Durban Summit: Hopes For Comprehensive Action On Climate Change Dimming

Durbansummit

Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 10/12/11 14:14 GMT Updated: 10/12/11 15:20 GMT

Hopes were dimming on Saturday afternoon that a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions plan to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol could be agreed at a climate summit in Durban, South Africa, after negotiations spilled over an extra day.

A draft summit document circulated at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17) said that delegates had decided to develop a new protocol, or similar legal instrument, that would apply to all of the countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The European Union had formed an unlikely alliance with the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) bloc, all of whom had been driving for a binding deal. However, a lack of coherence between the positions of other major carbon emitters and industrialising countries led to fears that the meeting may dissipate before a deal could be signed.

However, any new agreement would not come into force until 2015, as the parties will only agree to beginning the process towards its creation, and it is uncertain that negotiations can be completed before the summit ends.

The US, China and India have stood in the way of a new deal, according to delegates and press reports.

With negotiations overshadowed by events in Brussels, policymakers struggled to agree even on a timetable for starting the "roadmap" for emissions reductions.

Perhaps significantly, however, they did officially recognise for the first time that the current cuts in carbon emissions will fail to prevent global temperatures from rising by 2°C.

Lord Nicholas Stern's 2006 review of climate change economics, which remains the reference text for much of modern thinking on the subject, said that a 2°C rise in global temperatures would lead to a reduction in global output of 3% per year, as habitats are degraded and ecological services lost.

By contrast, the global recession of 2009 saw output fall by 0.7%.

Further rises in temperature could cause even more alarming falls in output, as well as an increased incidence of catastrophic weather events and species extinction.

In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal this week, Stern warned that he and his team might have actually underestimated the risks. "We were deeply worried, but we should have been still more deeply worried about the consequences," he said.

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997 and finally came into force in 2005 when Russia finally ratified the treaty, which bound signatories to attempt to stabilise levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The United States, the world's largest emitter, is still outside the treaty process and has not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Some progress seems to have been made on climate funding, with the administration of the Green Climate Fund, a facility that will ultimately have $100bn to disburse to help developing countries to build cleaner infrastructure and adapt to climate change.

Many African and island nations went into the summit with adaptation to worsening climate events as a key negotiating position. Developing countries have increasingly found themselves on the front line of worsening conditions for agriculture, and are often less well able to respond to emergencies.

Some in the developing world feel that industrialised countries have an obligation to pay for adaptation to climate change, having been responsible for much of the runaway growth in carbon emissions since the industrial revolution.

Industrialising countries, such as India, China and South Africa itself are all seeking short term economic growth and employment as they look to overcome the domestic challenges of poverty reduction and social development. Adding the cost of "greening" their infrastructure could curtail that growth in the near term.

At the same time, many industrialised countries are experiencing serious cash shortages - as evidenced in Europe - and will struggle to pay for their own reduction efforts.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Hopes were dimming on Saturday afternoon that a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions plan to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol could be agreed at a climate summit in Durban, South Africa, after negoti...
Hopes were dimming on Saturday afternoon that a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions plan to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol could be agreed at a climate summit in Durban, South Africa, after negoti...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 37
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:49 PM on 12/13/2011
No one can predict what type of climate change we will have. We can go into global warming as easily as global cooling. No one can predict that carbon emissions are causing the global climate change.

We are bulldozing miles of mountains away, we are drilling huge holes and tunnels into the Earth, we are damming up rivers and we are mining all kinds of chemicals into our air and water. We cannot replace these mountains, fill these holes or return these chemicals to where they were. Our lifestyles are making it loud during the day and light at night. We are giving our plants, our animals, our Earth and ourselves no rest or peace and quiet. All of this certainly has an impact on our climate and our well being.

Our lifestyles require us to bulldoze, drill and mine to build skyscrapers, airports, medical centers, health clubs, resorts, cell towers, 80 inch TV screens, club ed universities, solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, ‘green’ factories, geothermal energy systems, etc. The military is requiring us to bulldoze, drill and mine to make superior weapons of mass destruction.

