Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/the-durban-subversion-12156.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The Durban Subversion | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

The Durban Subversion

-EPW

 

A paradigm shift on global strategy, but will it make a difference to climate change or only pass the buck?

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban ended dramatically with a last minute agreement of sorts, which only talks about more talks to arrive at some kind of legally binding instrument that will impose emission curbs on all countries from 2020. The agreement is simply not enough in the face of growing evidence that urgent action is needed today, not tomorrow, or the day after to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the acknowledged risk of a rise in global temperature ­beyond 2 ­degrees Celsius. The summit also saw the effective burial of the 1997 K­yoto Protocol and with it, whatever the spin of the I­ndian delegation, the idea of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR).

The final outcome in the form of the Durban Platform exposes the refusal of industrialised countries, which are responsible for the historical accumulation of greenhouse gases, to accept their primary responsibility in resolving this global environmental crisis. Since the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the European Union (EU), backed by the United States (US), has strategised and now virtually succeeded in ensuring that CBDR – the most significant principle on which the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was based – is set aside in any future instrument.

The Durban deal states that by 2015 “a Protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all” will be ready and made actionable by 2020. How will responsibilities be assigned if the CBDR principle is no more the central determinant? Since Copenhagen, the EU and the US have argued that China (which in absolute terms, not per capita, is the largest emitter) and other large developing countries like India, Brazil and South Africa must also be bound by legally binding emission limits. They hold that the world has moved on since Kyoto was negotiated and that it cannot be d­ivided into two halves – developed and developing. The argument of China and India that they should not be so constrained as they still have to deal with an enormous burden of poverty despite high growth has not found enough support, even amongst their G-77 allies.

This lack of support was on display in Durban where the EU clearly pulled off a diplomatic coup by getting the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and even South Africa and Brazil on its side as it pushed ahead with its version of the final deal. The US, which has determinedly r­emained outside Kyoto because it refuses to accept CBDR, made supportive noises since specific mention of this principle was excluded. Of course, whether this half-hearted support in D­urban will eventually result in it coming on board at any f­uture date depends on whether President Barack Obama, who has gone back on many “green” pledges, is re-elected in 2012 and a host of other internal factors. With Russia, Japan and now Canada pulling out, it is evident that for all practical purposes, the Kyoto Pro­tocol is dead even if the EU is prepared to voluntarily commit to abiding by it for another five years ­beyond 2012. This will hardly make a dent on greenhouse gas emissions.

So where does all this leave the future of dealing with climate change? The science of it is becoming clearer by the day. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present its next report in 2014. Just before Cancun last year, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced the startling Emissions Gap Report which clearly showed that even in the best-case scenario, if countries adhered to most of their commitments to curb emissions, there would a 9 gigatonne emissions gap b­etween what is a tolerable limit of additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and what will actually be emitted by 2020. This will guarantee a rise in temperature in the range of 3 to 4 degrees – well beyond the limit of 2 degrees.

If the science is clear, then why are governments dragging their feet? Barring a few exceptions, most of the 37 Annex I countries (the developed economies) in the Kyoto Protocol have used offsets – such as buying carbon credits under the dubious Clean Development Mechanism – rather than making actual cuts that speak of a change of lifestyle to meet emission targets.

Both China (which will surpass the EU by 2020 on per capita emissions) and India also need to adopt strategies that indicate a serious effort to move towards lower carbon intensity without compromising their need to grow.

If India hopes to have any say in the new instrument that will replace the Kyoto Protocol, it will need to project a more responsible and proactive approach and not just a reactive one, as it did in Durban. The small island nations and the LDCs should be ­India’s natural allies in any future negotiations. But to win them back, it will need to move beyond its one-point plan of speaking about equity without demonstrating any commitment to com­bating climate change. This is the lesson it should draw from Durban. Otherwise, a future treaty is likely to consist of poor countries being forced to make real cuts in emissions, while the rich get away with business as usual even as they buy up carbon credits from the poor.