Similarly, it reflects how bad things are that a $10 billion supplement to the UNFCCC`s Green Climate Fund agreed in Lima is a cause for celebration. This fund is intended to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities aimed at helping developing countries cope with climate change. According to a conservative estimate, $1 trillion is invested each year in post-carbon technology and business models around the world. The agreement signed at the climate conference in Lima was supposed to be a triumph of diplomacy, but the reality is quite the opposite. Although the agreement means there is now global unanimity on the need for climate action, the text of the agreement is below almost all indicators when 194 countries gather for a climate change conference and disperse, with most countries claiming they have achieved something – this should be a triumph of diplomacy. But the weak agreement that besieged negotiators brought home to the Conference of the Parties (COP), which ended in Lima on December 14, is quite the opposite. On December 11, a day before the originally scheduled end of the conference, negotiations nearly failed when developing countries noticed changes to the draft agreement that had been painstakingly negotiated over the past decade. The revised draft has given an advantage to the industrialized countries, especially by diluting their responsibilities. The DLP believes that the original target of a 30% reduction in Australian manufacturing was far too high and that there are better ways to support developing countries. What emerged in the years following the signing of the Lima Declaration by the PLA is that the 30% target has actually exploded, with current estimates amounting to more than 90%. During the 2018 federal election campaign, DLP Federal Secretary Steve Campbell publicly questioned Bill Shorten on this issue. Mr Shorten, former secretary of the Australian Workers Union, ironically seemed to know very little about the Lima Declaration, and when urged to do so on the matter, he refused to commit the PLA to anything as simple as examining Australian involvement. This is a 90% reduction in Australia`s production capacity and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, all signed by the PLA with the continued support of liberals and nationals.
A call for change was launched in March 1975 when the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), meeting in Lima, issued a declaration and a global plan of action. In this context, the fact that all participating countries have agreed on a final project is considered a success. This means that there is now global unanimity on the need for climate action. Therefore, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said the Lima Agreement will set the world on a more ambitious goal at a summit scheduled for December next year in Paris to cobble together a long-term binding global agreement on climate change. In a blog post titled “Lima LilyIng Home,” Aldan Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a network based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said that “climate change is progressing, but too many leaders claim we have all the time in the world.” Ask yourself why we import so much fish and seafood from countries like Thailand and Vietnam – when we are surrounded by huge oceans? Look no further than Resolution 27 “Developed countries like Australia should increase their imports from developing countries”. If the world stays on track with the recent U.S.-China bilateral agreement to reduce emissions and the Lima agreement, the global average temperature will exceed two degrees Celsius. Beyond this threshold, scientists believe, the scale of climate change is likely to be catastrophic. Proponents of the Lima agreement argue that getting the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, to commit to the need for climate action is in itself a great achievement. .