Doha - A Waste Of Time

So the Doha climate conference ended as it began, with disappointment.

There were hopes that the host nation, Qatar (The world's biggest carbon emitter per head), were going to open the conference by announcing bold plans for cutting their emissions (Wow, what an impact that would have had!). Instead, it appears they'd attempted to broker a regional agreement between Middle East countries and failed because of lack of agreement. Which, I assume, led the Qataris to believe they didn't have to make any unilateral commitments....

In a way, this is climate conferences in miniature: A group of nations failing to agree how to tackle climate change (which they all say they want to do) and walking away with a collective sigh of relief - The status quo has been preserved for another year.

Or am I being too cynical here?....Nah! Politicians are masters of seeming to be doing something when, in fact, they're planning on doing nothing.

The Durban climate agreement gave leaders of the rich nations plus the likes of China and India the perfect opportunity to agree precisely nothing until 2015. Doha demonstrated that all too well.

Durban Climate Deal: What's In It For Us?

As you may have heard, the Durban climate conference actually finished with a last minute deal. But what does it actually mean to you, me and, more importantly our kids?

Let's start with the headline details:

• The deal was historic because, for the first time, it was agreed by all countries. In the past, 'developing' countries have been exempt whilst others have simply not signed up (e.g. the USA).

• The deal says talks will start early next year with the aim of producing a legally binding agreement by 2015 that will come into force by 2020.

• Significant progress was also made on separate areas aimed at: providing financial support to developing countries effected by climate change; and protecting and developing forests.

What instantly struck me about all this were those dates. Basically there's little prospect of a final agreement before 2015, and no prospect of any serious cuts before 2020! This despite the fact that the science says that carbon emissions have to peak by 2020 (at the latest) and fall steeply thereafter if we are to keep the global rise in temperature to below 2 degrees C.

2 degrees isn't just some nice-to-have number that's been plucked from nowhere. It's a limit beyond which we are likely to run into all sorts of tipping points that could take the climate beyond our control. It's also what the world's governments have agreed to.

If the eventual deal for 2020 amounts to nothing more than locking in what countries have already commited to, we're looking at around a 4.5 degree rise by 2100. That would be disastrous.

We can still hope that the new alliance between the EU and many developing nations will grow in it's influence and lead negotiations towards a better result, but you can bet that a handful of countries (you know who they are) will be doing everything they can to water it down.

The Other Cancun Meeting

If, like me, you were a bit frustrated by the passing of yet another climate conference without a final deal, this link might cheer you up.

It appears that, despite the slow progress at a global level, many nations, regions, businesses, and local governments are on their own fastpath towards a low carbon future. Some of them decided to hold a parallel summit not far from Cancun....

Cancun: Success or Failure?

Protest at Cancun

The signs weren't looking good as they started the Cancun Climate Conference just over 2 weeks ago. 

• China and the U.S. had fallen out in a preliminary meeting over verification of emission cuts.

• Japan, Russia and Canada were refusing to extend the Kyoto protocol (i.e. The last climate deal) because it didn't include all countries, especially the 2 biggest emitters: The U.S. and China.

• And the word was, if this conference finished as badly as the last one (Copenhagen), the whole U.N. climate negotiation process would be as good as dead.

So, no pressure then.

Two weeks later, as the conference was nearing it's conclusion, things were still looking pretty bad. A number of countries were refusing to budge on a whole range of issues. But, after working long into the last night, they finally had the documents all the countries (except Bolivia) could agree.

The draft agreement commits all nations to keeping the global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, although no mechanism for doing this has been sorted out.

Japan, Canada, and Russia have been kept in the process with wording that allowed the possibility of the Kyoto Protocol not being extended, whilst emphasising that the protocol was still the best way forward - Something developing countries had insisted on.

Developing countries will only have their emission cutting measures verified if funded by western money. This keeps the Chinese happy - who saw it as challenge to national sovereignty - and the US, who had insisted on verification.

A 'Green Fund' to help developing nations fight global warming was also agreed: $100 bn (£64 bn)) are to be paid in per year by 2020. It will go towards helping these countries adopt low carbon technology and adapt to climate change. An Adaptation Committee will be set up to support them in their efforts. The fund will be handled by the World Bank (initially), at the insistence of the US, EU and Japan.

Outline details were also worked out for funding the efforts of developing countries to reduce deforestation. This ties in with last month's biodiversity talks at Nagoya.

Success or Failure?
So, another year passes without a binding global agreement on climate change. To some that makes the conference a failure.

Yet the UN climate process lives on and real progress has been made this time round. To me, that's success.

Okay, there's still a long way to go before a meaningful final agreement is made, and a lot can go wrong in the meantime, but Cancun has laid down something than can be built on in South Africa next year. We're still in with a fighting chance.

Nagoya: More Fine Words And No Action?

A 2 week convention on biodiversity started today in Nagoya, Japan. The aim of the meeting is to set new targets for preserving the planet's biodiversity (i.e. The number of plant and animal species).

If past environmental meetings are anything to go by, there will be many moving speeches about how we must act now to avert impending disaster but little will actually be achieved.

However, all is not lost.

The new hope is that, by estimating the value of the 'services' provided by our natural environment, politicians, businesses, and the public will finally realise the actual cost of our actions.

Yes, they're actually trying to put a price on Nature.

This approach certainly appears to be focusing the minds of governments and companies alike. Suddenly, there are all sorts of projects out there to protect forests and halt fishing in designated areas, even without a global agreement. But it remains to be seen if these will continue to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

Regardless of the outcome of Nagoya, there needs to be a genuine commitment, from all nations, to preserve biodiversity very soon. Up to now, countries have been more than willing to agree targets only to miss them by a mile. We can't afford to do this anymore, otherwise Nature will soon be handing us a bill we cannot afford.

************

More on biodiversity's services here and here.

Will Cancun Climate Conference Fail?

With less than 2 months to go until the sequel to the Copenhagen conference starts in Mexico, it seems expectations are already pretty low for success.

The last major preliminary talks in Tianjin, China have just closed with the U.S. and China slagging each other off. The U.S. is accusing China of refusing to allow outsiders in to verify their carbon savings, whilst the chinese accuse the US of trying to sideline the U.N.

Great start.

About the only good news from Tianjin is that the rich nations are close to agreeing £63 billion a year funding to poorer nations to cope with the effects of climate change.

Why Did Copenhagen Fail To Deliver A Climate Deal?

An interesting analysis from the BBC website here.

Reasons given include:

• KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL
• THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM
• BAD TIMING
• THE HOST GOVERNMENT
• THE WEATHER
• 24-HOUR NEWS CULTURE
• EU POLITICS
• CAMPAIGNERS GOT THEIR STRATEGIES WRONG

Whatever the ultimate reason, it was a pathetic show on the part of our governments: 2 years preparation, 2 weeks at the summit, and nothing tangible to show for it. They ought to hang their heads in shame.

Let's hope they all get their act together in time for the Mexico summit next December.