快猫短视频

Another year wasted by climate negotiators

In agreeing to reach another agreement, delegates in Doha followed a well-worn and tiresome path of procrastination

INTERNATIONAL climate change talks turned 18 earlier this month, but there was little sign that their wasted youth is over. The , might have ended with an apparent victory for developing nations, but in reality the world is barely any nearer to facing up to its responsibilities.

First the good news. Rich countries have conceded that they should help poor countries cope with the harm they will suffer as the world warms. With dangerous climate change now almost inevitable, developing countries need this lifeline (see 鈥Doha summit launches climate damage aid鈥).

The agreement could have a useful knock-on effect, pressuring developed countries to take action on their own emissions. If they do not make cuts, they could ultimately face a much larger bill for damages.

But for all the fanfare, it was an agreement in principle only. The treaty signed at Doha did not establish a mechanism for compensation, or commit any money. Instead, it made a promise to set something up at next year鈥檚 conference. The text thus follows a well-worn and tiresome path of procrastination.

In Bali in 2007, nations agreed to establish a binding treaty by the end of 2009. That promise was broken when the 2009 Copenhagen summit collapsed. Cancun 2010 agreed on virtually nothing except to meet again in 2011. Durban 2011 agreed to agree on a new treaty by 2015. Every year, delegates use the same tactic to give the appearance of action, but achieve nothing in practice.

In some respects, Doha was a step backwards. The biggest breakthrough in Copenhagen came when developed countries promised to give money to poor countries to help them adapt. Yet Doha saw this commitment placed on the back burner.

After the conference , the UK鈥檚 secretary of state for energy and climate change, was harangued by a young delegate for agreeing such a feeble treaty. Davey responded that he would have liked to have done more but had to 鈥渓ive in the real world鈥. His meaning is clear, but the real real world is not one of endless diplomatic quibbling. It is one of rising seas and deadly storms. The negotiations have long since lost touch with it.

Topics: Climate change / Environment