The European Union (EU) has been considered the most progressive group when it comes to climate change discussions this, including its decision to uphold the principles of the Kyoto Protocol when the biggest polluter, the United States and a few of its allies, decided to officially scrap it about a decade ago.
 

In an attempt to break the deadlock in the international climate change negotiations, the European Commission (EC) presented, on September 10, 2009, a blueprint for international climate change funding.
 

The EC's proposal declared the total amount of funds needed for the purpose of adaptation and mitigation to be about 150 billion dollars. The EC further suggested that 7.5 to 10.5 billion dollars must be earmarked in order to fast-track the financing for the transition period from the Kyoto Protocol, between 2010 and 2013.

The EU's executives believe part of this sum, making up roughly 15pc of the total, may come from European taxpayers. However, the devil is in the financial details. It not only excuses the EU from taking an adequate commitment but also ill advises the rest of the non-EU polluters on how the money should be generated. 
 

According to this 'blueprint for international climate change funding,' which the EC boasts to have put forward to 'break the negotiation impasse,' 40pc of the required money should come from developing countries, while another 40pc should come from an expanded carbon market.

What are we left with? We are left with just 20pc, which was neatly apportioned by the EC in such a way that the EU should take responsibility for only two billion to 15 billion euro per annum by 2020.

The EC proposal that 80pc of the money should come from both developing countries and the expanded carbon market clearly demonstrates the lack of commitment and historical responsibility on the part of EU states. It sends a very bad signal to other big polluters that the role of public financing should be kept ridiculously low.
 

This goes against the immediate needs of developing countries and their calls that public financing should make up the lion's share of climate change funds in order to "ensure the predictability and sustainability of funds." This is in light of the evident circumstances of economic meltdown and to minimize other associated risks with market-based mechanisms.

What is amusing is not just the low amount of money put forward as the EU's commitment but also the wide range of the pledge. Given that the climate change discussions are full of uncertainties and a mutual lack of trust, emerging circumstances might 'convince' the EU to go for the minimum pledge. When commitments such as these are not clear enough, odds are high that big promises will end up being just a pie in the sky, and the least costly options will be opted for.

The bottom line is that somebody has to take a bold and genuine stance in order to build enough positive momentum for the climate change negotiations to be successful. Norway's recent actions did just that, making a firm commitment to 40pc emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2020. This demonstrates true leadership in action that has stirred decisions against the tide of inaction and the 'after-you' attitude that has dominated the whole climate change discussion. Leadership in this case, as defined and practiced by Norway, is taking big risks to rescue the world from disaster.

It is true that other notable developed countries have not made any firm commitments on funding. However, simply proposing some figures does not make the EU a leader in this case. As a matter of fact, the low level of commitment by the EU might send the opposite message and set a bad precedence for other big polluters. Speaking first is not enough. The EU has to speak first and speak excellently to be a real leader.
 

The EU has taken on a Carbon dioxide reduction target which again fails to meet the developing world's demands of 25pc to 40pc below 1990 levels by 2020; that is the threshold to minimize climate change disasters.
 

Even then, the EC proposal that failed to satisfy developing countries faced strong resistance when the EU's finance and economic ministers from its 27 member states met on the third week of October, 2009, in Luxembourg to deliberate on the climate change funding proposal.

The ministers failed to agree on climate change funding and decided to defer decisions on concrete figures for the EU's contribution to a post-Kyoto climate change treaty until the European summit of the heads of state that took place at the end of October. As such, the talks of these ministers stalled on the issue of internal burden-sharing among EU member states. Poland headed a coalition of poorer EU states that have argued that "any decision on funding should come after the EU has decided how much each member state will have to pay."
 

These nine Central and Eastern European countries are worried that they will end up paying a disproportionate share compared to their wealth. They underlined that financial commitments should be allocated on the basis of a "combination of emission levels and wealth." There are countries such as Bulgaria and Latvia, which might be expected to help Brazil to adapt to climate change though they are much poorer than the latter, according to the Polish Finance Minister.
 

This went against the positive momentum built by the commitments of other EU countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), the Netherlands and Denmark. The latest compromise on the table of the finance ministers involves rewarding EU nations, such as Poland, with a rebate on the money they pay into the bloc's budget, according to some diplomats.

In its meeting last week, the EU summit of its heads of state consented with and supported the EC's estimates of 100 billion 148.4 billion dollars that the world's developing nations will need annually for the next 10 years in order to be able to pay for their adaptations to climate change. Its estimates of five billion to seven billion euros that will be required by developing countries as an extra injection of funding to get things going from 2010 to 2012 was also endorsed by EU leaders.