Why not live simpler? Why not grow our food and clothing locally? Why not develop human powered transportation systems made from plants and animals? Why not un-dam the rivers and let them flow and use the natural flow of rivers for energy systems? Why not use the natural motion of the oceans for energy?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
12:53 PM on 12/11/2011
Talking of saving the planet. Christmas is nearly on us. Ever thought of writing out your xmas cards using pencil?? Those you send them too can rub out your writing and send them again next year tosomeone else or even back to you. This will save millions of trees cut down to use for card making.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cynic123
12:35 PM on 12/11/2011
This is a simple one to solve. If these three country's will not clean up their acts then we in the other country's just stop importing their goods. They will soon fall into line then for sure. Come on Britain show some backbone and stand up to these three. Write to your mp and tell them what you the people want " A clean world for our children and children's children." I do belive that globle warming is a natral acurrence but polution will for sure make it even hotter by way of forming a dust cloud over the world thus not allowing the sun's heat to rise and cool . Whitch will meen less water and new supper powers will be those with the water. Not oil not gas but simple water.
01:28 PM on 12/11/2011
you want to stop water shortage then stop immigration , note that areas in this country suffering from water shortages have huge immigrant populations
12:20 AM on 12/14/2011
We dammed up the rivers flowing into their country. Where should they get their water?
This comment has been removed.
09:40 PM on 12/10/2011
I think the solution to this problem can only come from the bottom up. No politician is going to risk his or her future on the issue. Individuals are finding solutions as they become more aware of the damage being done and feel its effects, even in the US, India and China Everywhere individuals are trying to adapt their own lifestyles or being innovative in finding cleaner, cheaper ways to harness energy, for themselves and for others. Politicians will be the very last to catch on, eager to jump on the band wagon and play louder than everyone else of course.
12:11 PM on 12/11/2011
I absolutely agree with that, Trenchfoot, in industry it's the guys on the shop-floor who come up with the ideas, the managers are too busy running around with their heads up there posteriors.
07:54 PM on 12/10/2011
The Chinese, Indians and all the rest of the world's big polluters are NEVER going to do anything about emissions, so we've got two choices. Stop buying their stuff or stop taxing ourselves and pretending it will make a difference
09:11 AM on 12/11/2011
Have a look around your home and see what you would not have if it wasn't for these countries. Then decided if you are going to stopbuying their goods. What iis need is investment at home to be able to complete money for this could be raised by a huge tax on imports.
This comment has been removed.
06:00 PM on 12/10/2011
What is to be expected when the United States would not even allow part severn of David Attenborough's Frozen Planet to be broadcast, it was on the subject of the poles melting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matthew Harrold
Huzzah!
06:11 PM on 12/10/2011
Really? They never allowed it to show? Wow... It's not like it even pointed a finger at Anthropogenic Global Warming.
01:29 PM on 12/11/2011
on the other hand their vice president made a film filled with lies and misrepresentations which was given an oscar by their left wing lovies.
06:36 PM on 12/11/2011
Left wing. right wing. straight down the center, its the world our well being and our childrens future.Whether it is proved to be man made, natural cycle or just fluke, all information with out bias or motivation for selfish motives, should be made available for the people's of the world to decide.
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
04:10 PM on 12/10/2011
10 THOUSAND PLUS, delegates and their accompanying secretaries/assistants fly into Durban for climate change summit!!! Ya couldn't make it up! They have obviously never heard of teleconferencing or skype - Try starting by cutbacks on these globe-hopping taxpayer financed freeloaders and their little teams.
04:40 PM on 12/10/2011
I think these meetings should not only be teleconferenced - they should be live on the Internet.
05:03 PM on 12/10/2011
Teleconferencing and Skype is fine for exchanging ideas with people you already know. The purpose of conferences is to exchange ideas with people you don't know, anmd is also an opportunity to meet people who are normally inaccessible, heads of large corporations and government ministers for example. Getting to talk to top people is virtually impossible under normal circumstances because there are legions of minions surrounding them. at conferences you can just walk up to them and introduce yourself, if you have anything interesting to say they usually listen.
11:40 PM on 12/10/2011
So lets have these confrerences in places like Conakrey in Guinea or Lagos - or Scunthorpe - and see how many turn up - they are largely an excuse for an expensive junket at taxpayers expense to some highly desireable gholiday destination - if they are prepared to go to Conakry they really do want to discuss serious business
09:16 AM on 12/11/2011
In your dreams.
04:07 PM on 12/10/2011
Actually, China is now the world's largest emitter, not the US. China claimed the title at least two years ago.

