Lost in time at the UN Climate Talks

Inadequate / irresponsible timeframe towards a new climate agreement

As the negotiations towards a new climate agreement have begun in Durban, one can only be puzzled by the lack of correlation between the urgency emphasized systematically by every scientific reports and the timeframe that the climate negotiators seem to be working with. Could the EU help us a bit to reduce the gap between these two realities?

What the science tells us is rather straight forward.

In 2007, the fourth report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted that, in order to keep the temperature increase between 2 and 2.4 degrees, global emissions would need to peak before 2015.

This year, the International Energy Agency, an organization that no one would suspect of being too progressive (on the contrary…), published its 2011 World Energy Outlook. The report highlights that “if internationally co-coordinated action is not taken by 2017″, maintaining 50% of chance of reaching the two degrees target “would theoretically be possible at very high cost, but is probably not practicable politically”. Or, put otherwise, the international community needs either to take strong action before 2017 or to forget about its objective of stabilizing temperatures two degrees above pre-industrial era. And one does not dare to imagine what could happen with the other 50% probability.

Hence a clear message: the climate crisis requires URGENT action. Let’s now see how negotiators are delivering on this background.

The current round of negotiations

Before discussing the current state of play at the negotiations regarding potential timing of a new climate agreement, a short reminder of the timeframes related to the past climate agreements can be helpful. The process of the drafting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change lasted 18 months, while it took 33 months to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol.

Unfortunately, our governments have lost the skills or commitment that they showed in the nineties. Indeed, the current discussions related to the future of the Kyoto Protocol started as early as 2005 and have not yet been conclusive so far. The second track of negotiations related to the adoption of a new agreement was launched in 2007 with the objective to conclude its work within 2 years and is now nowhere closed to reaching any agreement on this matter.

This lost of effectiveness is all the more surprising when considering that, while the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol were negotiated in an era during which scientists were still studying the phenomenon of climate change, the reality and urgency of it are now undeniable.

Prospects for a future climate agreement

While I am puzzled by the previous observations, I am simply chocked when it comes to the prospects of reaching a future agreement.

The conference of Durban (and all other recent sessions) is organized in the context of the 2007 “Bali Action Plan”, the objective of which is to reach a new agreement (the form of which is not précised) for the period after 2012. In Panama during the October negotiations, Australia and Norway proposed a new roadmap for the negotiations in order to conclude an agreement by 2015. The proposal came as a cold shower to all of us engaged in these negotiations as an acknowledgement of the dramatic delay of these talks. Four days into the Durban negotiations, it seems many are now looking into postponing the opportunity for an agreement, possibly looking at binding emission reductions only after 2020.

I am not sure about you, but personally I am totally unable to understand how such a timeframe relates to the scientific reality to which I referred in the first section of this blog (if you do, make sure to leave a comment and help us understand).

Luckily for us, the small island states also share the same concern, and are doing their best to push back against such irresponsible timing. However they would need some serious support from other countries to ensure that we do not wait another decade before targets are adopted taken under the UN Convention.

A space for EU leadership?

This could be a clear role for the EU. The EU already expressed its willingness to possibly accept new (but too weak) targets under the Kyoto Protocol. While this first step is relatively positive, the EU could really help address the issue of timing by choosing a shorter period for its new engagement (5 years rather than 8 as seems to be its preferred option 8 currently). A short commitment period would send two positive messages:
- it would confirm its interest in seeing a new global agreement adopted as soon as possible,
- it would also ensure that the EU is not locked for too many years in its way too low ambition concerning emission reductions.

This crucial question of timing will be a key element to take into consideration when assessing the contribution made by the EU in this process, as it has the opportunity to make the best out of its current interest to “possibly” accept new obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Image: dream designs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net