Equity, Mitigation, and Finance! Oh my!

In what I can only imagine was a bid to live up to the title of a recent piece in The Economist titled, “Climate Change: Theatre of the Absurd,” a U.S. negotiator recently told a crowded room, “When a country does less than it is capable of doing, ambition suffers and we all face the consequences of a continued downward spiral.”

Seated within view of the U.S. delegation, I gazed at them incredulously. The very notion that the U.S., of all countries, would say such a thing is absurd.

But this is precisely the sort of patronizing irony that the U.S. is so fond of delivering. Uttering profound, powerful statements with the smooth tongue of a well-trained deliverer and then skipping off to do the exact opposite.

Further proof that the U.S. can say whatever it pleases because it will do whatever it pleases with little to no accountability or backlash, making a mockery of transparency, fairness, and diplomacy. All the while telling everyone else how they should behave. It’s maddening.

The U.S. does not appear committed to this process, committed to a fair deal, or committed to taking the sort of bold action necessary to lower emissions. Regardless of how sympathetic individual negotiators might be to the issues we are raising on equity, mitigation, and finance, the U.S. position remains committed to moving forward with an agreement that serves its own interests without concern to historical (or present day) obligations and responsibilities.

On issues of mitigation, the U.S. refuses to budge from its Copenhagen pledge of a 17% reduction in emissions. Not only is this an epic fail in terms of ambition and leadership, this refusal to commit to a reduction that will move us off the dangerous track we’re on also fails to reflect the shift in the American public’s desire for climate action and ignores the voices of the victims of the wildfires, drought, and intense tropical storms that have ravaged U.S. communities in the last six months. In spite of Obama’s words, the U.S. is still negotiating on behalf of political interests rather than the needs of the people.

The issue of equity is equally exasperating. The U.S. has reiterated its push to break down the firewall between developed and developing countries in terms of mitigation responsibilities. Arguing for flexibility that allows countries to operate within their constraints and develop measures that are consistent with their national development priorities, the U.S. also maintains that any mitigation rules need to be rules that apply to all parties. But to countries struggling to bear the burden of a problem they are not responsible for, this is as difficult to swallow as it is impossible to implement. To Americans wanting strong leadership and ambition, this is a cop out that enables the U.S. to shirk any real responsibility.

Touting fairness under the banner of equal mitigation responsibilities does not absolve the U.S. (or anyone else) of incorporating equity into a climate deal. If the U.S. wants to push a “one size fits all” mitigation strategy, it has a responsibility to address the finance gap and to fulfill its funding promises. Although one U.S. delegate suggested yesterday that we should celebrate that countries have substantially contributed to finance, the Green Climate Fund remains empty and the Fast Start Finance Commitment has fallen short.

According to a report published by IIED, ”only US$23.6 billion of the US$30 billion promised has been committed. And only 20 per cent of the fast start finance has been allocated to projects that will help poor nations adapt to a changing climate. Less than half of the fast start finance is in the form of grants. The rest is loans, which means poor countries must repay with interest the costs of adapting to a problem they have not caused. And rich nations have not provided enough transparent information to prove that their contributions are really new and not just diverted from existing aid budgets.”

Undermining the principles of climate justice embodied in the UNFCCC is not the way forward. These are not issues the U.S. can sweep under the rug, and a refusal to effectively address them is simply setting us up for even more climate gridlock.

Referring to this process as “the theatre of the absurd” may be harsh, but it’s also spot-on. When the U.S. can, with a straight face, give everyone advice that it would do well to follow, it only serves to further illustrate how disconnected and ridiculous this process has become. But it’s the only one we’ve got so however absurd this show might be, we can’t close the curtain on it just yet. While some are calling for an entirely new venue, perhaps what’s really needed is a change in actors and a rewriting of the script.