Are the UN-led international negotiations on climate change likely to produce an effective outcome? Some think not…

At each Conference of the UN Framework  Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),  the Parties have rejected voting as a means of resolving differences, preferring to reach consensus on all issues.This gives enormous power to those countries like the United States, Saudi Arabia, Canada and China who do not wish to see swift progress to finding a solution to the climate crisis.  Consensus guarantees any solution will be the lowest common denominator.  The Copenhagen Conference in 2009 resulted in the fracturing of hope that the UNFCCC process could achieve a legally binding agreement within the urgent time-frame specified by the scientific community.  Scientists have said that we need global emissions to peak well before 2020.  No developed country’s Government will even consider this.

 

Coal Protesters, Newcastle, Australia. Photo © Conor Ashleigh, documentary photographer and multimedia storyteller.  www.conorashleigh.com

 

At the UNFCCC Conference in Cancun in December 2010, Bruno Sekoli of Lesotho, chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) summed it up as follows: “The objective of these talks is to mitigate climate change and help developing countries adapt. The situation in these talks is extremely disappointing. Concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen at alarming rates and its worrying to think of the situation in just 10 years time. Most LDCs are already fighting for survival. The situation is worsening by the day. Our message to the rich governments is this: I appeal to developed countries to do what is right. They have shown economic, even military leadership. They must now show climate leadership.”

Unfortunately, they did not.  Progress on some issues was made, but while an overall agreement was reached, it mostly papered over the cracks created in Copenhagen. Governments failed to reach agreement on how far overall global emissions should be cut, and many loopholes were included that enabled countries to avoid making the deep reductions that scientists say are needed.  ”Cancun may have saved the UN process but it did not yet save the climate,” said Greenpeace campaigner Wendel Trio.

Bill McKibben, founder of the 350.org campaign and influential environmentalist said Cancun was a useful reminder of the gap between even the best possible deal on offer and what the science says is needed to prevent dangerous climate change:

“These talks enter their final hours shrouded in a fog of unreality – the biggest and most powerful nations on earth simply aren’t paying attention to physics and chemistry. Which is why we’ll continue to have unprecedented strings of disasters. And it’s also why the grassroots movement to demand real action will continue to mushroom. We’re not big enough yet to beat the fossil fuel industry and its allies, but we’re gaining. And if the most vulnerable nations will stand with civil society and ignore the bullying and buy-offs from the US, the movement will grow faster still”.

And in a final blog from Cancun, Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange. wrote:

“…. if we are to avoid ecocide, we cannot rely on government officials meeting in plush golf resorts. Instead, the solutions will come from organic farmers and social entrepreneurs. They will come from activists who confront corporate polluters. They will come from passionate environmentalists putting even more pressure on their governments. They will come from those fighting for climate justice in their communities around the globe. Ultimately, they will come from a grassroots global movement steeped in the values of mother nature”.

Comments are closed.