Why the climate change talks have yet to bring change
The Durban climate change talks that concluded on December 11 were billed as a success. In an eleventh-hour agreement, countries agreed to a commitment to accept binding CO2 emission cuts by 2020. As part of a package of measures agreed, a new climate fund will be set up, carbon markets will be expanded and countries will be able to earn money by protecting forests. The talks were “saved,” much to the surprise of some skeptics who were dismayed by the lack of progress shown at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit.
The agreement in Durban, South Africa was painted as a triumph of European cooperation and even big polluters China and India finally agreed. Interestingly, the following day, when Canada announced it was pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, China was the one to speak out, claiming this was not a helpful step.
The Kyoto Protocol has long presented a problem for many countries, troubled by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” with countries such as India and China insisting developed nations bear most of the blame for dirtying the planet and therefore should carry much more of the financial burden. However, unless the major polluters in the developing world signed up to cap emissions, it appeared hard for the United States to sign on the dotted line.
Durban was a watershed of sorts. Developing countries including China and India agreed to take part in negotiations leading to binding emissions caps. The U.S. agreed to the search for a future climate change agreement that will be legally binding. The delegates agreed this new treaty should be in place by 2015 and that the new agreement detailing new emissions cuts would come into effect by 2020.
Delegates also agreed to extent the Kyoto Protocol, set to expire in 2012, to 2017, and help ensure the continuation of the so-called clean development mechanism (CDM), under which developed countries offset their emissions by paying for projects that reduce emissions in the developing world. They also agreed to take a hard look at the controversial CDM, and try to bolster the green finance fund for developing economies, priced at $30 billion, which was agreed at Copenhagen.
But while the agreement at Durban can be viewed as positive, especially given the difficulties finding agreement at previous international climate-change gatherings, many environmentalists have voiced concern that the plan represents too little, too slowly, and that the world’s nations are just putting off tough action to deal with pollution and climate change, more concerned about their troubled economies than the long-term prospects for the planet.
Action, environmentalists argue, is needed now.
Some argue there are jobs and profits in a major transfer to sustainable and renewable technology.
Part of the criticism of the Durban meeting revolves around the claim that these were talks about talks, an agreement to deal with the issues in the future, possibly when the delegates themselves are out of office. In addition, the existing programs, including the CDM and the offsetting of carbon emissions, are deeply flawed mechanisms that allow wealthy countries to continue to pollute, though at a financial cost.
The world’s nations appear to be on the road to a climate change agreement. But they have yet to arrive.
