It’s not yet a crisis, but an air of anxiety and resignation has descended upon the climate talks in Cancun. There are just two days to go until the end of the conference but it is clear that there will be no miracle agreement that somehow recognises the science of climate change at this meeting. Or anything near it. Ministers and negotiators have enough on their plate just trying to save the process from collapse to be able to focus their attention onto to what it might achieve.
The UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres, the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and Mexico president Felipe Calderon all appealed to delegates at the ceremonial opening of the high level talks to find common ground and make concessions. “Business as usual cannot be tolerated,” Ban Ki-moon said. But earlier this week, Figueres put the discussions into context. “We are just barely, barely scratching the surface of what we need to do,” she said. Any agreement in Cancun “is going to be frankly, pathetically insufficient”.
Expectations have never been high for Cancun. In fact they have been deliberately played down in the hope of giving delegates “breathing room” to clarify what exactly was agreed to in the Copenhagen Accord, to “anchor” these pledges, and to find a way forward. Its highest ambition, in the words of many delegates, is to “make a decision to start a process”. In short, it is a meeting held to guarantee that there is another meeting.
Despite some signs of compromise, intractable divisions between rich and poor nations remain, there are enough rogue nations to disrupt the process and many negotiators have complained that progress has stalled. Even achieving a “balanced outcome” seems a tall order.
This was more or less confirmed by climate change minister Greg Combet, who in his first press conference said: “These negotiations are complex, they are large and they are difficult. We have got to have realist expectations about the outcome in Cancun this week and I hesitate to predict where we will end up. We are working very hard to ensure that we get some successful building blocks to lead us to a binding agreement. But we are a long way off that yet.”
Combet, in his first international talks, has been thrust right into the heart of the trade-offs between the rich and developing worlds. Combet and his Bangladeshi counterpart Hassan Mahmud have been tasked with finding a way forward on the key question of finance, and it is not proving easy. Poor countries are insisting on a fund that would help unlock $100 billion a year in financing aid be created now, with the details to be worked out later. Rich countries such as the US are insisting on getting the detail right before establishing the fund.
Mahmud confirmed that finance was being used as a bargaining chip between developing countries seeking on a range of other measures, including an extension to the Kyoto Protocol, adaptation, forests, and technology, and rich nations seeking guarantees on transparency and emissions reductions. “This is a very tough set of negotiations going on here,” Combet agreed.
It promises to be one of the most explosive issues of the last few days. So much so, that Ban Ki-moon will also become involved in negotiations over the next day or two. It’s a subject he holds close to his heart, having commissioned a study on the options by the UN and the leaders of Norway and Ethiopia.
The implications of what will happen if there is no balanced outcome was made clear by Combet when he addressed the plenary on behalf of the umbrella group of nations, which include all non-EU developed nations such as the US, Russia and nearby states Norway, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. Combet said it was important to demonstrate that the UNFCCC remains relevant and prove that it can take action to address climate change. “We should not jeopardise this.”
He also touched on one of the more important considerations for developed nations such as the US and Australia, which are experiencing problems implementing domestic policies because of strong opposition at home. “It is essential to reinforce domestic climate change efforts,” he said. Indeed, Australia and the US realise that it may be more difficult to effect domestic policy without demonstrable progress on the international stage.
Mind you, Combet did appear to gild the lily a little bit. “This is the most substantive emissions reductions the world has ever seen,” he said in reference to the Copenhagen pledges and as justification for the targets set by rich nations, which have been criticised by poor nations as inadequate. Well, yes, they would be the largest emission reductions because they are also the first. Blame it on the multicountry committee that wrote the speech, but it won’t go unnoticed in the developing world.
On the subject of the UNFCCC, Alden Meyer, from the US Union of Concerned Scientists, and a long-time observer of these talks, says that the outcome of Cancun will be critical. If it fails to deliver on a “balanced outcome” its future is in doubt and it will put pressure on the entire multilateral process. “The credibility of the whole UN process is at stake if you have a second failure. Two strikes and you’re out,” he said.
