Away from the photo ops, the decisions not taken at the latest world meet on climate change imperil human life on the planet, writes Curtis Doebbler* in Cancun, Mexico Climate talks have wound up in the Mexican resort of Cancun with a series of decisions that appear to be designed more to serve the egos of delegates than to combat the dangers of encroaching climate change. In an event that seemed more orchestrated than natural, first the president of the meeting and then the chairs of two working groups rode roughshod over the principle of consensus that had been the cornerstone of decision making in climate change talks. As if they had been synchronised, officials presiding over the meetings considering texts that emerged from secret consultations led by the Mexicans, the United States, the European Union and the four BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) repeatedly rejected Bolivia's attempts to object. This was accompanied by the efforts of a host of American and European diplomats who behind closed doors offered threats and bribes to small countries without the capacity or courage to stand by the positions that they had long espoused or which in some cases where vital to their very survival. Maldives Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam conceded emission cap uncertainties that will almost certainly lead to his country's complete submersion below the rising oceans. Nicaraguan Minister of National Policy Paul Oquist stood silently by as Bolivia tried to defend the protection of Mother Earth that Nicaraguan leaders had championed with the Bolivian president. And some African and Small Island State diplomats appeared more interested in shopping in the tourist markets of Cancun than in even attending the meetings, apparently having resigned themselves to defeat without even a slight effort to fight an agreement that could lead to deadly consequences for their people. In the end, it was a Mexican celebration where blindfolded revilers wildly swing at a colourfully painted piñata to the cheers of inebriated guests. The festivities reached their high point when in the closing session the Mexican president returned to the stage to claim his preordained victory, a victory of which in his celebratory speech he seemed to have little understanding. Indeed, after two weeks the end had come so quickly and so extraordinarily that most could hardly believe it was true. Indeed, in the 15 years of climate change negotiations, such euphoric disbelief has usually merely been an indication that the most vulnerable to climate change are in for even more suffering. The two texts that emerged after days of secret negotiations committed no countries to binding greenhouse gases emission limits. Only the United States had been wholeheartedly pushing for such weak limits. This was not surprising, considering that the US has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol that already contains emission limits for 191 countries. Although states agreed to work towards establishing further commitments to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, there is no obligation to actually establish these commitments. In other words, when the Kyoto Protocol commitments expire at the end of the 2012, there may well be no new commitments. This would seem to contradict Article 3(9) of the Kyoto Protocol that requires states to establish a new commitment period. But this legal obligation seemed less relevant for most delegates than their efforts to prove that the two weeks spent in Cancun were justified. Instead the texts vaguely point to a voluntary target of maintaining temperature changes of below 2 degrees Centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and the commitment (again voluntary) to reconsider in 2015 whether the target should be decreased to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Under the new texts all the emission and temperature limits become voluntary, as there may not even be legal binding obligations in the future. The two newly adopted texts provide states a loophole by which they can leave the Kyoto Protocol and migrate to a new treaty. Whether any new document will be legally binding, however, is a huge uncertainty. The United States says it will only accept a commitment if it is non-binding. Despite the apparent rebuke to the Kyoto Protocol, some saw this compromise as a glimpse of hope. Wendel Trio of Greenpeace International, for example, speaking at a press conference after the early morning sessions, said the decisions would "make it difficult for European countries to avoid a second commitment period". He acknowledged, however, that there was much work ahead. That there was still much to be done was the single matter that almost everyone agreed on. Whether the texts, which looked distinctly weaker than the negotiating text with which the conference had begun, where the way to get there was another question that begged a response that was not apparent in the exchange of accolades after the texts' adoption. The texts further call upon all states to peak their emissions "as soon as possible". While in principle this looks like a good idea for everyone, in reality it is mainly a burden on developing countries. Developed countries' emissions are so far behind those of developed countries as to be almost irrelevant. Moreover, developed countries' emissions are already peaking, but developing countries trying to achieve greater development are almost uniformly predicted to increase their emissions over at least the next 50 years. The requirement that they peak their emissions essentially straightjackets their development and will leave billions of the most vulnerable people in the world confined to poverty. Agreement was reached to establish a balanced system of monitoring, reporting, and verification and to establish a Green Climate Fund. Where the alleged start-up capital of $100 billion by 2020 would come from was, however, left ambiguous. The text even seemed to suggest that it might come from developing countries as well as developed countries. The $100 billion figure itself seemed problematic as simple math indicates that it is far less than the World Bank figure of over $725 billion a year that is needed to deal with