Images from 2011: protesters against the Tar Sands Pipeline surround the White House

In December, Durban concluded on a decidedly mixed note, and has been heralded as everything from a thrilling breakthrough to a profound failure.  Durban does represent a breakthrough on the political level, in that governments of developed countries, including the EU and US, and emerging developing countries, including China and India, agreed to eventual legally binding emissions reductions.  This may represent a paradigm shift from the US’ position going into Durban, that developed countries need only sign on to voluntary pledges.  However, the Durban Platform states that countries will agree to a new legal treaty by 2015, which will come into force in 2020.  We already know that this is too late to avoid catastrophic and irreversible effects from climate change-2020 is simply too late.

Looking ahead, the news over the past few days has been a frenzy of coverage of the Republican Presidential primary election, through which the Republican Party will choose its candidate to run against President Obama in the 2012 presidential elections.  And frankly, the slate of candidates is depressing.  Grist published an article describing the current two frontrunners’ positions on climate policy, with the self-explanatory title “Santorum vs. Romney: The climate is screwed either way.”

Tar Sands protest at the White House

Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, used to at least acknowledge that climate change is a problem, even if his ideas for what to do about it weren’t particularly progressive.  Now, however, Romney claims that “my view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Rick Santorum is even worse.  A climate denier, Santorum has said that “there is no such thing as global warming,” and that climate change is “just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”

Sadly, President Obama may be better in words, but doesn’t have much to offer in practice.  The President who promised that his administration would “work tirelessly to… roll back the specter of a warming planet” in his 2009 inaugural address is now flip-flopping on whether the Keystone XL Pipeline, which NASA scientist James Hansen has called “game over for the planet,” should be built.

Syrian protesters; image by Flickr user Gwenaël Piaser

The need to take action to halt climate change became more apparent than ever in 2011.  And while many Americans feel that climate change doesn’t affect them personally, climate has become more inextricably woven in to American interests, from national security to American jobs and economic growth.  For example, the Climate Progress blog named food insecurity due to drought and extreme weather events the “climate story of the year” for 2011, concluding that “feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.”  In an  article in Foreign Affairs earlier this year,  Annia Ciezadlo made the connection between the Arab Spring and food security, saying that “change is sweeping through the Middle East today, but one thing remains the same: the region once known as the Fertile Crescent is now the world’s most dependent on imported grain. Of the top 20 wheat importers for 2010, almost half are Middle Eastern countries. The list reads like a playbook of toppled and teetering regimes: Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia.”

In 2012, climate change will confront us more urgently than ever, through links to increasingly common, seismic global events like the Arab Spring.  It’s time that US climate policy, international and domestic, reflects that reality.  2012 must be the year for climate progress.

protestors on the final day of talks at the ICC; image: Oxfam International

It’s the not-so-hidden secret of the UN climate negotiations: the United States has consistently blocked progress on reaching a deal to limit global greenhouse gas emissions and avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.  Surprisingly, the US stance here hasn’t changed much since the black hole days of the Bush administration.  In President Obama’s first inaugural address, he promised that his administration would “work tirelessly to… roll back the specter of a warming planet.” Yet since that euphoric moment, the administration’s vision for a new climate future has foundered.

On this last day of the climate negotiations (well, the day after the last day, but who’s counting), the US is playing the same old role.  While other countries have shifted in an effort to find points of compromise, the US is a broken record, harping on the need for other major emitters to commit, and for a new legal regime that begins in 2020, long after a more ambitious deal is needed.  As top-secret negotiations continue behind closed doors to hammer out a final text, it is unclear precisely what is going on.  But it is fairly easy to infer that it is the US, perhaps giving political cover to India and China, who is holding us back.

The good news is that the US is increasingly isolated here.  While parties spent the first week and a half of COP17 split in a number of coalitions around each issue, there was a sudden shift on Thursday night, when some 120 countries, including Brazil and South Africa-half of the powerful BASIC negotiating block-fell behind the EU’s roadmap for a new legal regime by 2015. As everyone from diplomat Connie Hedegaard to a particularly brave young American woman put pressure on the US to move, US stalwartness began to crack, and US negotiator Todd Stern made ambiguous remarks about the EU roadmap that the State Department was forced to clarify.

