As the talks here in Doha reach their climax, negotiations continue to be fraught with difficulties. There is an urgency amongst the activists and developing nations which just does not seem to be reflected in the delegations from the rich nations. Unfortunately, for many it seems only too obvious that although time is running out, these climate talks will be just as impotent as the few that came before. So what is the hold up?
The Kyoto agreement was the last most encompassing climate deal of this kind, where countries agreed to cut their emissions by a certain percentage by 2012: the EU has agreed to a second stage of this, to cut their emissions by 20% by 2020, but this isn't universal and in Doha the world needs to agree to do more and reach a universal commitment similar to Kyoto that calls for cuts from today. The Doha talks are focussing on an agreement of implementation from 2020, but the developing world and activists would say we can't wait this long, we need to commit to cuts and climate finance today. At the core of all such talks are the issues of who should do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the fight against climate change, both in terms of cutting carbon emissions and bearing the cost of climate change adaptation and mitigation, and this is where negotiations always stall as countries put their varying priorities and commitments on the table.
Today, the question of historic emissions is at the centre of the debate i.e. who should bear the brunt of the cost, who is responsible? Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, directly raised this sensitive issue earlier this week saying, "The climate change phenomenon has been caused by the industrialisation of the developed world. [It is] only fair and reasonable that the developed world should bear most of the responsibility." China's representatives responded by making clear they were willing to make their "due contribution", but what exactly should this be for each nation? China might now be producing more carbon emissions per year than any other nation, but this in only true in recent years. Aren't developed nations still responsible for the huge bulk of "historic emissions"? Should the developed nations be singled out in this way or should fast-developing nations such as China, India and Brazil be equally responsible for shouldering the burden of change?
Although it is true that the rich world has emitted the majority of the CO2 historically, they account for a rapidly diminishing minority of current emissions. Many in the anti-change camp like to point out that the developing world took over in terms of total footprint in 2009 and the gap is growing. However, this fails to account for our (in the West) consumer demand for their products playing a large part in fuelling this rise: what we call 'outsourced emissions'. So, while Chinese emissions increases are indeed unsustainable, our consumer societies are at least partially responsible for this. As pointed out by the Guardian "In many other countries, like Bangladesh, emissions are still so low that it would take the average Bangladeshi almost a year to emit the carbon that the average Brit is responsible for in a week."
However, Lord Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist is the author of new research showing that, even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. We must work together in this with the developing world so that emissions can be cut across the board before it is too late but so that development itself does not have to be halted and we can still lift people out of poverty. Unfortunately, such commitments are difficult to tie down, and this is where the US in particular has been highlighted as being a key figure in stalling negotiations.
It is our responsibility, in the UK and the West, to take the lead, to work in cohesion with the developing world, to implement sharp cuts in emissions now, and provide sufficient financial support for poorer countries, some of which are already facing the effects of climate change, to follow a low carbon development path as compensation for the cheap fuel sources that have made us rich and to adapt to the impacts they already feel. Currently, unfortunately, the support given is often in the form of unfair loans and of little consequence when compared to the money our governments plough into Fossil fuels.
For the past 20 years, the official UN process has recognised the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' so we all need to step up and bite the biscuit, however bitter it may taste. This principle has never been in doubt and has been recognised by all countries, including the USA, until now. As China stated it is "important to talk about equity": it is the prime responsibility of the rich countries that caused the problem to make the sacrifices necessary for a solution so that poor countries aren't made to pay for damage they haven't caused. Youth and developing nations are asking for justice, equity and ambition from these talks. We need to make our leaders listen.
Disappointment is felt so sharply by activists as so little has changed over the past few years and promises have yet to be kept. Even the carbon funding, 100 billion dollars per year scaled from 2012 to 2020, promised by Hilary Clinton at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 and seen as a save for that conference, has not materialised. Though the US has put aside 30 billion dollars for the fund, they refuse to acknowledge responsibility for further funds and in the current financial climate of cuts, public pressure is low. What we need to remember is that, depending on the sources, the US spent between 700 billion and 12 trillion dollars, to bail out the banks, money that was very quickly forthcoming. When there is the political will, you get the result. What we need is the will, and we the public are as much to blame here as anyone. We have the power to pressure our governments for change and we should do more.
No comments:
Post a Comment