climate change. The World Bank seemed to conveniently forget its own accounting; perhaps this was because it was offered a prominent role in the fund that will likely make its overhead costs almost equal to its disbursements to developing countries. Similarly short strides were made towards establishing a process for reducing emissions from deforestation and land degradation (known as REDD or REDD+). Again, the trade-off seemed to be between allowing rich countries to buy the resources of developing countries with the double return of carbon credits. This system of carbon trading has already been heavily criticised for actually intensifying emissions because it allows developed countries to buy the right to pollute from developing countries that would not have used that right in any case. While defended as a form of resource transfer to the global south, REDD+ projects often result in interest in developed countries earning back the money paid. For example, in a recent deal with Indonesia, Norway agreed to provide $1 billion to finance forest preservation for two years, but also locked in several commercial contracts related to the funding for its own companies. Although Norway exceptionally did not seek carbon credits -- because it does not need them -- it secured a significant public investment in its own economy that otherwise could have been seen as merely protecting its own industries. Little specific was also said about technology transfer, except that it will be financed from the new Green Climate Fund. Again, this appears to indicate that money will be recycled as most green technology carries heavy intellectual property right costs that go to companies in developed countries. Attempts to weaken intellectual property regimes appeared to fall subject to the political aspirations of Indian Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. Aspiring to become his country's prime minister, Ramesh seemed to believe that maintaining good relations with the United States and the European Union was more important than securing access to green technology. To add insult to the injury of many developing countries, many of their delegates were not even in room by the time the meeting closed. Their flights had been booked by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Secretariat so as to ensure that they were shipped out of town by the closing of the meeting, when decisions are usually made. The Secretariat's expediency might have been forgiven as a mere scheduling blunder had it not been readily apparent that the important decisions were usually made even after the scheduled end of the meeting. The Copenhagen Conference had run overtime and the chances were even greater that this would happen again this time, as indeed it did. In such circumstances, it looked suspiciously as if the UNFCCC Secretariat just does not think the presence of delegates from developing countries is as necessary as that of their richer northern counterparts. Throughout the two weeks the atmosphere at the sprawling Mayan Riveria Resort was somewhat reminiscent of the war on terror that had everyone concerned that the world would end in the wake of the violence that befell the United States on 11 September 2001. This time it is the new US Democratic administration's climate negotiators that are trying to scare the dickens out of just about everyone by threatening to "go rogue", as Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones put it in an interview with The Huffington Post, if no agreement on emission cuts is reached. Despite extorting their openness and inclusiveness ad nauseam, the Mexican government, as it often does, eventually succumbed to this pressure to deliver what its more affluent northern neighbour wanted. A key part of this strategy was silencing the voices of civil society. In Cancun, the UNFCCC Secretariat took extraordinary steps to muzzle any voices speaking for the most vulnerable people. Diplomats who did not agree with the direction of secret consultations, or who threatened to expose them, were sometimes obstructed from entering or leaving the meeting rooms. For example, after a press conference by the critical Bolivian President Evo Morales, UNFCCC staff tried to prevent him from leaving the room for no apparent reason. The action seemed silly and had little success against the brigade of presidential guards accompanying the head of state. The voice of civil society was also almost completely eliminated from the consultations that took place behind closed doors. Even the civil society forum was hidden away in the Yucatan jungle, more an hour from the formal meeting and with little transport available to reach it. From the perspective of civil society it appeared that the event had been staged with a predetermined outcome that had little to do with trying to protect our planet from climate change. The Americans and some other powerful countries might think that a global forum for discussing climate change is not appropriate. This is not new. They have been acting like this for the last 10 years. But such scepticism of the United Nations forum is more reflection of ignorance and a lack of common sense than the forum being something to be scared about. Instead of the euphoric emotions of pride and congratulations that many delegates tried to portray, it is likely that Cancun will be remembered more for the backsliding that took place. Once again, our representatives from around the world had a chance to take responsible action, but they failed to act responsibly to reverse dangerous climate change. Instead, our leaders took a series of "feel good" decisions. They tried to put a smiling face on an otherwise disastrous Conference of the Parties that left us further away from the necessary action on climate change than when we started. Such digression reflects a dangerous and forced consensus. Bolivia, the only courageous defender of the integrity that was needed, tried but failed to prevent this coerced consensus. In history, Cancun, a site associated with enlightenment, may now go down on record as the city where we could have saved the world from global warming, but we did not act responsibly enough to do so. * The writer is a prominent international human rights lawyer.
