Lessons from Durban How To Create a Successful UN Climate Summit

Once again, a UN climate summit has ended with limited results. In the end, the blockers and procrastinators prevailed. That's why the next global meeting must be transformed into a forum for mutual learning and not just one for haggling and meaningless legalese.

Too little sleep and too little air: UN climate summits can be exhausting for participants.

Too little sleep and too little air: UN climate summits can be exhausting for participants.

A Commentary By Christian Schwägerl

After two weeks of talks at the United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, participants were only truly united on one issue: They just wanted to get home and away from the soulless conference center as soon as possible.

Yet another United Nations summit has failed to yield the results necessary to stop run-away global heating of the atmosphere and oceans. At the end of the conference, success was measured by the number of years a global climate treaty can be delayed -- a truly grotesque development given the approaching threat. Ultimately, it was the procrastinators -- mainly delegates from the United States and India bent on keeping every option open instead of restructuring their economies -- who prevailed at the summit.

It would be wrong to pile all the blame on the UN for this. The reason climate conferences are so contentious is that they are a venue where stubborn national interests collide. Rich nations want to defend a prosperity that is fired by coal and oil. Meanwhile, emerging nations want to be given the chance to catch up economically. And the poorest countries want to avoid becoming victims of unchecked climate change. The outcome in Durban is the mirror image of these differences.

But there are nevertheless pressing challenges for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his strategists following Durban. The UN's leadership needs to reform the format of future climate negotiations to render better outcomes more likely.

Climate Policy Delirium

For the past 17 years, negotiations have led to little else than record CO2 emissions in 2010. Thousands of people are crammed together in rooms with deficient lighting and air. They are fed soggy sandwiches and subjected to sleep deprivation given the length of the marathon negotiations. In the end, decisions are made in what could be described as a kind of climate policy delirium. And those are only the obvious symptoms of an illness that resides deeper in the UN system.

The entire UN negotiating process has two major flaws in its design. It doesn't assess the real causes of CO2 emissions, and it presents the goal of CO2 reductions in an entirely negative light. Since the very beginning of the negotiations in Berlin in 1995, the phenomenon of climate change has been viewed through the prism of emissions that stream out of chimneys, exhaust pipes, smokestacks and forest fires. The very language of the UN convention describes climate protection as a "burden" and international measures of CO2 reduction as "burden sharing". Both end-of-pipe and burden thinking have created the wrong environment at these summits. Little is spoken of positive goals, and there is virtually no discussion of the economic opportunities that emissions reductions present. The only countries considered to be winners in the negotiations are those that succeed in forcing the other nations to agree to greater emissions reductions rather than taking action themselves. It should be the other way around: The winners should be those nations that endeavor to adopt the most progressive policies.

In addition to this negative character, an insanely complex procedure has also developed. Because politicians are unable to reach agreements, their officials and lawyers formulate increasingly complicated texts in legalese that have limited validity or meaning. During the final hours of negotiations in Durban, the issue at hand was over whether a "legal result" would apply by 2020 or whether it would be an "agreed result with legal power." It was pure climate summit jargon. Collective efforts to protect life on earth, of all things, have spawned a cold and gray negotiating terminology that only a select group of people can understand. Many climate negotiators themselves view these developments extremely critically and warn that we have gone down the wrong path.

Still, we shouldn't do away with these large-size climate conferences. Despite all the problems they entail, these conferences represent true progress for our civilization -- they are a cultural wonder of the world. There is no other problem on earth that moves delegates from 200 countries to come together in one place to work so hard to find a common solution. And a forum is needed in which these questions of humanity can be discussed in public and solutions negotiated with the participation of civic groups and business.

That makes it all the more crucial that the UN move to fundamentally alter the way its conferences are structured in the future. The most important thing is that the gatherings also delve into the deeper causes of CO2 emissions. This includes taking a critical look at:

  • The energy-hungry American Way of Life that is becoming ever more popular despite the environmental problems it creates and the fact that it is pushing back more environmentally friendly ways of living.

  • The fact that the "Green Economy" hasn't worked so far because environmental services have no economic value and because, globally, subsidies paid out for oil, coal and natural gas are more than six times higher than for renewable energy.

  • The fact that the International Energy Agency reports that around €90 billion per year in research investment is lacking that is needed to develop new and environmentally friendly energy technologies.

  • The fact many of the world's 2.5 billion people who are under 20 years of age aren't sufficiently educated about environmental issues.

  • How too little attention is being paid to the fact that, in addition to the environment, climate change also represents a threat to material wealth and peace in many regions of the world.

Of course it is obvious that we need to negotiate harder to reduce CO2 emissions. Time is running out. By 2020, global emissions need to be reduced from today's 50 billion tons a year to 44 billion if we want to stand any chance of limiting global warming. That's why the summits need to continue to debate CO2 emissions ceilings as well as per-capita CO2 budgets in order to achieve a global climate treaty as quickly as possible.

But in order to advance the true causes of the problem, new issues, new negotiating forms, new goals and a larger number of participants are needed -- even if that makes these meetings even more complicated.

Discuss this issue with other readers!
1 total post
Show all comments
Page 1
aubreymeyer 12/14/2011
1. Article on COP17 Durban
This commentary is first-rate; realistic and to the point. The way ahead advocate is correct, it is C&C and this approach now has *a lot of support*: - http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html Due in in small measure to the intelligent and concentrated efforts of Angela Merkel.
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.