Fiddling while the planet burns

Julian Oram, used to be head of campaigns and policy

Arriving in Cancun over the weekend, it was quickly clear to me that this was going to be a fairly surreal week. So far, that initial impression has not let me down, either inside or outside the UN Conference of Parties (COP) 16 climate talks.

On the one hand is the shock-and-awe gaiety of the town itself: the sombrero-wearing Mexican bands; the garish clutter of mega-hotels, bars, nightclubs, more bars, amusement centres and still more bars that line the main coastal strip; the competing billboards inviting you to sail, dive with dolphins, visit Mayan ruins, and generally live the resort holiday dream. 

On the other hand, are the rather more ‘pragmatic’ aspects of hosting a major international conference: thousands of heavily armed police (are they expecting a green coup?); fleets of buses scuttling madly back and forth between the hotel zone, side event space and main conference centre; the badges, bustle and bureaucracy of a nominally inclusive yet actually highly exclusionary event.

Which brings me to the COP itself. The first reports I had from my colleagues was that US was threatening to withdraw its already meagre commitments to provide ‘fast-start’ finance to help developing countries cope with climate change, made at last years Copenhagen summit, unless it saw concessions from other countries on its key issues. This was then compounded by the Wikileaks revelations about US arm-twisting of poor countries during the 2009 talks.

Not to be outdone, Japan and Canada declared they were not prepared to engage in a second phase of emissions reductions commitments, due to begin in 2013, under the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile, good old Blighty was in there pushing for the World Bank to take over a new global climate fund due to be established from 2012, a proposal fiercely resisted by developing countries.

Right, I thought, we’ve got our work cut out for us then. And despite a rocky start, as we reach the mid-point of the second and final week of the Cancun talks, there is still a lot to play for. New negotiating texts are about to come that could prove decisive in setting the mood as the Ministers roll into town for the final few days. Key issues at stake are the second phase of commitments under Kyoto, the nature and shape of the new climate finance institution, agreements on forests, carbon markets, technology transfer, monitoring and reporting and a host of other issues being contested in the grand diplomatic chess game which is international climate politics.

But after just a few days here in the mix, I’d be lying if I were to say that I’ve got much hope in any of these issues reaching an outcome that might significantly further the urgent need for an environmentally and socially just global climate regime.

This evening I went to the US press conference for NGOs. The picture they painted was one of slow but steady progress, of their leadership role, their spirit of compromise, but also their unwillingness to move unless others do, and even their sense of injustice at being asked to do things ‘asymmetrically’ to other larger developing countries. Injustice? Really? After decades of being the most highly polluting country on earth, and of consistently and aggressively seeking to water down any international action on climate change? It beggars belief.

In truth, my observations of the inequity and dysfunctionality of these negotiations, the petty politics and shameless self-interest that characterise them, have left me deeply depressed. This is not diplomacy, its blackmail – and in blackmail only those who hold the upper hand win. And these aren’t minor stakes, as the result will be that lives of millions of the world’s poorest people will be jeopardised. History, if there are any left to tell it in 200 hundred years or so, will surely judge this generation of leaders harshly.