INTERNATIONAL climate change talks turned 18 earlier this month, but there was little sign that their wasted youth is over. The 18th annual climate change summit in Doha, Qatar, might have ended with an apparent victory for developing nations, but in reality the world is barely any nearer to facing up to its responsibilities.
First the good news. Rich countries have conceded that they should help poor countries cope with the harm they will suffer as the world warms. With dangerous climate change now almost inevitable, developing countries need this lifeline (see "Doha summit launches climate damage aid").
The agreement could have a useful knock-on effect, pressuring developed countries to take action on their own emissions. If they do not make cuts, they could ultimately face a much larger bill for damages.
But for all the fanfare, it was an agreement in principle only. The treaty signed at Doha did not establish a mechanism for compensation, or commit any money. Instead, it made a promise to set something up at next year's conference. The text thus follows a well-worn and tiresome path of procrastination.
In Bali in 2007, nations agreed to establish a binding treaty by the end of 2009. That promise was broken when the 2009 Copenhagen summit collapsed. Cancun 2010 agreed on virtually nothing except to meet again in 2011. Durban 2011 agreed to agree on a new treaty by 2015. Every year, delegates use the same tactic to give the appearance of action, but achieve nothing in practice.
In some respects, Doha was a step backwards. The biggest breakthrough in Copenhagen came when developed countries promised to give money to poor countries to help them adapt. Yet Doha saw this commitment placed on the back burner.
After the conference Edward Davey, the UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change, was harangued by a young delegate for agreeing such a feeble treaty. Davey responded that he would have liked to have done more but had to "live in the real world". His meaning is clear, but the real real world is not one of endless diplomatic quibbling. It is one of rising seas and deadly storms. The negotiations have long since lost touch with it.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
vice presidential debate Martha Raddatz Chris Lighty JJ Watt johnny depp jerry sandusky raul ibanez
No comments:
Post a Comment