AS DAWN heralded Saturday morning in Montreal, the latest international climate conference closed in a mood of euphoria. There were tears in the corridors. The UK鈥檚 environment secretary Margaret Beckett proclaimed a 鈥渄iplomatic triumph鈥� in which she had achieved all that she had hoped for. Even normally hard-boiled environmental campaigners and journalists were misty-eyed. 鈥淗istoric,鈥� said Greenpeace. 鈥淎 big step forward鈥he US has been shamed,鈥� said The Guardian in London (see 鈥淪mall green victory鈥�).
Get a grip. Last-minute deals are always exciting, especially after overnight negotiations. But in the cold light of day we have to ask what exactly was achieved. The answer looks like little more than an agreement to carry on talking 鈥� and even that is hedged in places by promises to talk about very little that is meaningful.
Meanwhile, every square metre of the planet鈥檚 surface is absorbing about 1 watt more heat than it can release into space. That may be only slightly more than the power of a Christmas tree light bulb. But it matters.
Advertisement
So what was decided? First, the meeting shifted a backlog of technical matters that will allow the Kyoto protocol to come into force, such as letting rich countries earn carbon credits by financing green schemes in poor nations. Victory has been declared on these matters so often in the past that it is hard to be sure. But since there is now agreement on penalties for countries that miss their targets for the first compliance period, from 2008 to 2012, it probably is a done deal. So the talks moved on to what happens after 2012.
Countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol agreed to begin talks aimed at reaching agreement 鈥渁s soon as possible鈥� on targets for a post-2012 compliance period. This was vital, not least because it signals to industry that it can profit for the foreseeable future by cutting carbon dioxide emissions and trading carbon credits. But it is hard to justify it as a 鈥渄iplomatic triumph鈥� when the protocol had already committed signatories to beginning those talks before 2006.
Third, and most tortuously, the meeting agreed to begin an 鈥渙pen and non-binding dialogue鈥� on how those without Kyoto targets 鈥� ranging from opt-outs in Washington and Canberra to fast-developing countries like Brazil and China 鈥� might contribute to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This was the bit that nearly derailed the Montreal talks. The US walked out because it feared being pressured during this 鈥渄ialogue鈥� to make commitments on emissions. It rejoined not because of a change of heart, nor even because of a lecture by Bill Clinton, but after winning a stipulation that the dialogue 鈥渨ill not open any negotiations leading to new commitments鈥�. The White House wasn鈥檛 shamed: it won.
The Montreal talks were no disaster, it is true. But they were certainly no triumph. It was sad to see environmentalists who have been on the case longer than most of the politicians getting caught up in the euphoria. Greenpeace鈥檚 Steve Sawyer echoed Beckett in claiming the talks had delivered 鈥渏ust about everything鈥� he wanted. What kind of world does he advocate?
With green groups playing politics, scientists seem to stand alone. In recent months, they have reported compelling evidence that climate change is a real and present danger, and that the global climate system may be on the brink of dangerous positive feedbacks. We may face runaway melting of Arctic sea ice, a shutdown of global ocean circulation systems, massive methane releases from melting permafrost, stronger hurricanes and 鈥渕egadroughts鈥� from northern China to the American west.
These are not abstract outputs from computer models but things that are starting to happen. At this magazine we regularly meet climate and Earth-system scientists who harbour real fears for themselves and their families about what the 21st century will bring. Jim Hansen, director of NASA鈥檚 Goddard Institute for Space Studies and George Bush鈥檚 top climate modeller, is not alone in thinking that we have, as he said last week, 鈥渁t most 10 years鈥� to make the drastic cuts in emissions that might head off climatic convulsions.
鈥淲e have at most 10 years to make the drastic cuts in carbon emissions that will head off climate convulsions鈥�
Back in 1997, the newly agreed Kyoto protocol was correctly hailed as a first step to a safer world. Eight years later we still await the second step. Montreal, for all the tears and supposed triumphs, was not it.
