Two weeks of deliberations between 192 countries: is it a deal or isn’t it a deal? When is a ‘deal’ meaningless?
Since 1972 world leaders have held talks on climate change and our impacts upon it – from; Stockholm to Nairobi, from Rio to Kyoto, what do these summits have in common? They share a failure to address the problem in a satisfactory, meaningful manner.
Statesmen
Prince Charles addressed the conference in Copenhagen and probably gave the most pointed message of all: the need to set aside national differences and agree a global warming accord before it is too late.
That statement has more meaning than most could possibly comprehend, as it identifies the biggest failure of the human race: greed and ignorance. In the days of the cave men, being highly competitive may have been a distinct advantage but for some their food came in short supply. We changed from hunter gathers to farmers but with a global population approaching seven billion people, land and water are now resources under pressure.
We are facing probably the largest potential threat to our existence and still we do nothing.
The whole concept of western values needs to be addressed. We cannot hope to continue expanding, often in profit driven initiatives. Earth has its limits and in effect is the ‘box’ whose resources we must sustain for the sake of our own survival – from the raw materials that produce the products; to the waste materials that are the consequences; to the throwaway society the western world has become. Built in obsolescence as a profit-engine needs to be rethought.
All of these western world attributes have the effect on the globe we have chosen to call the ‘carbon footprint’. This has now been made worse on a colossal scale as countries like China and India strive to raise their standards of living to that of the western world. These standards are not sustainable using current methods of energy production.
The ‘Earth’ Summits
Stockholm was the first of the ‘environment’ conferences. 113 countries took part and the aim was, for the first time, to look at our activities in relation to our environment. We knew back in 1972 that we had to reduce the impact on the environment.
Stockholm was followed by the ‘Stockholm Plus Ten’ Conference. The 1982 conference was held in Nairobi. Like Copenhagen, both failed to produce any tangible developments that would actually address the problems to which the world stood witness.
The ‘Earth’ Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was the first big break-through. Here 178 countries took part, one of the main aims was to address human impact on the earth’s environmental systems. The term ‘sustainability’, came to the forefront. What made this conference shine above its predecessors is that the environment and development were considered together.
The danger that we have witnessed locally with marine developments in Argyll and seen enshrined at the Copenhagen conference, is that development takes precedence over the environment. This is a blinkered value set and one that takes us right back to where we started – being unsustainable.
The Rio Declaration articulated 27 principles of environment and development, Agenda 21, took the principle of environmental protection and sustainable development to the next level. The concept of ‘Climate Change‘ was signed up to by 180 countries. The need to protect ‘Biological Diversity‘ was signed up to by 154 countries. These were adopted by consensus.
The Rio Summit produced the backbone for the Kyoto Convention and Protocol, which set, for the first time, obligatory targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The Protocol produced a landmark in climate change and the way we think about climate change but more importantly it recognised that the developed countries since the industrial revolution were responsible for their emissions. 184 countries approved the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. It took effect in 2005, and the ‘carbon market’ was born.
Copenhagen
But what about ‘beyond Kyoto’? This is what the Copenhagen Conference was supposed to deliver. It was bedevilled by problems from leaked scientific emails to the US President not having the backing to implement anything conclusive. This all took its toll throughout the two weeks of deliberations.
Some of the African nations walked out as they felt that the developed nations were not taking the matter seriously. Then, at the eleventh hour, the United States’ President Obama suggested that a ‘meaningful agreement’ had been reached between the US, China, India and South Africa.
But, since this was had not been agreed or even seen by the majority of conference members, the enevitable happened.
Hot off the press as this article was completed on 19th December came the headline from the Daily Telegraph: Copenhagen Climate Summit confusion as Historic Deal Descends into Chaos.
The Climate Conference ended with headlines of: ‘Tempers Flared, Africa to sign a suicide pact’, and comments like: ‘the worst plenary I have ever attended’.
Greenpeace summed up the events: there are:no targets for carbon cuts; and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. It seems there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest’.
Maldives
Interestingly enough one government that has been in the forefront of climate change talks recently is the Maldives government. With most of its islands little more than a few meters above sea level, it has a lot to play for.
The Maldives may be backing the Obama package but this could be down to the seduction of massive financial gains – again a short term solution for those in power.
The pictures that accompany this article are from the Maldives, the coral reefs make up an important part of the islands protection and habitat for biodiversity. Coral reef structure and lifespan goes through a process of; ‘Keep-up; Catch-up;- Give-up’. It looks like the Maldives may be in the ‘give-up’ stage. They were recently in the news for holding a Cabinet Meeting underwater - see it on You Tube .
The world’s regions of coral reefs have something in common with Argyll and the Scottish coast – an amazing amount of biological diversity or biodiversity. This in turn equates to biomass, food stocks and marine resources, all of which are vulnerable to climate change and people pressure.
We may be too late to stop climate change but we can slow down the cause and we might be able to prevent the dangerous state, the ‘tipping point’, the point of no return. To do that, we must act – and now.
Leaders that can’t lead
As we reach a stage where the earth cannot cope with the industrial scale of emissions and extractions, we have also reached a point where short term politicians cannot deal beyond their short terms of office? We need a process where statesmen and stateswomen take over vitally important environmental issues and get them out of the control of short term interests.
They have to be beyond the domain of political bargaining and in the hands of experts and responsible people. Will it happen? Happy New Year.
Mark Carter, Environment Editor
The photographs above – of endangered corals in the Maldives – are by the copyright holder, Mark Carter and may not be reproduced without permission.
References
- Obama administration official announcement: The United States, China, India and South Africa have reached a meaningful agreement on climate change Friday evening. (Photo: Scanpix/New York Times)
- Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets.
- The Rio Earth Summit
Pingback: rssChngzNtheAir (David)