Delegates from over 180 nations converged on Cancun, Mexico, on 28 November 2010 for a two-week-long United Nations climate change conference commenced there. They were joined by a horde of industry representatives, environmental activists and media, all together numbering near 15,000. But what the conference boasted in terms of attendance was hardly matched by any hope for a comprehensive strategy to address climate change.
Leading up to the conference, key participants made clear that a binding agreement was off the negotiating table in Cancun. Top US climate envoy Todd Stern explained prior to his arrival, “It is now widely understood that a legal treaty this year is not in the cards.”
Christina Figueres, the head of the UN body conducting the conference, admitted much the same, remarking that “Cancun will not solve everything,” and governments should focus instead on pragmatic solutions. Observers have highlighted a few areas where narrow agreements are still possible―though by no means assured―at this year’s meeting: intellectual property rights for green-technology transfer, anti-deforestation incentives and funding mechanisms for aiding developing countries.
However, just three days into the talks, deep divisions already had emerged, even with this scaled-back agenda. BNA reports that a group of African delegates, dissatisfied with inadequate financing proposals from industrialized countries, threatened to walk out of working group meetings Monday. The lead Bolivian negotiator said a group of Latin American delegates were prepared to do the same.
Kevin Conrad, the Papua New Guinea delegate, bluntly questioned whether the entire UN climate negotiation process “is growing increasingly irrelevant.” Patricia Espinosa, the foreign minister of the host country, Mexico, conceded to the press, “I cannot say this is the kind of opening I hoped for.”
Negotiations took another turn toward a complete breakdown Wednesday as Japanese officials categorically ruled out extending the Kyoto Protocol. Japanese Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto declared, “Whatever happens, under any kind of conditions, we do not accept a second commitment, period.” The protocol, which sets limits for greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries and provides a mechanism for purchasing emission credits from developing countries, will lapse in 2012 if no action is taken. Many delegations, particularly from poorer countries, support prolonging the Kyoto Protocol.
Explaining his opposition, Matsumoto continued, “Without the active participation of the two biggest emitters―namely China and the US―it’s not a global effort.” The US signed but never ratified the treaty; China is not bound by any emission reduction targets under the protocol. In staking out this position, Japan is asserting an unwillingness to cede any competitive advantage to its rivals.
Similarly, the United States is at pains to ensure that its relative position is strengthened to the maximum extent possible through these negotiations. The US delegation is demanding, for example, that China accept transparency and accountability measures and commit to capping greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Union, for its part, has indicated agreement with the emphasis on establishing a system to measure, report and verify emissions, particularly with respect to China. But it also seeks to pressure the US into accepting a larger burden for mitigating climate change, and thereby expanding markets for relatively mature European green-tech industry.
Meanwhile, developing countries continue to emphasize the responsibility of their industrialized counterparts to share technology and distribute funding to help offset the cost of climate impacts.
These and numerous other longstanding divisions among the national representatives have widened since the previous climate summit in Copenhagen last December. Prior to that meeting, hopes, though not soaring, nonetheless still existed for coming to an agreement on a new comprehensive and legally enforceable treaty. This was reflected in the attendance of over 120 heads of state at the conference (in contrast to Cancun, where only a handful plan to attend, mostly from small island nations). Nonetheless the Copenhagen summit ended in debacle: in place of a binding treaty there was a weak three-page political commitment that threatens to be scrapped in Cancun.
The developments discernible during the first week of the ongoing Cancun Summit reflect a deep divide among the BASIC members – India, China, Brazil and South Africa – which have so far been united in their stand on the issue of emission cuts.
Reports indicate Brazil and South Africa are now open to the idea of legally binding emission cuts. Till now, both countries were one with India and China wanting developing countries to only accept voluntary emission cuts. And it’s not just the divide among BASIC countries that India has to contend with. Several G-77 countries are now saying that all developing countries should accept legally binding emission cuts.
India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who is in Cancun, Mexico for the two-week climate summit, has reportedly said: “There is a concerted move by a group of developed countries using developing countries to put pressure on India and China to accept a legally binding agreement.” Thus India and China are getting increasingly isolated among the Group of 77 developing countries.
