It regards the aftermath of the much-anticipated Copenhagen Conference on climate change (offically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or 'COP-15'), which took place between December 7th and 18th last year. Okay, the conference dragged on into the wee hours of December 19th amidst much hoopla about the 'dedication' being shown by world leaders in working so late into the night. Big deal. All this so they could supposedly try and 'get a deal'. Or rather, no deal.
Copenhagen was, quite frankly, a mess. There were initial attempts, particularly by the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and, to a lesser degree, the African bloc, to try and get developed and larger developing countries to commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 45& below 1990 levels by 2020. Furthermore, they pressed for a 'global peak' in carbon emissions by 2015 and a ceiling of a 2 degree Celsius rise in global mean temperature by 2020. Many hailed it the most effective science-based approach that could possibly affect the change needed to halt or at least slow down climate change.
No such luck.
Instead we got the pathetic and drippy-drab little 'Copenhagen Accord' signed by the USA, China, India, Brazil and (to my eternal embarrassment) South Africa. Much ado was made about the fact that four 'developing countries' were included in this group. Never mind that one of them (China) is today the largest carbon emitter (i.e. air polluter) in the world, with another fast catching up (India), with yet another in the top 10 of global emitters (Brazil) and the last still making it into top 15 globally (South Africa).
The USA, fast losing its mantle of 'main honcho on the block' (read: big fat bully) in world affairs, had to saddle up to the new big fat bully on the block, namely China, and the other three 'developing' wannabes just to give the impression of some semblance of an 'agreement' and 'openness'. Yeah, right.
Some agreement...
- Instead of a commitment to a ceiling of a 1.5 degree rise by 2020 (as requested by the AOSIS countries), they opted for a 2 degree rise as the limit - this in itself already dangerously close to what many climate scientists regard as the absolute maximum rise the Earth could take before a possible 'tipping point' into a no-mans land of possible climate scenarios where the outcomes are anyone's guess and, as such, very scary.
- No tangible commitment to a 'gobal peak' year or period was made.
- A 'soft target date' (UN-speak, not mine) of January 31st 2010 was stipulated as to when all countries would have to submit their proposals as to what pledges they would make with regard to combating climate change, whether they be 'developed' or 'developing' countries. (As an aside, I just love all these archaic 20th-century geopolitical terms still being used in the 21st century, don't you? Has no one told the United Nations that the Cold War is now quite over?)
- To its credit a fund of USD100-billion per annum was pledged in which developed countries will channel funds to developing countries in an effort to fight climate change in the developing world, where many of the negative impacts of climate change could occur. How the hell those funds will be effectively collected, channeled and used is anyone's guess, of course.
- There was also some well-intended piffle on halting deforestation. Uh huh. I hope you're listening, Brazil.
- But, most galling of all is that, after all those days in frigid Copenhagen, there was still no legally binding document signed by any of the parties! And that is not to mention the many, many days and countless meetings that were spent in other cities prior to Copenhagen in 'preparation' for Copenhagen. This in cities like Bali, Bonn, Barcelona (lots of letter 'Bs' there, if you hadn't noticed. I think the UN-global governmental gravy train had decided to move on to the letter 'C' with Copenhagen, what do you think?).
And still no binding agreement? Have you ever? In any other industry these people would all be fired for sheer incompetence.
And I am getting sick and tired of UN, governmental, certain NGO/ 'think tank' and other busybody types swanning around all over the world, spending billions of dollars in flights, top hotels, expensive conferences, expense accounts, etc etc, and not even achieving anything that is tangible, legally meaningful and ecologically effective! THAT really gets on my nerves.
And then they have the gall to patronize the rest of us by tut-tutting and saying nonsense along the lines of 'the process is complicated' or 'there are many different countries with different interests' etc. Yes, we know that. Don't state the bloody obvious, thank you very much. You're travelling way too much and staying in way too many good hotels and eating way too much good food at our collective global expense to keep coming up with those tired, pathetic excuses. Stop wasting all of our time. Our lives and the planet depend on it. Grazie!
