THE world鈥檚 governments are sleepwalking to climate disaster. That much is clear from the UN鈥檚 latest climate conference, held in Nairobi, Kenya. It is increasingly obvious that the minor diplomats and environment ministers in charge of climate negotiations have lost sight of the huge climatic forces that threaten future planetary security. It is high time that the big players 鈥� the UN Security Council and the General Assembly 鈥� took charge. As UN secretary general Kofi Annan put it in Nairobi: 鈥淕lobal climate change must take its place alongside those threats 鈥� conflict, poverty and the proliferation of deadly weapons 鈥� that have traditionally monopolised first-order political attention.鈥�
The Kyoto protocol, signed back in 1997, was never intended to be anything more than a first step towards ensuring stable concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Its emissions targets, which become binding on signatories in 2008, only run until 2012, so there is an urgent need for agreement on successor targets. Yet almost a decade after Kyoto, and with scientists offering more damaging climate scenarios almost by the day, the Nairobi conference could not even agree on a timetable for when those vital decisions should be taken.
This failure has frightening implications. One of Kyoto鈥檚 main impacts has been to encourage investment in low-carbon energy technologies through financial incentives such as carbon trading. In Nairobi, both industrialists and environmentalists were warning that these incentives will be left in limbo unless a firm timetable is put in place for deciding what will happen after 2012 (see 鈥�174 countries, and no idea what to do after Kyoto鈥�). Green investments will dry up. Coal-fired power stations will continue to be built. As diplomats dither, trillions of dollars鈥� worth of investment in long-lasting energy infrastructure is at stake. The fate of that money is now the central crisis facing the Kyoto process.
Advertisement
鈥淎s diplomats dither, trillions of dollars鈥� worth of investment in energy infrastructure is at stake鈥�
Some at the heart of the negotiations claim that Nairobi has been a success. That鈥檚 baloney. The conference persuaded itself that a review of the protocol in 2008 is a major outcome, but to an objective outsider it looks more like an excuse for inaction 鈥� not least because the review is barred from suggesting any new commitments for countries to adopt. True, some progress was made on setting up an Adaptation Fund, which will help African countries begin to 鈥渃limate-proof鈥� their societies. There was progress too on helping Africa access investment under the Clean Development Mechanism, the main means for getting western green technologies to developing countries. Yet progress on the big picture was conspicuously absent, and after last month鈥檚 Stern report in the UK, which warned of global economic recession if drastic action is not taken soon on climate change, the world is entitled to feel betrayed.
What was missing from the conference was clear leadership. The Kenyan chairmanship was passive, and Annan was in town for only a few hours, so his galvanising effect was minimal. At past climate conferences, the European Union has driven negotiations forward, but here, under the presidency of the Finns, it lost focus and appeared divided. Nobody stepped into the breach. The UK and Germany did their best, proposing a 30 per cent cut in emissions for developed nations by 2020. 鈥淭he challenge we face is not about the science or the economics,鈥� said the UK environment minister David Miliband. 鈥淚t is about politics 鈥� breaking the logjam that holds back progress.鈥� For now, the logjam remains.
Delegates should have been emboldened by results from the US midterms, which largely silenced the often disruptive US delegation. From January, congressional committees in Washington will have new chairmen who will want to re-engage with the world on climate. Yet some in Nairobi felt this justified delaying until George W. Bush leaves the White House two years from now. Their logic is hard to understand, because the US is not part of Kyoto, and the terms for US re-engagement can be decided later.
At the closing press conference Yvo de Boer, the UN鈥檚 top climate official, defended the failure to offer a timetable. 鈥淚t is important to give discussion on the future the time it needs,鈥� he said. That may be how the world appears to diplomats, but investment decisions will not wait. And nor will the climate.
