Kyoto can't be conked. And, the African chorus in Copenhagen cannot be silenced, trumpets Gamal Nkrumah Africa holds a special place in the Western world's popular imagination. And, especially in the United States, where for the first time in history a president of African American descent is at the helm in the White House. After flying to Oslo to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize, he pledged in Copenhagen to "put on the table" a US commitment to cut emissions by 17 per cent over the next decade. Obama's promise did not go down well with the people of his ancestral continent. African delegates had high expectations for the Copenhagen Climate Summit. The Kyoto Protocol is a prerequisite cornerstone of anything meaningful that emerges from Copenhagen. The problem is that the US is determined to wreck the Kyoto Protocol, to make it redundant and irrelevant. That is precisely what the African nations and other developing countries are objecting to. The Kyoto Protocol forces rich nations to reduce greenhouse emissions and to compensate poor countries for the disastrous impact of the global climate change on their economies and repercussions on their societies. "We are certainly not going to become part of the Kyoto Protocol, so that is not on the table," Todd Stern, the US chief climate change negotiator, told reporters in Copenhagen. Worse, Stern made it crystal clear that the US would not accept any attempt to make Copenhagen acceptable by candy- coating Kyoto. "If you mean basically taking the Kyoto Protocol and putting a new title on it, we are not going to do that either," Stern warned sternly. He did, however, concede that the US contributed to greenhouse emissions and therefore has to stand up to its responsibility of remedying the situation. The question is how? "We absolutely recognise our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere up there," Stern said. The "one agreement, two step" blueprint in the words of Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen is not to the liking of the Africans or of other less developed countries. The "one agreement" signifies a consensus in Copenhagen which would be the first step in a process towards an international legally binding climate treaty. The "two step" is the long term process of implementing the legally binding details of an operational. The least developed, poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world object to this blatant attempt by rich and mighty to pull the wool over their eyes. As far as they are concerned, Rasmussen and his ilk are playing with words. Africa can no longer stomach lies and semantic games. The G8 scheme works against the interests of the developing countries and is detrimental to their wellbeing. The crux of the matter is to keep global temperatures from rising any higher than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels as agreed upon in the G8 rich nations' plan to combat global warming. It is estimated that because of demographic factors, developing countries will account for half of global emissions by 2020. This, however, is no excuse to arrest the development of emerging economies for the sake of placating Western powers which have contributed and will continue to contribute in the future far more to global warming on a per capital basis, and adamantly refuse to sign up to binding carbon cuts. The West and the developing countries have been trading accusations for some time now. The US did not promulgate cap-and-trade legislation before the conference as did most other countries, including the poorest ones that are most vulnerable to cyclones, tidal surge, floods, desertification and other forces majeures. They need to reach some compromise; however, it is the wealthy powers that have to give in to the demands of the poor, to demonstrate magnanimity because they can afford to be generous. The poor nations of Africa cannot afford to be generous. This is not because they are uncharitable, but rather because they are at the forefront of the calamitous consequences of climate change. The evidence of climate shifts is becoming ever- increasingly obvious. Climate change can lead to severe agricultural and demographic decline in developing countries. Indeed, low-lying Pacific and Indian Ocean islands such as the Maldives, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Palau are in danger of being entirely submerged. Moreover, densely populated river deltas are in danger of being washed away -- the Nile Delta in Egypt and the coastal areas of Bangladesh are cases in point. Large-scale migrations can ensue, bringing the development process to a complete halt, and -- rich countries take note -- disrupting developed world societies at the same time. The West remains the world's largest emitter. China is not the main culprit the West contends. China has the right to take its time. There is also no urgent need for Beijing to comply with Washington's dictates concerning intrusive monitoring. China is, after all, a developing country, an emerging economy and the world's second largest economy after the US. India, too, shares China's fear that climate change would be used as an excuse to try to slowdown the phenomenal economic growth of developing countries. "Obviously, India's stance on climate change is quite different from that of the US and there are many things in the US policy that I strongly disagree with," India's chief negotiator Chandrasekhar Dasgupta told reporters at Copenhagen.
