COP17: The Big Cop Out?
Late last year, Durban, South Africa’s third largest city, was pushed onto the world’s stage as leaders, environmentalists and politicians invaded the city in their swarms to attend the Climate Change Conference: COP17/CMP7. The agenda – to solve climate change. Or at least that was the plan…
The excitement and anxiety was palpable. An international event of this scale hadn’t been hosted in Durban, well since the FIFA World Cup, and much like then small talk no longer involved a person’s current state of well-being but whether they were attending the conference. According to the Cape Times the conference, held at the International Convention Center, cost about R400m (US$50m) and brought in R500m (approx. US$62m) of business revenues. In terms of numbers the conference was the second biggest in UN history. All this geared up for a promising conference. However, the excitement quickly fizzled, as it became apparent that politics, more than anything else, would determine the fate of climate change policy.
Delegates arrived in Durban on Nov 28 and almost immediately the commitment of the World’s biggest polluters came into question. With the impending end of the Kyoto protocol at the end of this year, the first item on the agenda was getting a new global agreement, in the form of the Green Climate Fund (GCF): a fund designed to provide nearly US$100bn a year to developing countries for climate change relief. So the aim was to renew Kyoto and implement Green Climate Fund, but as always in politics not all the players play along.
In one corner there was BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, Indian and China) fighting for Kyoto, the EU backing the GCF, the Island states (AOSIS) screaming for their lives, and the rest twiddling their thumbs. The rhetoric was familiar, developed nations argued that developing countries should now also contribute to curbing climate change, and developing nations arguing that now it was their turn to grow and prosper (ie. at the expense of the environment).
The rifts started to show when Canada threatened to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, citing that major polluters such as China and India were not covered by the treaty, or so they said. And although the country didn’t hold this viewpoint alone, it was quickly singled out as the pariah of the conference. Canada went on to win a total of 12 “Fossil of the Day” awards. An award given on a daily basis to the country that most effectively blocked negotiations at the conference. On Monday, the 12th of December, after two days of extended negotiations, the country followed through and pulled out the treaty. To onlookers it simply allowed a glimpse of the political game regarding all things climate change.
Cartoon by popular South African cartoonist Zapiro ( "big coal" is South Africa)
Canada was not the only country blocking negotiations at the conference. Russia, the US and Saudi Arabia (part of the Opec negotiating block) voiced similar opinions regarding the Kyoto protocol. The planned negotiations turned into a series of power show downs and child like stubbornness. Worst of all it brought South Africa’s ability to be a major player on the international stage into question. It is true that, as the host, it was South Africa’s responsibility to run proceedings effectively and to set the tone of the conference. With negotiations stretching late into the nights two days after the official end of the conference, and no definitive objective regarding a replacement for Kyoto, NGO’s, activists and delegates alike have questioned the success of the conference and South African diplomacy.
So the mood may have gotten sour, but if there’s one thing South Africa has always been good at is activism. With a strong civil society it set the perfect stage to allow activist groups such as Greenpeace to make their voices heard. Their slogan for the conference “Listen to the people, not the polluters” became a popular anthem amongst those that were following the conference.
The climate change debate is never an easy one, particularly now that the world’s poorest may have a chance out of poverty, and yet doing nothing will leave them more vulnerable than ever. And the rich? They just don’t have the money.
It might have been wishful thinking that in the wake of one of the worst economic crisis in modern history, and sovereign debt at an all time high, governments would commit their pocket books to environmental protection. But one never dares to stop dreaming.
The agreement which was reached in Durban was certainly not a victory, given the urgency that Climate Change demands of us. The Kyoto protocol in its current form is inadequate, and is not binding for the US (and now Canada) who is a major polluter. On the positive side, reaching some agreement was important, in that it forced nations to communicate and negotiate which may provide a platform for future rounds of negotiation. Kumi Naidoo of Green Peace has suggested that the agreement is merely a victory for the major polluting corporations who have halted ambitious proposals which are needed to address Climate Change and its impact on the world, in particular the vulnerable cities and communities in Africa, where the impact is most felt. – Rashiq Fataar from FutureCapeTown
I find your work really interesting Sir. I am part of an innovation society in Lancaster university. It would be extremely useful for you to share some ideas with me about technological innovation.
[...] the Games focus on local initiatives only? If the objective is to counter the negative effects of climate change, shouldn’t the contribution to environmental projects abroad be given equal weight and priority? [...]