The US must yield to this global pressure and step aside, letting the rest of the world adopt a hard-won compromise to fight climate change.  There is a precedent for this: in 2007 in Bali, the Bush administration caved to pressure from the global community- saying “we will go forward and join consensus”- at the last moment and allowed the Bali Action Plan, a mandate for a new treaty regime, to go forward.

The Bali negotiations have another ironic resonance with today as well.  In Bali, Al Gore said “over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it is not right now. We are going to change in the US.” But we haven’t changed.  But to save the planet from an unacceptable climate future, we need to change. What we need in Durban is another Bali moment.  The US must stand aside.

Last night (or this morning!), the Ministerial Indaba (informal meeting to consider the entire package) broke up around 2am, with ministers turning at that point to consider the KP text.  A new LCA text was supposed to be available at 6am this morning, and ministers were expected to reconvene the Indaba around 9 or 10 am.  The COP closing plenary will presumably get started when the Indaba lets out.  For more on what happened last night, check out Séb’s excellent summary.

The latest Green Climate Fund text, Kyoto Protocol text, and bigger picture text are available on the UNFCCC website (we’re still waiting on the LCA).

The text that is currently on the table calls for the launch of an Ad Hoc Working Group with a mandate to negotiate a new legal instrument, to be completed “as soon as possible” and no later than 2015, and to be adopted at COP21.  Kelly Rigg, Executive Director of GCCA, argues that the new bigger picture text is much stronger than what was on the table last night, but that it may be “too strong” for the US and other major emitters like China.  The Green Climate Fund still has two outstanding issues-where the Fund will be located, and some brackets remaining in the text-but Oxfam International’s Tim Gore suggests that “once the whole package comes together it’s going to sail through no problem.”

The problem of course is that ministers still need to consider the texts as an entire package of decisions, and there is little chance that one piece will move without all of the others. On the other hand, this means that negotiators may have some wiggle room to work out a final bargain today.

For more on the state of play, check out The Guardian and AFP‘s latest coverage.

Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace, Mohamad Aslam, Minister of the Environment of the Maldives, and the group of protestors are currently fenced into a space near the main plenary hall by a wall of UNFCCC security personnel.  How will this peaceful standoff end? We’ll keep you updated!

More images:

Connie Hedegaard surrounded by a media scrum

The EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard kicked off the final day of the Durban talks, giving the first press conference of the day.  Her strident remarks focused around the EU roadmap that has now been endorsed by AOSIS and the LDCs.  Some 120 countries are now said to be on board with the proposal, and Brazil and South Africa have made positive noises as well. Hedegaard came out more forcefully than usual, saying “today, an agreement is within reach…EU’s roadmap is at the core of the intense negotiations,” but that “we must commit, and we all must commit in the same legal form.”

She indicated that “success or failure in Durban hangs on the small number of countries [read: the US, China, India] that have not yet committed to the roadmap.”  A reporter also noted that last night, the US State Department “clarified” a statement that the visibly shaken Todd Stern made yesterday, saying that the US does not in fact support the legally binding EU roadmap. Hedegaard was hopeful that a deal can be reached here in Durban, but warned that “if there is no further movement than what I have seen at 4am yesterday, then I must say I don’t think there will be a deal in Durban.”

In response to a question about India, Stern indicated that “I would not say that there is a conflict between us right now. We are not insisting on legally binding agreements at the moment.”  On the two degree target, he said “I think that we look at two degrees as an important and serious goal which ought to guide what we do, which ought to guide the action that we take in order to try and attain it… But we don’t see it as akin to a national target.”

Find the full transcript here (although the site seems to be down at the moment…).

Abigail Borah being led away by UNFCCC security; image: flickr user SustainUS

The frustration is being expressed most overtly by NGOs and activists here, who may be gearing up to take desperate action before the week’s end.  Already, one particularly brave young American woman gave many observers goosebumps this morning: as US negotiator Todd Stern was called to the platform in plenary to give his address, Abigail Borah’s voice rose from the back of the room, to speak “on behalf of the United States of America because my negotiators cannot,” highlighting that “the obstructionist Congress has shackled a just agreement and delayed ambition for far too long.” The plenary of leaders from around the world filled with applause, even as Borah was led away by UNFCCC security.