This is good progress in view of the fact that many of the EU member states were sceptical about the figures during earlier talks.

The leaders have also agreed that 22 billion to 50 billion euros, of the total sum, should come from international public financing. What is interesting here is that the leaders underlined the EU willingness to take its fair share of this, on the condition that other countries also contribute.

EU leaders did not spend much time before setting aside the long-term emissions reductions targets by all developed countries of 80pc to95pc below the 1990 levels by 2050, which was agreed to by their environment ministers a few weeks ago. I believe their intentions are clear.  Why should somebody care about a decision that they would never live to see the impacts of?

Any real commitment should start in the short term; EU states should follow Norway's example.

I was compelled to ask whether the EU is trying to hide behind the indecision of the US because the EU's proposals on emission cuts and financial contributions were largely conditional. EU leaders stressed that, ..."the agreement was entirely conditional on action by other developed countries," apparently countries such as the US, Australia and Canada.

In the meantime, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) called on EU heads of state and government to show leadership in the international negotiations by committing at least 30 billion euros annually by 2020 to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change.

However, Green Party MEP Satu Hassi (Finland) and Bas Eickhout (Netherlands) described the EU finance ministers' meeting as another "shameful farce."

In a progressive draft resolution, adopted by a majority of 55 votes to one, with three abstentions, MEPs say the international agreement should ensure that developed countries significantly reduce their collective emissions at the high end of the 25pc to 40pc range. This would include a long-term reduction target of at least 80pc by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and a limit on their emissions growth to 15pc-30pc below 'business as usual.' Additionally, the target should be reviewed every five years, to ensure they keep pace with the latest science and with the two degrees Celsius objective.

However, MEPs also said that the collective contribution by the EU towards developing countries' mitigation efforts and adaptation needs should not be less than 30 billion euros per annum by 2020.  And both emission reduction targets and financing commitments need to be subjected to a tougher compliance regime, including an early warning mechanism and penalties (which notably were not included in the Kyoto Protocol).

Stringent project quality standards must also be part of future offsetting mechanisms, to prevent industrialized countries taking away the low-cost reduction options from developing countries and to guarantee reliable, verifiable, and real emissions reductions, they said.

MEPs have also emphasized that an agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, could stimulate a "Sustainable New Deal" boosting economic growth, promoting environmentally sustainable technologies, reducing energy consumption and securing new jobs in both industrialized and developing countries. They urged the US to "make the goals set during the election campaign binding, thereby sending a strong signal" to the rest of the world.

The slap in the face from the MEPs included not just the low amount of financing but also the market-based mechanism that was presented as one of the primary tools for combating climate change in the EC proposal of September 2009.
 

Kartika Liotard (MEP-Netherlands) criticized the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol, saying that it was "not working properly as it finances projects in order to emit even more Carbon dioxide." João Ferreira (MEP-Portugal) is not happy with the EU's focus on market solutions in the fight against climate change arguing that, "...it did not reduce emissions [in the past]" and stressing that, ..."this will only stand in the way of a paradigm shift in our thinking."
 

A number of very influential nongovernmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth Europe, Oxfam, Green Peace and the WWF slammed the decision, cautioning that "the EU's procrastination would jeopardize a deal with other countries in Copenhagen."
 

The WWF expressed its frustration over the EU leaders' lack of agreement in its specific financial offer to developing countries since the increase in emissions cuts from 20pc to 30pc below 1990 levels by 2020 was conditional upon comparable efforts from other developed countries. Friends of the Earth Europe added to this saying, "The heads of state cited global figures which are completely inadequate as are the targets that they have set for emissions reductions."

Though the EU initiative is laudable in some respects, it still remains weak and conditional. It clearly fails to live up to the expectations of the developing world. MEPs and NGOs say the proposal, at its best, is only halfway toward what they think is adequate climate change funding for developing countries.

I suggest European politicians, who came to power through democratic processes, should listen to their constituencies. They should not undermine genuine positions of the MEPs that reflect the interests of not just the EU voters but also the suffering people in the developing world.
 

Developing countries such as Ethiopia are suffering the most from the impacts of climate change, which, they have only marginally contributed to. This is then a wakeup call for politicians in the democratic EU to stand up together for climate justice. This is their opportunity to live up to their promises.

The United States, as it stands now in the climate change negotiations, can never be their model. This is a great opportunity for the EU to walk their talk leaving history to talk about their beautiful walk.