by: Fr. Seán McDonagh,SSC

COP 17, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was scheduled to end on Friday December 9^th 2011.  At that point there was no agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol (KP) nor a willingness to accept legally binding cuts to greenhouse gas emissions by the big three emitters the United States, India or China. On Thursday, December 8^th 2011 and through much of Friday, December 9^th 2011, it appeared as if the conference was going to end in a disaster similar to what happened in Copenhagen in 2009.

Some momentum, initiated by Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s  climate chief, entered into the discussions on Friday afternoon.  She held private talks with small and large countries in order to secure a deal.   As result, the negotiators decided to extend the conference through Saturday.  Finally, on Sunday morning a compromise agreement was reached.  Included in the accord was the extension of the Kyoto Protocol until 2017. The Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding treaty requiring rich countries (in the jargon of the COP Annex 1 countries) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent on 1990s levels.  Though the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, it was never ratified by the US Senate and once George W Bush became president he withdrew US support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Right throughout the Durban talks the developing countries were united in their demand that the Kyoto Protocol must be extended for a second period.  Many of the countries which had signed the KP, such as Russia, Canada and even Japan, where it was negotiated, indicated that they would not support a second period for the KP unless other developed and developing countries agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. While securing a second period for the KP, it is important to remember that KP countries are only responsible for emitting 15 precent of global greenhouse gas emissions.[1] So, while it is being presented as a victory for poorer countries, in the larger scheme of things it is a very small victory.

When KP was negotiated in 1997, though the both the Indian and especially Chinese economies had been growing spectacularly over the previous decade, they did not rate as major emitters of greenhouse gases.  All of that changed in the past decade, and in 2005 China, as a country, became the number one emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.  However, in  per capita terms, the average Chinese person only emits one quarter as much as the average US citizen.  The Durban platform commits all countries to work towards a new legally binding agreement to cut greenhouse gases to the decided by 2015. This agreement would then come into force in 2020.

Much of the hard negotiation centred on the semantics of what legally binding commitments actually means.  The language game continued through most of Saturday.  The term “legal framework” was dropped in preference for “protocol or legal instrument.” This was further diluted to “legal outcome.”  The EU negotiators were thoroughly frustrated at this point and began to challenge counties such as India and China to assume their responsibilities for climate change.  This led to an angry response from the Indian minister for the environment, Jayanthi Natarajan who stated that “India will never be intimated by threats.” He in turn was supported by the Chinese delegation who thought that India and China were being strongarmed by the EU into a deal that might not suit them.  Connie Hedegaard kept her nerve and after some huddles among the negotiating parties the phrase “agreed outcome with legal force” was accepted.

Karl Hood, who is both foreign minister of Grenada and the chair of the alliance of small island states, which could be swamped by rising sea levels as a result of climate change, was ambivalent about what had been achieved in Durban.  On the positive side it was the first time that a legal framework had been agreed outside of the KP process and it is destined to apply to all nations.  On the negative side, the Durban Platform is vague and will not come into effect until 2020.  The scientific consensus is that carbon dioxide emissions need to peak by 2015 if the goal of keeping the average global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level is to be achieved.