In reality, Copenhagen was cold and Cancun is warm. But the case is quite contrary if we compare action at the two climate change summits. Sure, this year?s summit will drag through the week but there are zero indications that it will end in the kind of high-level (anti)climax we saw last year, with Barack Obama undertaking heavy statesmanship behind closed doors.
But all that drama only yielded a weakly pretty, practically toothless document. So, with this year?s summit receiving much less attention from policymakers, nobody will be surprised by a damp squib that?s simply bigger in scale. The most momentous item on the agenda, after all, is the extension of a protocol that was signed back in 1997, long before UNFCCC scientists convinced us of the hair-raising consequences of ignoring climate change and long before a $200 price tag for a barrelful of oil looked plausible. The question is if?following on what worst-case scenarios credibly postulate?a failure to reach an international accord at Cancun signals the end of such efforts, what does this mean for the future of climate change mitigation? Some answers are not bleak.
Take Cancun for example. It used to be a small fishing village just 40 years ago. It is now the most profitable of
Mexico?s tourist destinations. But what with tall hotels pushing back waves only to encourage erosion and the gradual sinking of the sand peninsula into oblivion, what with its beaches stripped of the native vegetation that would provide natural breakwaters, what with the area being in a hurricane zone anyway, people call Cancun the chronicle of a disaster foretold. Factor in gradually rising sea levels and gradually intensifying hurricanes?Mexico?s National Meteorological Service reports that over the past decade, category 4 and 5 hurricanes have hit it at the highest rate in 40 years. In the face of visibly more extreme weather patterns, Mexico?s people are paying closer heed to its tourism and investment policies. The UNFCCC forecasts match the changes manifest around them.
Moving on to the US, WikiLeaks suggests that Obama?s Copenhagen intervention was preceded by a secret, vast global diplomatic offensive. Whatever may be the details on that, the US president hasn?t been able to deliver the promised climate Bill in the interim and can?t push a strong version now given the electoral hit he took last month. This man promised after clinching his party?s presidential nomination in 2008, ?I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when… the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.? Sure, he can?t push through radical legislation today; for all that he badmouthed George Bush for not signing the first Kyoto Protocol, he would be unlikely to sign Kyoto II even if it were to eventuate. But this year?s polls have also shown that 73% Republicans favour requiring better fuel efficiency for their vehicles, 74% favour requiring utilities to produce more energy from renewable sources and 55% favour spending more on public transportation. This leaves the Obama administration plenty of room to ?do the right thing?. More than ten states are, in any case, moving ahead with cap-and-trade schemes for utilities.
In India, the man unquestionably at the helm is obviously Jairam Ramesh. His environmental interventions have been so highly accented that one is surprised to remember that he has been on this job for only a year and a half. In his last ministerial avatar, Ramesh pushed for developing mines that he now opposes. Asked to explain this turnaround, Ramesh said, ? It is true where you stand depends on where you sit.?
By proposing international consultation mechanisms that may construct common grounds between developing and developed countries to break the current global stalemate, he has drawn ire from those that seem him as compromising India?s established ?national position?. On domestic decisions, he has been called fickle and anti-business. With an international accord now looking unlikely, the minister can focus his energies on what needs to be done within India, while using bilateral forums for chasing clean technology.
Critics have long called the UN too big and rancorous a forum for hammering out a truly green global agreement; its climate summits have been called great rackets. Abandoning them wouldn?t be a great tragedy.
renuka.bisht@expressindia.com
