Yesterday was the last scheduled day for the U.N. Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa. No agreement was reached. That has lead to an extension of negotiations into today. However, the BBC reports that no deal has yet been reached, and it may remain unreachable. If you remember, a few days ago Caritas Internationalis President Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga likened a failure at the talks to "moral apartheid".
If no new treaty or agreement can be reached by the end of today, it is likely that the climate conference will close. That means no country will be signing a binding resolution to cut back emissions, or in very weakest attempt, extend the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year. If the Kyoto Protocol is allowed to expire with no new agreement in place, that means all countries are legally allowed to emit any level of greenhouse gases they so desire. Also at stake, funding for the poorer nations who are affected the most by climate change. That funding, which was supposed to be agreed upon at this conference, was to help the very poor nations deal with the disasters that are plaguing their countries due to an unstable climate.
The closest deal in place has been one that the EU is pushing. It calls for a new mandate by 2015, and a treaty that is enacted no later than 2020. That sounds eerily similar to the United States proposal that no new treaty be enforced until 2020. It remained unclear from the BBC article, however, if the U.S. had any direct influence on the EU-backed agreement. In fact, the EU and its partners, AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and LDC (Least Developed Countries), have been struggling to get at least one of the big emitters - Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States - to sign on to the agreement. So if the U.S. had any influence on the timing outlined in the agreement, they certainly are not liking the final product that is being squabbled about. But when have they ever signed onto any international climate agreement?
Many international representatives and advocacy groups are calling on the nations who are for the EU proposal to sign it and put it into place. They say it is time to send the U.S. the very clear message that it has been left behind and is no longer needed to acheive an international deal. While the U.S. is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and something needs to be done to curb that, I agree with the aforementioned representatives. At the very least, we can have a binding resolution that many developed and underdeveloped countries will adhere to. That is something. It is not the best, but at this point, we can't settle for nothing.
We must do something about mitigating climate change. If the big emitters can't bring themselves to act in the best interest of the planet and the entire human race, then they should be justifiably left behind. The only caveat I would add, is that these big emitters be left out of all other international negotiations of any kind. Whether it be economical, peace, climate, or otherwise. Until they show a willingness to be a part of the human race and greater good, they should not be allowed to call the shots on any matter. That is the only fair and just thing to do. That may be the only discipline that would help them get the message. It's time that nations like the U.S. got the message and got on board with the facts.
The climate talks may leave the world empty handed. We may get no new treaty. I hope they will come together and get something in place by the end of today, but if it doesn't, all those concerned about the environment, global warming, and the human race need to band together and move to make each nation develop and enact climate-saving plans in the next two years. An ambitious goal, but one we cannot stand to miss.
If no new treaty or agreement can be reached by the end of today, it is likely that the climate conference will close. That means no country will be signing a binding resolution to cut back emissions, or in very weakest attempt, extend the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year. If the Kyoto Protocol is allowed to expire with no new agreement in place, that means all countries are legally allowed to emit any level of greenhouse gases they so desire. Also at stake, funding for the poorer nations who are affected the most by climate change. That funding, which was supposed to be agreed upon at this conference, was to help the very poor nations deal with the disasters that are plaguing their countries due to an unstable climate.
The closest deal in place has been one that the EU is pushing. It calls for a new mandate by 2015, and a treaty that is enacted no later than 2020. That sounds eerily similar to the United States proposal that no new treaty be enforced until 2020. It remained unclear from the BBC article, however, if the U.S. had any direct influence on the EU-backed agreement. In fact, the EU and its partners, AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and LDC (Least Developed Countries), have been struggling to get at least one of the big emitters - Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States - to sign on to the agreement. So if the U.S. had any influence on the timing outlined in the agreement, they certainly are not liking the final product that is being squabbled about. But when have they ever signed onto any international climate agreement?
Many international representatives and advocacy groups are calling on the nations who are for the EU proposal to sign it and put it into place. They say it is time to send the U.S. the very clear message that it has been left behind and is no longer needed to acheive an international deal. While the U.S. is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and something needs to be done to curb that, I agree with the aforementioned representatives. At the very least, we can have a binding resolution that many developed and underdeveloped countries will adhere to. That is something. It is not the best, but at this point, we can't settle for nothing.
We must do something about mitigating climate change. If the big emitters can't bring themselves to act in the best interest of the planet and the entire human race, then they should be justifiably left behind. The only caveat I would add, is that these big emitters be left out of all other international negotiations of any kind. Whether it be economical, peace, climate, or otherwise. Until they show a willingness to be a part of the human race and greater good, they should not be allowed to call the shots on any matter. That is the only fair and just thing to do. That may be the only discipline that would help them get the message. It's time that nations like the U.S. got the message and got on board with the facts.
The climate talks may leave the world empty handed. We may get no new treaty. I hope they will come together and get something in place by the end of today, but if it doesn't, all those concerned about the environment, global warming, and the human race need to band together and move to make each nation develop and enact climate-saving plans in the next two years. An ambitious goal, but one we cannot stand to miss.
No comments:
Post a Comment