Durban Climate Conference - A Global Lifeline?

As you will probably be aware, recently a United Nations Climate Conference took place in Durban running from the 28th of November to the 11th of December. Going into this conference small island nations saw a climate deal as vital to their survival with the Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) stating “If we don’t act now, some of us will die.” On the last day of this conference a deal was agreed and I think it is only right that a blog which discusses the threat of climate change to societies around the world, and particularly small island states, discusses the outcomes of such a conference. 

At this conference an agreement was made to move away from voluntary targets and to continue to hold up the Kyoto protocol (to which China, Russia and Canada are not party to) as the cornerstone of climate change policy, by extending it for between five and eight years – the exact length will be decided next year in Doha. In addition the deal which was reached commits all countries to negotiate a new legal agreement by the year 2015, which will then come into force by 2020 to limit emissions to an as yet unspecified level. The question to ask now then is, has this new deal saved those countries most vulnerable to the threat of climate change?

In researching this topic I found a number of quite contrasting views and so, to try and give this post some structure I thought I would begin by looking at those who looked positively upon the outcome at Durban. 

Unsurprisingly on visiting the UNFCCC website you will be met with a self congratulatory statement which claims the deal made to be “a breakthrough on the international community's response to climate change” and goes on to quote Maite Nkoana-Mashabane a South African politician and the President of the conference who states "What we have achieved in Durban will play a central role in saving tomorrow, today."

The Guardian has an excellent piece offering the verdict of a number of important figures on the conference. Of those offering their view, Chris Huhne, the UK’s energy and climate secretary, described the conference as “a significant step forward in curbing emissions to tackle global climate change”.  Christian Figueres, the UNFCCC executive secretary congratulated all involved in reaching “a long-term solution to climate change”, even tweeting that the conference was a “remarkable new phase in climate regime”. Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action was also pleased with the outcomes due to the extension of the Kyoto Protocol which was strongly sought after by the EU. A number of other figures saw the deal as a positive outcome, purely because getting 194 nations to agree to anything is incredibly hard and so any deal must be better than none (is this really the criteria on which we should be judging the conference?). 

I have also gathered some opinions from press agencies around the world. The South Atlantic news agency MercoPress proclaims that the conference had a ‘happy ending’ as talks didn’t collapse and the Kyoto protocol was extended. The Bundesregierung website which publishes official press releases from the German cabinet describes the Durban package as “a success for global climate protection” due to the promise of a binding legal agreement by 2015. The Chinese newspaper China Daily also had praise for the Durban conference describing it’s outcomes as a ‘significant milestone’ due to the increasing clarity of the legal framework which was set out.  

I also feel that maybe I should have qualified my earlier statement, when I said ‘looked positively upon’, I meant this to mean, who felt that the agreement was a strong step towards helping to deal with the problem of climate change, as this is what I saw the aim of the conference as. However, apparently not everyone had the same view as I. Tim Gore the international climate change advisor for OXFAM reports in his blog, one of the countries which probably feels like they gained most from the agreement is the US who were able to minimize the prospect of future actions on emissions thus ensuring no deeper targets would take effect until 2020. Furthermore they didn’t commit to any deals on climate finance for developing countries.

Overall it can be seen that some are happy just because any deal was reached regardless of its content, some because they genuinely feel that what has been agreed will be effective in combating climate change and others because the deal hasn’t dictated strong emission targets upon them. So, what for those who look negatively upon the deal? 

It is not hard to find a wide range of sources which offer up extreme criticism of the Durban package, so much so, that in this post I will only touch upon some of the most vociferous condemnation of the conference, so to save you still be reading what is already a lengthy post in say an hour’s time. 

Friends of the Earth have labeled the Durban package as ‘disastrous’, and lay out a number of detailed reasons why they think that this is the case. They say that the package will delay any real climate action for a decade and has weakened the Kyoto protocol as the extension to it is unknown and it will only cover the EU and a handful of other developed countries. In addition emissions targets mean that by 2020 net emissions will increase, those least responsible for causing the problem are facing more of the burden, and there has been no progress on climate finance initiatives as well as an increased likelihood of carbon trading which they see as a false solution. 

Further damning condemnation can be seen in the video below, taken from the Climate and Convergence website, in which Aubrey Meyer a long term climate campaigner talks about the likely consequences of this agreement for small island nations.  It can be seen that the agreement means, that global CO2 emissions will peak later and global CO2 levels reach a much greater value  than the members of AOSIS feel is necessary to protect their societies from future climate change. 

Jeff Tollefson writing in nature further explains that, while the stated aim of the conference was to limit global warming to 2 ^oC , analysis by climate scientists has shown that pledges made at Durban mean that the world is much more likely to be on a course to witness 3.5 ^oC  of warming this century (the effects of different levels of cuts to emissions are well shown in the figure below). Therefore I do not think that the conference can be judged as successful if one of its main aims is going to be missed by such a large amount.

Climate response to global GHG emissions (source).

To me, the setting the agenda of the conference as limiting global warming to 2^oC hints at complete marginalization of small island nations. On visiting the AOSIS website you will see that the groups slogan contains the words ‘1.5 to stay alive’, which is a reference to the degree of warming which they feel is the maximum that can occur if their survival is to be ensured. This group of small island nations wants countries globally to aim for just a 1.5^oC temperature rise, therefore I think that setting the bar at 2 ^oC  is an insult, and then being elated with a deal which will result in a rise of up to 3.5 ^oC  an all out attack on small island nations. Once again it seems like the big industrialized nations are ignoring those most vulnerable to climate change, because the hit on their profits, and the most minimal of adaptations to their way of life would be too bigger brunt for them to bear.