What did the climate change talks in the recently-concluded summit in Lima, Peru, achieve? The finest quality of vagueness and not much besides. The gathering of 190 nations could come up with nothing better than an agreement on some weak initiatives in the run-up to the crucial Paris Summit in December 2015, where all countries are expected to measure up to firm commitments and the implementation of emission reductions as per deadlines. What does this portend for climate change progress by 2020? It is anybody’s guess.
This, then, is the way the world has moved forward since the Kyoto Protocol of 2005 and the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. As then, and even now, big nations are loathe to lead by example and developing nations are demanding, some would say justifiably, being cut some slack. Against this fractious backdrop, the United Nations is almost certain that its goal of making countries stick to the global warming tidemark of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times is already a lost cause.
The recent US-China commitment to emission cuts came as a blood transfusion for the ailing climate talks. But, unfortunately, the Lima summit bled and several important issues remain unresolved. For example, The Global Climate Fund (GCF) is woefully underserved — the targeted $100 billion (Dh367.8 billion) by 2020 is nowhere in sight. Per capita emissions of developing countries and their responsibility thereof remain the bone of contention. According to the Global Carbon Project, 36 billion tonnes of carbon from all human sources were emitted in 2013. The biggest emitters were China, which produced 29 per cent of the total, US 15 per cent, European Union 10 per cent and India 7.1 per cent. These figures form the basis of the ongoing standoff, which needs to be resolved if the climate talks are to achieve any kind of a breakthrough. But what is most disturbing is the global lack of urgency about healing the planet. Barbara Hendricks, German Environment Minister said at the Lima summit: “Paris is still far away. But we will make it.” She could be wrong about the former. Let us hope she is absolutely right about the latter.