Further, in what could be trouble in the long term for everyone on the planet to control greenhouse gasses, Japan has said that it will not agree to signing on to the second term of the Kyoto Protocol. “There is no question of extending the second commitment period, It’s is not in our national interest,” Japan said at the Cancun climate summit.
The Kyoto Protocol has been the main platform on which the entire climate change talks have been progressing.
Describing the US offer on emission reduction as “deeply disappointing”, India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has urged the US to show greater ambition on reducing its emission of greenhouse gases and asked Washington to act before it is too late. India’s disappointment with the level of US commitment was not limited to emission reduction and it found Washington’s action on the fast start financing to be similarly disappointing.
According to Jairam Ramesh, it is one thing to be ambitious for 2050, “when all of us will be dead, but there is a need to show mid-term ambition for 2020 as well. The US could only cobble together $1.7 billion, a figure that did no justice to the world’s pre-eminent economic power.” Further the US offer includes things like the $24 million which is part of an agreement with India and “The fast start finance was specifically meant for vulnerable countries like the small island states, less developed countries and Africa. To include money going to countries like India undermines the bargain reached at Copenhagen.”
The US offer of reducing emissions by 17%, from 2005 levels by 2020, works out to 4% reduction, from 1990 levels by 2020. The Kyoto Protocol which binds developed countries to reduce emissions takes 1990 as the reference year. For comparability, the US offer needs to be seen with the same reference point. However, the prospect of a domestic legislation is dim, and any emission reduction action has to be taken through the executive route. Accounting for the efforts made in this route, the US offer works out to 14% reduction from 2005 levels. This translates to 0% with 1990 as the reference year. Under the US plan, it will reduce its carbon emissions by 80% from 2005 levels by 2050.
US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern is reported to have made it clear that his country would be able to implement its 17% pledge, only if there was a “legislative component.” While expressing confidence that a mix and match of options would allow the US to fulfil its climate obligations even without comprehensive legislation in the US, Todd Stern said: “President Obama has made it very clear that there is more than one way to skin a cat… a combination of regulatory and legislative tools that will be at our disposable will get us there.” In informal meetings, the US delegation has said that its domestic climate change legislation is unlikely to be passed by Congress in next two years.
As the Cancun Summit on climate change conference winds down, India is coming under immense pressure to accept a “legally binding agreement” on climate change, which is causing rift within developing countries. The United States, India and China are not in favour of accepting a legally binding agreement, which is supported by other developed countries, and several nations within the G77 including African nations and Least Developed Countries.
Pushing hardest for a legally binding treaties are small island nations, which are the most vulnerable to climate change. Countries in India’s vicinity – Bangladesh, Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal – are also supporting a legally binding agreement. India’s close allies on the climate change issue – Brazil and South Africa – are also in favour of a legally binding agreement, which is causing divisions within the BASIC group.
India feels that there is a concerted move by a group of developed countries using developing countries to put pressure on India and China to accept a legally binding agreement. This pressure is coming from developed countries through AOSIS, BASIC and LDCs. With the conference closing on 9 December, India has objected to raising the issue so late in the day. It has also said that currently it is important to concentrate on the Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally binding treaty on climate change, but its future is uncertain since several countries want to abandon it.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh indicated that India would not agree to any legally binding agreement until three things are clear – the content of legally binding, the penalty of non-compliance and the system of monitoring. Speaking at an open meeting in Cancun on 8 December 2010, Jairam Ramesh told delegates: “At this stage India’s strategy is to keep the door open, the door was being closed on us. All countries must take on binding commitments under appropriate legal form.”
In the wake of these developments, the prospects for unified global action have soured in the interim, as efforts to pass climate change legislation stalled in a number of countries, notably the US, Canada, Australia and Japan. Underlying these failures is the deteriorating global economic atmosphere in which national governments are scrambling to make their home industries more competitive―both by lowering benefits and wages of workers and scrapping plans for increased environmental protection. In this context, the pleas for delegates to go beyond their own national interests and act in the interests of all humanity ring ever hollower.