Meanwhile, thank heavens they are failing to reach an agreement - we can't afford the cost involved in solving something that is probably not happening in the long run and has virtually nothing to do with human activity.

Objective measures from satellite observation shows that global average atmospheric temperatures are in decline and, of more concern, the tropical oceans are also cooling. This raises the much more difficult issue of average low temperatures (a mini ice age?) that will severely impact agriculture, dramatically increase energy usage as people struggle to stay warm, disrupt transport, and much more. This means governments will have to spend more money. The warming scam, on the other hand, means they can increase their tax revenues even though they will waste the money on non-climate related issues.
04:42 PM on 12/10/2011
Why a scam? What motivation for this elaborate conspiracy?
05:16 PM on 12/10/2011
money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:11 AM on 12/11/2011
The minute scientists admit that climate change is a natural thing, bang goes all their research grants along with all the taxpayers money that is being pumped into wind turbines, solar panels etc., that's where the scam part comes into it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norma Ward
03:29 PM on 12/10/2011
Here is an article that outlines how the world's Arctic ice distribution and thickness has changed over the past 3 decades:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-changing-arctic-is-change-permanent.html

Scientists note that the Arctic acts as the world's "canary in a coal mine" because changes in climate in the Arctic are amplified compared to what is observed at lower latitudes where most of humanity lives.
01:41 PM on 12/11/2011
why dont you mention the south pole where the ice is not only thicker but is expanding?
also the reason Greenland has its name is because it was just that. the Vikings settled there for several hundred years until the arrival of a mini ice age in the 15th century drove them out. so the climate was very different back then(pre industrial revolution) also of course just across the water was Vinland , believed to be called because of the grapes that grew there, but later believed to mean pasture land, good land.
the trouble is the flatearth climate change fascists hate history as it constantly disproves their lies.
03:23 PM on 12/10/2011
Thank god nothing is happening.

It is a complete joke, if people are not awake to the fact that billions of dollars is going to be made from this.

It is always the same, they take a problem which is real and blow it up x50 to make massive amounts of money.
cantabria
my default position is wrong
04:11 PM on 12/10/2011
The whole thing is a very very long gravy train. Unfortunately scientists pay their mortgages by staying on the train, if they get off they lose their jobs. As for the ice caps, they only compare the last 40 years of data in the arctic because that is all they have. The ice metlts in the summer and grows vback in the winter, surprise surprise. They admit that the Antarctic ice cap isn't shrinking (I would argue that the arctic isn't doing anything out of the ordinary either) and desperately try to come up with explainations like it's unusually cold or something due to wind. It's all very sad. personally I don't care if the earth warms up a bit and I'm a qualified climatologist!
04:53 PM on 12/10/2011
Nobody ever seems to remark that the thermometer was invented ~1560, more or less at the height of the Little Ice Age, which even global warmers have not yet been able to erase from the historic record, hard though they have tried to eliminate the mediaeval warm spell preceding. That being so, it is up all the way.
06:35 PM on 12/10/2011
Oh of course, there is a lot of money to be made by scientists thanks to their global warming theory. So much so that it pales in comparison to the money being made by the oil and coal industry who as we all know have very little lobbying clout when up against those greedy scientists.
11:55 PM on 12/10/2011
The scientists are making very little money.

Take a look at the carbon exchange program. The banks and people invested in the carbon trading are making billions.

Al gore made millions from the carbon trading.

It will always be about money in the end.

The cause started out as noble but it has been taken over by the money makers once more.