icrn phw energy cse dte gobar times rwh csestore iep aaeti

CoP18, Doha: a gateway that leads nowhere

0 Comments
Posted on: 12 Dec, 2012

Doha climate talks score very low – perhaps fatally low – on the ambition to keep the world within safe limits, says Sunita Narain
 
It was a nail-biting end that came in a no-ball game. For the past 20 years, the world has been haggling about who will cut greenhouse gas emissions and how much. In the same 20 years, the science of climate change has become more certain. The world is beginning to witness what the future will look like—more extreme events like the typhoon Bopha and the tropical storm Sandy are expected to cripple life and livelihoods across the world. In fact, as the leader of the Philippine delegation emotionally pointed out, the world is running out of time—his ocean nation has seen 17 killer typhoons in the past year.

But even as science has become more certain, action has become uncertain. Take the Doha package, for instance: it is full of words, but no action. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) has been agreed upon, but with weak targets and loopholes. The US has not agreed to any meaningful emission reduction. The financial package is a broken promise.

Silver lining

But Doha is still significant for one thing: the fact that the world has not dismantled the principles that will govern its efforts to cut emissions. These principles, after the bitterest of fights, have been retained and strengthened. The outcome of the conference states that efforts of Parties will be taken on the “basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.

For the US, the issue of equity in the allocation of responsibility has been a red line. The US delegation has made its complete aversion to any mention of the words “equity” or “historical emissions” very clear; its stand has been almost tantamount to open blackmail. At the Copenhagen CoP in 2009, bowing to US pressure, these words had been erased from the document.

In the Durban Platform (ADP) negotiations, which will now work to build the agreement for emissions reductions post-2020, the word “equity” has not been used for this reason. But instead, it has been agreed, that action will be “under the climate convention”, which in turn is embedded within the framework of equity.

It is no surprise then that the US made its reservation and right to future rejection known on these two references. In the final plenary, US climate czar Todd Stern said in no uncertain words that his government will “revoke all attempts to invoke” these principles.

Now that the world has to come together to raise its ambition to meet the climate change challenge, the issues of who will cut and how much will have to be decided urgently. The US opposition to using the principle of equity and historical emissions will clearly make the road bumpy and more difficult to traverse.

Agenda for CoP 19

Doha also agreed, importantly, to include the principle of “loss and damage”—estimating the economic and livelihood cost of the growing impacts of climate change to the most vulnerable. This is crucial, as extreme weather events are devastating nations and their economies. It is also agreed that there are linkages between extreme weather events and slow-onset events – the variable rains that lead to droughts, for instance. This was the key demand of island nations and least developed countries. They wanted a mechanism to estimate and compensate for these damages. After much resistance, again from the US, it has been agreed that the world will decide on this mechanism by CoP 19 – to be held in Poland next year.

Doha failed because here, the world agreed not to raise its level of ambition to meet the giga-tonne and financial gap in climate negotiations. It had been agreed at the Bali conference in 2007 that the industrialised world needed to cut 45 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2020 to enable a temperature increase of 1.5-2°C – considered to be safe levels.

It was agreed that this would be done by Kyoto Protocol (KP) parties by increasing their levels of ambition and by non-Kyoto Protocol parties, mainly the US, by cutting emissions at ‘comparable’ levels.

Deadly course

The KP was given its second commitment period – in other words, there is a continuation of a multilateral and rule-based regime to reduce emissions. But the targets set by its Party countries are weak and meaningless. The agreement has been weakened also by the fact that there are huge amounts emissions that are available to countries like Russia to trade and sell in this commitment period because their economies collapsed after the agreement was signed. These assigned amount units (AAUs) were fought for at Doha as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine struggled to keep these emissions free to trade. The final agreement was not satisfactory to Russia, even as European Union and all other KP parties pledged that they would not buy these “hot air” emissions.

The US, which was to cut “comparable” levels of emissions, has agreed only to reduce by three per cent over 1990 levels. Its target is a cruel joke on the planet.

Doha scores very low – perhaps fatally low – on the ambition to keep the world within safe limits. The world is on course for a deadly 2.5 to 5°C increase in temperature, which would be catastrophic by any count. If there is hope, it lies in the fact that the world has, in Doha, agreed to strengthen the framework for future action. But it is action that is needed now. In the words of the delegate from typhoon-struck Philippine: “If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where?”

doha

 

 

 

AddThis

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


(Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.)

Sign in to post

Contributors

RBI Chair Professor of Economics
Sustainable Finance Project Officer
Assistant Professor, TISS, Mummbai
National Institute of Malaria Research, Guwahati
Director of Indian Institute of Public Health, Gandhi Nagar
Manager of Médecins Sans Frontières's Access Campaign in India
Gujarat-based environment activist
Consultant, CSE
Independent researcher working on poverty, public public policy and governance
Researcher with the Centre for Equity Studies in New Delhi
South Asia Program Director at International Rivers
Policy Director at International Rivers
Independent Weather Forecaster, METD WEATHER
National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and former UN water expert
Project Officer, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Programme Director, CSE
works with Shola Trust, a non-profit involved in nature conservation in the Nilgiri region of South India
Trustee, Save Animals Initiative Sanctuary Trust, Karnataka
Vice-president
Activist and researcher
Activist and researcher
Programme director (HealthBridge Foundation of Canada)
Programme Director, CSE
Professor, NIUA
Earth system scientist
Consultant, Social Sector
Researcher
Journalist
Food and nutrition consultant
Assistant Professor, IG Medical College, Shimla
Programme manager, Food Safety and Toxins, CSE
Associate Professor of Environmental Sociology at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, USA
Visiting professor of economics at Mount Holyoke College, USA
Former Deputy Director at the National Institute of Nutrition Hyderabad
Works with indigenous groups in the Nilgiris and writes about dalits and other marginalised communities
Convenor and Head of Jiye Yamuna Abhiyan
Managing Trustee, Wildlife First
Fellow and Convenor, Centre for Environment and Development Studies
Associate Professor, Ambedkar University
Shuba V Raghavan is an independent energy policy analyst
Professor and Dean, Faculty of Planning, CEPT University
Senior reporter, Down To Earth
Reporter, Down To Earth
Research Associate, CSE
Co-director, Anthra
Director, Research Centre for Internet and Society
Programme Officer, Right to Clean Air Campaign (CSE)
Research Associate, Green Rating Project (CSE)
Research Associate
Heads the Division of Policy Planning, and Training & Capacity Development at India's National Institute of Disaster Management at IIPA campus in New Delhi
DG, Amity Institute for Herbal and Biotech Products Development
Associate Global Co-ordinator of the Peoples Health
Senior Fellow with SOPPECOM, Pune
Principal Scientist with NISTADS, New Delhi
Co-founder, Nature Conservation Foundation
Assistant Professor, IISc
Science communicator with Vigyan Prasar, New Delhi
Chief Copy Editor, Down To Earth
Reporter, Down To Earth
Programme Director, CSE
Wildlife biologist
Senior Editor, Down To Earth
Deputy Programme Manager, CSE
News Editor, Down To Earth
Science Editor, Down To Earth
Senior Editor, Down To Earth
Secretary with Vikas Samvad Human Development and Food Rights Resource Center
Deputy Director General, CSE
Features Editor, Down To Earth
Editor, Down To Earth
CSE WEBNET
Follow us ON
Follow grebbo on Twitter    Google Plus  DTE Youtube  rss