Durban Climate Conference Concludes with Few Advances

     Representatives from 194 nations wrapped up the most recent U.N. Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa on Sunday, after the meetings continued longer than scheduled due to intense negotiations.  In the end, a tentative agreement was made to begin negotiating a new global climate change protocol within the next few years.  Some people see this as a significant step in the right direction, yet the fact that an agreement was needed simply to begin establishing a new climate “agreement” to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, left others frustrated and increasingly concerned.  The lack of significant progress towards a new climate agreement angered some, especially delegates from poor countries that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.  Director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Alden Meyer, explained, “the good news is we avoided a train wreck.  The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve.”  The goal remains to prevent global temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by 2020.  According to the U.N. Environment Programme, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2020, in order for the world to have a chance at meeting this goal.  Many scientists believe that there will soon be a tipping point in which there will be no turning back on the damage done to the environment.  Thus the conference left many people increasingly concerned that a deal will not be reached in time to significantly fend off the potential severe consequences of global climate change.

     Leaders from many of the world’s most polluting nations butted heads over wording to be used in the future climate protocol.  Diplomats from India and China argued that industrialized nations have not lived up to their promises for curbing emissions, and thus they desired an agreement that eased their nation’s liability.  Chinese delegates heatedly blamed other nations by explaining “we [China] are doing whatever we should do.  We are doing things that you are not doing.”  The European Union strongly argued that even major developing countries, such as China and India, must accept future emissions targets with equal legal accountability.  In the end there were a few initial documents that were agreed upon, which will serve as building blocks for future meetings when an official climate protocol is developed.  The developing countries of China and India, two of the biggest polluters in the world (China ranks #1, India ranks #3), will be legally bound to future emissions goals.  The documents plan on countries to finalize a new climate treaty within the next four years, which will take the place of the Kyoto Protocol.  It is believed that it will require another five years for the treaty to be ratified, and thus a new agreement will likely not take effect until roughly 2020.  A last minute change in the wording of the document from “a protocol, another legal instrument, or a legal outcome” sparked objections from the European Union, until the phrase was changed to “an agreed outcome with legal force,” thus assuring countries would not be able to escape legal accountability.  In addition, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that was due to expire next year was extended by five years.  The Kyoto Protocol only places emissions limits on some of the world’s biggest polluters, but not China or the United States.

     You may be wondering about the opinion of the United States regarding the discussion of a new global climate treaty, especially considering the fact that the United States ranks 2^nd on the list of biggest polluting countries, and is not a member of the Kyoto Protocol.   This is what United States Climate Envoy Todd Stern had to say, “this is a very significant package.  None of us likes everything in it.  Believe me, there is plenty the United States is not thrilled about.”  What is your opinion on the position of United States in regards to the reluctant support that is being given?  You might think that the United States’ lack of support for the Kyoto Protocol, in addition to the significant scientific findings that continue to support climate change, would finally result in the United States giving strong encouragement for a new climate agreement.  Unfortunately, the fears of the effects of political retaliation by politician’s constituents lurk too strongly in the back of the minds of members of Congress.  There is constant pressure on politicians to do what they believe will get themselves re-elected, even if it means failing to support an issue that is ethical or follows their beliefs.  For now the United States will seemingly back a new global climate treaty due to pressure from other industrialized and developing nations, but will sadly due so only because of the demands from leaders of other countries.