More than 100 heads of states and governments, including US president Barack Obama, are reaching here within a couple of days. And many believe only then the ball will start rolling. But will it? It’s a political question that begs a technical explanation.
It takes us back to 1997 when the first treaty to curb emission of greenhouse gases, blamed for warming the Earth’s atmosphere, was signed. The Kyoto Protocol, as it is known, was ratified by almost all developing countries and most developed ones then.
The United States of America stayed out arguing that the treaty allowed emerging economies to carry on emitting carbon dioxide while developed worlds had to make mandatory emission cuts at the cost of their economies.
More than a decade since, Americans have not budged from that stand and they are making it louder and clearer in the climate negotiations here. The difference this time round is that almost all developed countries have rallied behind the US, antagonizing developing ones.
Major economies like China and India, that have lead role in the grouping of least and developing countries, want the Kyoto protocol to continue as it will keep them from making any binding commitments on carbon cuts. But developed worlds point at the steadily rising carbon emissions of major economies like China and India and say without them onboard there can be no international climate treaty.
This fundamental difference has been mirrored by this United Nations climate conference as both sides have embraced two separate negotiating tracks that favor their respective positions.
Result: The main agenda of this summit – cutting carbon emissions to mitigate climate change – has not moved anywhere. Formal negotiations even got suspended on Monday.
“So far the uphill climb has been very treacherous,” said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Once political leaders begin to meet, it will be as if we have reached cable cars atop mountains and it will then be far smoother and relaxing.”
Many negotiators and delegates here share that optimism. They believe that politicians will have the authority to be flexible and so they can make some progress. They add that heads of states and governments will have an even bigger say to break the deadlock. They may well have that mandate but would they like to use it? Or rather “abuse” it given their national interests?
All these days here and all these years in the run up to this much-awaited summit, their technocrats, bureaucrats and negotiators did not while away their time driving hard bargain, arm twisting and consolidating their positions. All that because climate change for many of them has never been just an ecological issue.
For some, it has also been an effective tool to advance their business interests while for others it has been a ladder to climb to the upper strata of the world order.
Remember the recent rejoinder of Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh to the leak that he was shifting India’s climate position by planning to agree to binding carbon cut commitments? In it, he had said that the idea had basically to do with securing a seat at the UN Security Council.
So you can see what can be at stake even when politicians reach here to rescue out these “stalled” negotiations.
And then political leaders would not at all like to be seen making unpopular decisions back home. Particularly, because their negotiators can always argue that they did the “dirty job” for the sake of national interest and their political masters just blew all their efforts off for populism on the global stage.
Politicians are certainly feeling the pressure already. British climate change minister Ed Miliband said on Monday: “Negotiators and ministers should not be leaving things for their leaders, they can also play important role.” But with negotiators still playing the musical chair, politicians will certainly face the music.
Of course, there have been talks about a political agreement – and not a legally binding one – as an outcome. But given the turbulent weather the negotiations are going by, even that emergency approach of the runway remains invisible.
If there is no safe landing, there will be no deal either. And yet, if they show one, it will be an eye-wash.
Writer is a BBC journalist
Related story
SHIFT for Our Planet: Youths urge authorities to make climate j...
