Africa, India, China and Brazil on the future of a new legally binding deal in 2020 he said, "We are not arguing that there needs to be a legally binding agreement. Many people are, but we are not. ... That's fine and that's reality."
US is opposed any discussion on whether any future decisions on taking on more commitments should be legally binding but has been using the BASIC four nations as an excuse claiming they are not ready for it. But after the BASIC emerging economies in their media outing on Tuesday made it clear that they were not against legally binding deal but had some conditions that had to be met including a 2020 deadline, the US found it hard to hide its own position.
In fact, in the internal on-going negotiations too the US has backed the option which doesn't allow any decisions on the legal form of future decisions.