US negotiator Todd Stern; image: IISD

Her courageous action shook the normally poker-faced US negotiators.  Todd Stern instantly moved up a press conference that was scheduled to start hours later, and in his opening remarks responded directly to Borah’s statement, tetchily referring to “a misconception running around and kind of gaining currency… suggest[ing] that the US is proposing that we delay action until 2020.” He remained adamant on this point, that  “it’s also not accurate to describe the US as blocking a legally binding agreement.”

But US youth were on fire this afternoon, calling attention to the US’s position here as a climate laggard.  At a press conference called by SustainUS, a US youth organization advancing sustainable development, Marielle Remillard countered that “the US stance lacks urgency and ambition,” and “it is almost farcical that we are asking for another scientific review between 2013 and 2015…we don’t need another scientific review, we need action now.”

Ethan Case of SustainUS called attention to the fact that US negotiators here are largely hamstrung by Congress: “a minority within Congress has consistently stalled progress on climate change.” But he also criticized the White House administration, saying “decisions about climate are consistently kicked down the road by US leadership,” on everything from the Tar Sands pipeline decision to international climate policy.  He also shared the often-expressed disappointment with the Obama administration’s lack of courage on climate policy: “we ask ourselves a lot as youth if we’ve been duped by [Obama’s] message of change.”

In response to a question from Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, a clearly agitated Todd Stern said this afternoon that “what the US has been doing over the past 2 years, with all due respect, is showing the leadership necessary to try to drag this process into the 21^st century.”

Mr. Stern, I respectfully disagree.  Today, US youth did their best to drag the United States from its pariah status back to a leadership position in the international community.  I hope the White House administration was listening.

EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard; image: flickr user EU Parliament

International NGOs and country groups like BASIC are traditional US critics, so their criticisms sometimes fall on deaf ears.  But today, the normally placid EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard launched a particularly scathing attack on the US position, which was all the more notable since she is the highest ranking EU minister here, representing this block of traditional US allies.

In a press briefing today, Hedegaard said “The US do not seem to want a legally binding deal. To me it’s a bit unclear what they want. It’s important to us that countries are legally bound when it comes to big problems…..when Gorbachev and Reagan reached agreement to end the cold war they did not pledge voluntarily to reduce their nuclear weapons.”

And later: “I think that it is a big difference if you’ve had a big increase in emissions since 1990 and if you have on the other hand reduced your emissions,” a subtle dig at President Obama’s commitment to reduce US emissions 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels.  The EU target of 20% by 2020 is benchmarked off of 1990 numbers, theoretically making it more ambitious.  The dig was ironic (although perhaps intentionally so), because US officials were heard last week comparing the US target favorably to the EU.

Meanwhile, Todd Stern continued to defend the same tired position on a legally binding treaty, explaining “we are not insisting on legally binding agreements at the moment.”  Stern’s remarks about the 2 degrees target were even more worrisome.  When I pushed a US official on this issue yesterday, said official admitted rather candidly that it is “not at all clear” whether current targets will be enough to keep the world below 2 degrees of warming.  Today, Stern’s public comments reaffirmed that the US vision would probably lead to warming above 2 degrees: “we look at 2 degrees as an important and serious goal which ought to guide what we do, which ought to guide the action that we take in order to attain it…we don’t see it as akin to a national target.”

In short, the United States is looking more and more bungling, inept, and even isolated in this international arena. In the past, countries were quick to criticize the US, but often in diplomatic terms.  But it seems like US obstinacy has become frustrating enough that even the most diplomatic, namely the EU, are becoming almost biting in their public stance.

This new candor could be a good thing, if it means that the international community has finally worked up the courage to isolate the United States, and get on with a treaty whether or not the US is “ready” to join. Connie Hedegaard summed up the shame that we should feel very adequately: “if they even will not say that they will commit in the future, I think they take on an almost unbearable responsibility, because that will have very, very severe consequences for all of us.”

On the Green Climate Fund, he indicated that negotiators would not try to modify the report issued by the Transitional Committee, but would rather make changes “in the context of the covered decision that is the thing that the COP acts on.” Stern said that as of us this afternoon, he is still hopeful that countries would be able to come up with transparency guidelines in Durban.

See the full transcript of the briefing here.