A Game of Dominoes: Stuck in the Same Play

The fiasco that resulted from the last United Nations Conference on Climate Change — when a very select group of countries, principally the major powers, reached a lukewarm accord, which they hoped to impose on poor nations — is threatening to reproduce itself. The incurable egotism of the most industrialized nations remains, in which they fail to recognize their ecological debt while imposing responsibility for it on some emerging nations.

Currently, some 4,500 delegates from 182 countries are meeting in Bonn, Western Germany, to draw the road map to the climate summit, scheduled for later this year in Cancun, Mexico. And the game of dominoes, almost six months after the failure of Copenhagen, remains “stuck” in the same play. Delegates, observers and NGOs are very pessimistic about whether this new round of negotiations will pave the way for the Cancun event to follow, mostly because the postures that caused the failure of the first meeting continue.

The hottest issue is that of carbon dioxide emission reduction. The United States continues to take advantage of the absence of a national climate law that still hasn’t gelled. That was the same reason brandished by Washington in preparation for Copenhagen held in Barcelona, Spain, and later in the Danish capital. Its proposal hasn’t changed: to reduce by 17 percent the emissions of 2005. But we know that this little number is misleading, because what they’re selling as “enough,” taking into account the recent North American position — it’s the only country not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol — represents only a ridiculous 3 percent in respect to limits in 1990.

Washington insists that China pass the same muster: that its reductions will be the same as the great powers. This demand violates the principal agreement in Kyoto that climate protection should take into account common but differentiated responsibilities.

Meanwhile, the European Union follows the expectations proposed by its members. They speak of a 20 percent reduction until 2020, which could rise to 30 percent, if “others” — veiled reference to the U.S. — commit themselves. However, the “flexible” proposal remains below the rational 40 percent demanded by scientists in relation to 1990 levels.

Another issue, sufficiently obscure, is whether the funds promised poor nations — the most affected by the rampant consumption patterns of the North — can meet development goals without causing pollution. Until now, no methods have been established for distribution of the $30,000 million pledged in Copenhagen for 2010-2012.

For that matter, some countries of the South raise the need for “a real release of funds.” Meanwhile, ecologists and NGOs are worried about the form in which the money will flow into the trough: as aid or as loans?

The very same U.N. official on climate change, Yvo de Boer, said that a new legally-binding global agreement is not on the horizon in Cancun, and that the most realistic possibility for achieving it will be a year later, in South Africa. Again, in order to move forward, they request what least remains: time. And the political policies will be made by a powerful few?