Durban…is there hope?

Is it really worth it?

Esther Babson ’13

Literature on the potential of Durban all focus on the Kyoto Protocol; and with good reason. As 2012 is the end of the commitment period, decisions need to be made in Durban about how countries want to continue in dealing with climate change. Durban could be the rebirth of Kyoto with a second commitment period set up, or it’s death place with nothing set up for the upcoming years. As of now, it appears that the outcome in Durban is still largely in question.

The first outcome that might come from Durban is a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. There are many strings that come attached with continuing Kyoto. As mentioned in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin’s summary of Panama and looking forward to Durban, Japan, Canada, and Russia have stated that they are no interested in a second commitment period(14). The EU also has reservations about a second period unless legally-binding measures are put in place(14). The EU and the US are also both very firm on the need for all major economies to be involved in any agreement(weathervane). Involving all major economies in a legally binding agreement is one of the main points of debate in the negotiations.  Developing nations make the argument that without commitments by developed nations, they certainly won’t make commitments since they are still working to bring their economies, etc. up to developed nation standards. A deal in Durban is going to have to involve some sort of agreement or consensus in order to continue with Kyoto.

If countries decide that Kyoto is no longer useful, a new deal might have to be negotiated. If nothing can be decided right away there is a draft of a plan Australia and Norway have come up with that includes all the major emitters while excluding least-developed countries. The plan begins with setting up targets and reporting on emissions until 2015 when a legally binding deal is enacted(weathervane). Other progress which has been made leading up to this conference is various draft texts for new committees such as the Adaption Committee and the Technology Mechanism(weathervane).

These two options are based on if the COPs continue as they have with every nation involved. But there is a possible third option involving either of the two options above but without the UN and with only some of the countries. In Fred Pearce’s article “Did Cancun Prove the UN Irrelevant in Tackling Climate?” he makes a great observation that if the UN system isn’t working, “the time may come when their best contribution would be to get out of the way.” Though this might sounds a bit harsh, based on how negotiations have been going, the first two options may end up being part of a new system where the UN is as “irrelevant” as Peace suggests.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 12 No. 521, http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12521e.pdf

Lynann Butkiewicz, Weathervane, Oct. 13, 2011, http://www.rff.org/wv/default.aspx

Fred Pearce, Yale Environment360, “Did Cancun Prove the UN Irrelevant in Tackling Climate?” Dec. 16, 2010, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/did_cancun_prove_the_un_irrelevant_in_tackling_climate/2351/