I feel inclined to paraphrase Michael Moore here, when all I want to do is tell the whole ineffectual, self-important bunch to just shut up and go straight to their bedrooms!
And now? Well, the January 31st deadline has come and gone and - surprise! - not all countries have delivered their 'intentions' to the United Nations. It is considered positive that 55 countries had done so by February 3rd, including big polluters like China, the US and all 27 European Union states, accounting for "78%" of emitting nations worldwide. That does look fabulous in the first instance. And some of the pledges being made are supposedly very gracious:
- China set to reduce its 'carbon intensity' (a lawyer could have a field day with the ambiguity of just those two words) by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (never mind that they were already polluting like mad for years before 2005 as they chugged along being the Sweatshop to the World);
- India to reduce their 'carbon intensity' (there we go again) by 20-25% below 2005 levels by 2020 (less so re China, but still quite ditto);
- The United States to cut "by about" 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (don't even get me started on that pile of you-know-what for a 'commitment' from what was until very recently the world's biggest polluter);
- The EU pledges 20% below 1990 levels (which actually at least makes reference to the first 'level year' prescribed by that huge fiasco known as the Kyoto Protocol). Rather capriciously, the EU will pledge 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if other countries make similar pledges (is it any wonder that the likes of Machiavelli and Nietzsche were European?)
I am so not impressed by all of this because the lack of any of it being legally binding on any of these 'parties' continues to be, I believe, a huge stumbling block. Blame it on my legal background, but I'm a 'put-it-in-writing-and-sign-your-name-on-the-dotted-line-buddy' type of a guy. I know, very petty, very narrow of me.
I don't believe in diplomacy that is so loose it might as well be wearing a miniskirt and fishnet stockings and pulling the punters at the docks at midnight. Nor do I believe in agreements between nations that are...well...ahem...not even legally binding.
So, the uncertainty and the lack of real and meaningful political will regarding climate change continues in the aftermath of Copenhagen. So, the Arctic keeps slowly melting (see a dramatic pic of a 'melt lake' in the Arctic in this post) and the glaciers melt and the ocean already rises in the Pacific. And I'm supposed to be okay with this all this indecision and all this dilly-dallying nonsense. Well, I'm not.
Now there's hope that a possible new treaty might yet be signed at the next big conference (yes, more expensive flights and expensive hotels and expensive food) to be held in Cancun in Mexico in December. It was to have been held in Mexico City, but the UN-governmental flock clearly decided they'd rather be in Cancun. Who can blame them, right? And, after all, they had to stick to the letter 'C'.
By the way, on a final note, why is it that these people must keep flocking to lovely resort or coastal cities (the likes of Bali, Barcelona and now Cancun spring to mind) or other quite nice, usually wealthy urban cities (the likes of Montreal, Copenhagen and Kyoto also spring to mind)? Why not Ouagadougou? Or Kinshasa? Or Calcutta? I really think they should spread the love to every corner of the planet, grotty and poverty-stricken included.
Or, better still, I think they should come right here to Johannesburg and, most specifically, have their conference in Hillbrow, a highrise hell-hole district with the country's worst crime rate. Absolutely!
I'd happily be the events organizer for this international conference in Hillbrow. Really, I would. With pleasure. And I can just picture it:
I would suggest that they meet in broad daylight and right out in the open at the meeting of Pretoria and Kotze Streets. I would then insist, with impeccable South African hospitality, that the delegates be treated to the delightful spectacle of hordes of Nigerian druglords and Zimbabwean pimps on every balcony each pointing their AK-47s and Kalishnikovs down at the proceedings. Then we'll see just how 'long' and 'laborious' the negotiations will be in order for these world leaders and international busybodies to reach a meaningful, legally binding agreement on climate change. Once and for all.
Do you get my point?
No comments:
Post a Comment