By any standards, and despite the protestations of western politicians, the climate change summit in Copenhagen failed those most in need of solemn commitments to reduce emissions- developing nations. The Danish text, a pre-organised accord between the wealthiest participants, left developing nations seemingly voiceless before proceedings even began. The Bolivian delegation described negotiations as ‘anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable.’
These allegations are, at least in part, ratified by the outcome. At the close, the deal was brokered between the wealthy and powerful- India, South Africa, the U.S., Brazil and China. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord is non-binding and not only fails to hold the world temperature rise at 1.5C but also omits the original aim to cut world emissions by 80% by 2050. These original aims are not arbitrary numbers-they are widely agreed to be the minimum required to avoid climate disaster for developing nations and the world. Funding for developing nations to adapt to climate change was set at $100 billion per year by 2020. However, as both the source and legal status of this funding are vague, a little scepticism about it actually materialising is justified.
Lumumba Di-Aping chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries described the accord thus:
"[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It's a solution based on values that funneled six million people in Europe into furnaces."
To describe the G77 group as dissatisfied would not, it seems, cut the mustard.
The blame game which has been so prevalent in the western media is a futile one. However, a comment from Barak Obama is particularly striking. On the failure to reach a wider agreement he said that to wait for a binding accord would have resulted in no progress being made at all. Such a statement of resignation from the “Yes we can!” President of the United States is deeply troubling and is evidence of a lack of resolve and commitment from the most powerful nation in the world. If the U.S. is unable, or unwilling, to act how are third world nations to make progress?
Dan Smith, secretary general of International Alert, has formulated a strategy to push the multi-lateral climate change agreement forward. He asserts that a major problem with the current style of climate discussions is that those states who choose to hold out in order to obtain more nationally favorable agreements are allowed to win by default. To combat this attitude among the most developed nations, there must be a change in the tone of discussions from factional adversary to problem solving and from self-sacrifice to the idea that climate change accords can be mutually beneficial. He suggests that those nations who have shown promise at past climate change talks such as South Korea, Japan, Mexico and Australia, should agree to a solution based around creating a strong green economy and then sell it to the hold-outs- China, India and the U.S. Progress by bypassing those who block it.
There is also a lot to be said to grass roots projects and individual action in the wake of international failure. Improved cook stove projects, now widespread in India and Africa, seek to protect both the environment from deforestation and in turn the livelihoods of people who use them. Grassroots groups working in the Amazon aim to protect the forest by demonstrating the economic benefits of leaving the environment intact. In the UK too, the benefits of having an energy efficient home and creating less food waste have been widely publicized.
However, in these straitened times ideas such as these appear to me as drops in the ocean, like trying to put out a fire one ice cube at a time. I must admit to a personal sense of cynicism and demoralization. Without international accord, we can only delay the inevitable. Suggestions on a postcard please.
