While atmospheric levels of global greenhouse gases continue to rise, the latest round of international climate talks convenes on Monday in Durban, South Africa, as more than 11,000 delegates from around the world attempt to accomplish what has thus far proved elusive – to reduce the world’s production of carbon and other emissions that fuel global warming.
Topping the agenda of the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) is coming up with an international agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, set to expire next year. Given the disappointing results from COP 16 in Mexico and COP 15 in Copenhagen, expectations that a comprehensive, meaningful agreement can be reached during this session, however, are modest at best.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 37 industrialized nations with the goal of reducing carbon emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012, but without the participation of some of the largest carbon emitters such as the U.S., China and India, the agreement never lived up to its promise.
The major obstacle then, as now, is whether industrialized nations should shoulder the burden of reducing global carbon emissions alone, or whether emerging economies and developing nations should also be responsible for meeting their own reduction targets.
For the most part, poor countries are seeking additional commitments from wealthier nations who, they maintain, are responsible for producing the vast majority of atmospheric carbon that disproportionately threatens poorer countries.
The wealthier countries, such as members of the European Union – responsible for 11% of carbon emissions — cite the futility of any attempts to reduce global emissions by themselves. Several other signatories to the Kyoto pact, including Japan, Canada and Russia, have already indicated that they will not agree to any new reductions unless the major developing nations commit to equally binding emission targets.
The apparent standoff calls into question whether dividing the world into rich and poor, North and South – delineations central to the Kyoto Protocol – has outlived its usefulness at a time when the economies of countries such as Brazil, South Africa, India and China are growing rapidly and wealthier nations struggle with the effects of the recent economic downturn.
If any resolution of differences is to be reached, the two largest carbon emitters – China and the U.S. – will almost certainly have to be involved. For its part, China has recently announced independent efforts to reduce pollution within its borders and shown some movement toward pursing less carbon-intense sources of energy. Signs that the U.S. – the largest carbon producer at the time of Kyoto, and since overtaken by China — is prepared to curb its emissions are mixed.
In January 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama took office with an acknowledgement of global warming and an agenda that included promoting alternative energy and instituting a cap-and-trade policy. Later that year in Copenhagen, he set a 2020 target for reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17% below 2005 levels. Since then, however, his administration’s ability to deliver has been thwarted by stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress. What progress has been achieved has resulted from actions the administration has been able to take independently, such as the adoption of improved fuel efficiency standards by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even so, implementation of other independent initiatives by the EPA, such as stricter regulation of refinery emissions, have been delayed.
In the meantime, frustration with the apparent lack of urgency leading up to the Durban conference may be reaching a boil. José María Figueres, former president of Costa Rica, has called for developing nations to stage sit-ins and refuse to leave until substantial progress has been achieved.
“We went to Copenhagen [in 2009] with the illusion we could reach an equitable agreement. We went to Cancún [in 2009] where we saw slight but not sufficient progress. Frustration is now deep and building. Now we hear that we will need more conferences. Sometime we have to get serious. We should be going to Durban with the firm conviction that we do not come back until we have made substantial advances.”
