START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
2,623,410 people care about Environment & Wildlife

If Cancun Climate Talks Falter, Blame the U.S.

If Cancun Climate Talks Falter, Blame the U.S.

The most recent round of United Nations-led climate change negotiations began this week in Cancun, and although international expectations are muted this year, the stakes are still high. As Mother Jones’ Kate Sheppard explains, “The 2010 meeting could make or break the future of global negotiations.”

This is the sixteenth Conference of the Parties, convened by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After the tepid results of last year’s conference in Copenhagen, when a last-minute, backroom deal produced a non-binding accord, participants and observers of the negotiations are beginning to question whether it is the best forum for these sorts of conversations. Central to the progress, or lack thereof, on international climate change policy is the United States’ intransigence. As one of the world’s most proliferate carbon spewers, it’s essential for the United States to commit to dramatic reductions in its carbon emissions.

But if American negotiators have always been reluctant to make those promises, even if they did this year, their promises would ring empty. The results of the 2010 midterms mean there’s little chance Congress would ratify a treaty. Republicans just eliminated a special House committee on global warming. They certainly aren’t interested in making the sorts of concessions that international negotiators want and need to convince their own governments to move forward.

Signing off

It’s unclear, at this point, if the UNFCCC framework will ever produce worthwhile results. Inter Press Service’s Kanya D’Almeida reports that “the meeting in Cancún is foreshadowed by a deep pessimism.” D’Almedia offers, for instance, this take from Nigel Purvis, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States:

“Global climate talks have begun to resemble a bad soap opera,” Purvis wrote in an essay entitled ‘Cancún and the End of Climate Diplomacy.’  ”They seem to never end, yet seldom change and at times bear little resemblance to reality. This is why climate diplomacy as we know it has lost its relevance.”

The last landmark climate treaty—the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States never signed onto—will expire in 2012. The Copenhagen Accord, the agreement that came out of last year’s negotiations, does not bind countries to their commitments, as Kyoto did.

The next major step in tackling climate change could be for countries across the world to re-up their commitments to reducing carbon emissions through a Kyoto-like (i.e. legally enforceable) pact. The alternative is to base global action on an agreement along the lines of the one produced at Copenhagen, with less stringent standards for accountability.

Kyoto v. Copenhagen

Tina Gephardt writes at The Nation that “Serious tensions threaten to derail the UNFCCC process entirely. At the heart of these skirmishes are two camps: those nations who want to extend the Kyoto Protocol and those nations, including the United States, who want to ram through the Copenhagen Accord.”

The Accord’s mechanism for oversight and enforcement relies on countries monitoring each others’ progress on carbon reductions, but as Mother Jones’ Sheppard reports, an early point of disagreement in this year’s session centers on how important it is to agree how that monitoring will happen.

Stubborn Americans

What does seem certain is that if, at the end of this session, international climate negotiations have become so messy and tangled the world abandons them, and starts over, much of the blame will lie with the United States. Tom Athanasiou lays out the case in Earth Island Journal:

It’s the US, after all, that reduced the Kyoto Protocol to a non-starter, and the US that led the Copenhagen charge to abandon top-down emissions targets in favor of bottom-up “pledge and review.” It’s the US that, in the words of chief negotiator Todd Stern, is looking for a “new paradigm for climate diplomacy” that asserts a world in which the developed countries are no longer presumed to bear the overarching, if inconvenient, obligations of the rich and the responsible.

It’s not that American leaders aren’t aware of the problems the world could face (although some on the right continue to deny they exist). As Nancy Roberts points out at Care2,  ”Up to one billion people could be displaced by rising sea levels this century.” To a certain extent, the United States is insulated from the impact of climate change. As this map, which ColorLines highlighted a few weeks ago, illustrates, America is not particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. But it’d be foolish for American leaders to ignore the security and economic implications wrought by the migration of one-sixth of the world’s population.

Reaction

But Washington has shown time after time that it is willing to look past problems until they become unavoidable. The consequences of that attitude have been devastating in recent years. The BP oil spill is only the most recent example. This week the Obama administration announced it would not open up new coastline areas in the southeastern U.S. for offshore oil drilling—a decision that came only after it became clear just how much havoc a drilling disaster could cause (and would likely cause again).

With climate change, however, the tons of carbon already in the atmosphere can’t be mopped up or “dispersed,” or forgotten, within months. The consequences will linger on, and by the time they become clear, it will be too late to act, and international negotiators won’t be talking about emission levels, but food, water, and refugee crises.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint.

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Cherrylynx via Flickr
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

74 comments

+ add your own
8:33PM PST on Feb 1, 2011

Blame the U.S.? DUH. We knew what would happen before the talks even started -- take a look at how successfully our Congress has dealt with climate change! Could it have something to do with the power of the big guys, like Exxon? The subsidies granted them, even after enormous profits?!

2:45AM PST on Jan 1, 2011

Noted!!

7:33PM PST on Dec 9, 2010

I am fascinated at the way this story "If Cancun Climate Talks Falter, Blame the U.S" has become another platform for the "human caused" climate change crazies.

As to the story itself, well, after some of the recent wikileaks revalations regarding US manipulation of events in Copenhagen, it will be no problem for we non-US-ers to place the blame squarely on y'all; I do acknowledge the complicity of other nations, such as my own (Canada), but the Big Boob (as in fool) 1st prize goes to my old Alma Mater, the US of A. Congrats once again!

4:07AM PST on Dec 7, 2010

thanks

3:33PM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Herbert E, Your so right i agree. noted and read.

10:15AM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Pretty soon their wikileaks false flag job will be the excuse they will use to shut sites like this down.

Regards...

6:35AM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Some time ago there used to be a sticker in public toilets :
>Please leave this place in the condition you'd like to find it

5:37AM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Canada is failing also by its tar sands

1:40AM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Have you heard of Agenda 21 by the United nations? Its based on a land grab of your private property.

1:37AM PST on Dec 6, 2010

Anything to do with the UN are lies. There is a pressing issue pertaining to Bill S 787 where the federal govt wants ownership of your water on your private property. Included would be ponds,creeks and of course the waterways that I thought that belonged to them anyway. Russ Feingold introduced this bill who is from Minnesota needs to be voted out of office ASAP.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

i hope she lives a happy safe life.

“To begin with, Gallup’s question itself is worded so ambiguously it allows the person answering…

Shouldn’t that be directed to the vegan who leaped in screaming profanity? I saw no admonishment…

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.