Reflections on the Cancun climate change conference
Political tensions emerging across the Middle East have recently placed the battle for democracy in the limelight of all major media outlets. Rewind three months ago, and it was the environment that occupied the mind of the public and the rhetoric of governments. Dominated by wealthy, industrialized countries, delegates attending the 16th annual Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 avoided taking responsibility for climate change, and did not fulfill the expectations of a global environmental community who were left expecting more.
For nearly two weeks from November 29 to December 10, over 190 countries were represented in Cancun, Mexico at what is most commonly known by the acronym COP 16. These yearly meetings provide an opportunity for countries to take a pragmatic approach to the contentious issues of climate change.
However, the sales pitch and enthusiasm heading into the meeting did not match the outcome. Many unresolved issues carried over from the 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, and morale was very low. After COP 15, many critics lambasted rich industrialized countries for being unremorseful, and unwilling to concede on a number of issues to poorer, more vulnerable developing nations. Their people are more directly dependent on natural resources , more exposed to extreme weather events, and less capable economically and technologically of making necessary adaptations.
While an agreement did emerge from COP 16, its terms were not legally binding, and contained many of the same stumbling blocks that emerged in previous meetings. Yet again, the partisan agendas of wealthy, developed states dominated the floor. In the haste to adjourn the meeting and declare Cancun a victory, North-South differences emerged as an increasing source of international tension and were largely ignored as Bolivia refused to sign the document.
The UNFCCC process is very formal, with much of the work done throughout the year before the countries meet in a designated country. Many days are dedicated to clerical matters like wording changes and process amendments, and when it comes time for each nation to state their positions and proposals, their time is very limited.
The Cancun Agreement acknowledged the severity of a changing global climate, addressed concerns regarding the lack of universal reporting methods and, most notably, outlined plans to establish a Green Climate Fund. From the coffers of rich countries, this financing system would be available for poorer nations to tap into to decrease their use of pollution-intensive energy sources, and adapt and respond to climate-change related hardships. In all likelihood though, we are years away from seeing rich countries spending trillions of dollars to help poor countries develop on a greener path. These meetings appear to exist to satisfy the interests of individual member country’s political agendas, and they’re in their 16th year. Is it really an agreement when you just repeatedly acknowledge that climate change is a threat?
Backed by vested economic interests and piggybacking heavy industrial powers like the United States and China, Canada headed to Cancun willing to admit that there were issues with the current binding agreement, but stopped short of making any significant proposals committing to the widespread structural change needed to curb the crisis. In fact, Canada’s involvement is tough to report because very little is mentioned of any involvement in the process by any Canadian envoy apart from simply attending the conference.
On its website, the Canadian government champions initiatives such as the ecoENERGY Retrofit Grants Program, subsidies targeting the greening of the domestic automotive industry, and smaller, more localized shifts to renewable energy sources. It also endorses the carbon sequestration program, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The reality is that these programs and incentives have done little to change Canada’s image as a petro-state villain, and annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 remained 24% above 1990 levels.
For the most part, other countries view Canada as part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is not simply because of Canada’s proximity and relationship with the United States, but also due to the meteoric expansion of the Albertan oil sands and the stigma attached to this environmental blemish.
Like all agreements involving different countries with different priorities, the agreement reached in Cancun did not give everybody what they desired. Many countries of the global South, particularly Bolivia, felt that proposals by powerful countries like the US were sacrosanct, while theirs were disposable. In the end, only Bolivia had the courage to stand alone and assume a leadership role in the battle for climate justice.
An official post-Cancun release from Bolivia stated, “the richest nations offered us nothing new in terms of emission reductions or financing, and instead sought at every stage to backtrack on existing commitments, and include every loophole possible to reduce their obligation to act.”
Likening the agreement to genocide, Bolivia’s refusal to sign the Cancun Agreement symbolized the increasingly prevalent ideology that there is not enough action at the UNFCCC meetings. Limits on emissions must be tougher, transparency must exist, and the ideologies of the people and social movements who want real and effective action to protect the future of humanity and Mother Earth must be represented.
Work has now been undertaken to prepare for COP 17, which will be held in Durban, South Africa from November 28 to December 9, 2011. Once again optimism and enthusiasm for a binding global treaty has emerged. Rather than focusing on partisan agendas and creating agreements on what the next steps should and could be, the parties to the UNFCCC need to focus on ceasing their current practice of “deny, delay and dissemble.” If we follow the same path as Cancun in Durban, we are handing the problems--unsolved and vastly worse--to the next generation, and they will have no one but us to blame.