*Read the rest of this article here — and more from Cancun — on Climate Spectator
Giles when exactly does this farce end?
It has now reached a point of ridicule way beyond what educated people can be expected to bear.
Look, you have all had your fun sucking the world dry of spare funds to accommodate your lifestyles but enough is enough.
The majority of your disgusting troop of freeloaders will not be able to return to UK cause it’s frozen over.
Have you no shame??
These Turkeys never give in. Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that while both Copenhagen and Cancun junkets have been held, here has been unprecedented cold snaps in the Northern Hemisphere?
If these people could get out of denial and stop escaping to hoter climes in order to hold these junkets.
First it was the “problem” of “Global War. Then, when everyone, even blind Freddy, could see there is no such thing, they conveniently re-label the non-existent problem to “Climate Change”
First we had the proof that the whole IPCC figures were cooked, then we find out that the sattelite owners admited recently that hey knew that the sats were giving out incorrect higher readings, but continued to sell the data un-corrected.
Nevertheless junket riders and gravy train ‘scientists” push on regardless, hoping to at least get confirmation of the next junket meeting… it’s over folks…the Emperor has no clothes.
You can fool some of the people some of the time….
WP9241 – You ardue aganst the existence of climate change by saying there has been “unprecedented cold snaps in the Northern Hemisphere”. If they are unprecedented they have never happened before and if they have never happened before doesn’t that point to a change in the climate?
Also as far as global warming goes, the last decade was the warmest on record, the 1990’s is the seond warmest, the 1980’s is the third warmest, the 1970’s is the fourth warmest do you see a pattern?
Those denying climate change seem to be a whacky bunch, many without a sound education. Those trumpeting most loudly promoting the climate change spiel seem to be more likely to have spent extended periods in the education boxes, without always justifying the cost it has been to taxpayers.
Naturally, none of this stops the ‘debate’ continuing its frenetic course.
@W9241:
First up,W9241, (I’ll call you Turkey for short) look up the meaning of “average” in the dictionary next time you’re passing. Then, when you’re there, look up “weather” and “climate” and see if there’s a difference. See if you can assimilate the complicated maths involved: the idea is you have to be able to add up a lot of numbers and then divide, if you can handle that.
Secondly, for a no-brainer introduction, contemplate the fact that people have been known to drown in rivers with an average water depth of say, 15cms. Which would have been about what the Murray River was until recently. You remember the Murray River — it’s the one that suffered from a drought about 10 years long a while back (Or was it last week? How time flies!) As big as most people remember. Now it’s apparently much wetter. Floods, they tell me. Now contemplate average rainfall for the drought period and recent times, and see if any light dawns yet.
Thirdly, Turkey, note that the climate change characteristics predicted are for extremes of weather. That means hot and yep, cold.
Fourthly, did you notice that just a few months ago in the Northern Hemisphere that Moscow was surrounded by bushfires after several weeks of temperatures ranging up to about 40 C? Or that the Russians can’t find any record of weather like that before in the city’s history ? Add those temperatures into the mix when you get around to working out what to do about averages and climate calculations.
Fifthly, I gather you think the the IPCC figures were cooked, because scientists have got together to agree to cook them although you’re a bit short on detail on how and why that occurs. I think it has something to do with who killed JFK.
Is it the politicians who tell the scientists to do it? Is every member country of the UN in on the plot, and going along with it ? Has the IFCC actually managed to get all the nations of the world to agree on one thing on a totally artificial basis when no-one else has ever managed that level of agreement ? Wow ! But have you noticed the governments then don’t agree on what to do about it all? So is that a part of the subtle plot to agree not to agree on everything, to make it look like there’s no plot or something?
Or is it the scientists who bamboozle all the politicians, after bamboozling each other and getting together to agree of figures and stuff, except when they disagree, which only proves that they’ve got everyone to agree on stuff except when they haven’t?
Do you agree with any of that? In fact can you explain any theory of global warming conspiracy coherently?
Have you been taking your pills recently ?
NEXT please, nurse !