Nobody seems to hope for a binding, comprehensive deal and thunderous applause resounds if some political daredevil feels up to predict progress in some individual policy area such as the protection of forests and the transfer of technologies. Surely these domains are very important, but a lot more will be needed to finally start effectively tackling global warming.
Even the European Union - generally regarded as the world-wide pioneer in combating climate change - has lowered its ambitions and now only promotes a “step-wise approach” in Cancún. Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, stated bluntly in a speech to the European Parliament on 24 November that “the legally-binding deal that the EU was ready for last year and that we are still ready for will, unfortunately, not be the outcome of Cancún – not because of us, but because others are not ready for it”.
Isn’t this a strange position for the EU to take when the negotiations were yet to be started? The ultimate talks to reach a binding international deal on a post-Kyoto framework for greenhouse-gas reductions do apparently not only risk to fail in Cancún, according to the EU they have already failed. Therefore the EU will focus on several individual aspects of a possible global deal such as “the need to anchor mitigation pledges, set up an enhanced system for Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) and promote the carbon markets”.
Public support will fade out if world leaders once again fail to maintain the momentum and take on real, effective and credible commitments to stop global warming.
While it is true that progress in these fields would be better than nothing, by stating this in advance the EU regrettably undermined its negotiating position, missed a unique opportunity to leave its mark and irreversibly damaged its credibility and legitimacy as a champion in combating climate change. It even seems as if the EU wanted to safeguard against the Copenhagen critique that it failed to speak with a single European voice, by simply lowering the public expectations in advance.
However, not only the EU’s credibility is at stake in Mexico. The whole system of international climate talks is at risk of becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the world population. Public support will fade out if world leaders once again fail to maintain the momentum and take on real, effective and credible commitments to stop global warming.
Only a robust, binding and enforceable international agreement that involves all countries and sets out clear goals and commitments managed, monitored and evaluated by strong and well- functioning international institutions, will be able to bring the necessary change of policy and minds. Moreover such an agreement may not bypass the huge responsibilities of developed countries and must take into account the vulnerability and special needs of developing countries.
Facing the enormous challenges for our planet and its citizens the Cancún talks cannot afford to fail and a step-wise approach to tackle climate change will simply not suffice.
1. On 15 January 2011 at 20:58, by ?
Replying to: A step-wise approach to tackle climate change will simply not suffice
THE DENIERS HAVE WON As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, just to get them to turn the lights out more often. I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling: cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of impossible climate control. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD. I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:
– that it was the trusted scientists we bowed to and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place. We former believers admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?
Follow the comments:
|
