“It may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now,” Ban Ki-moon said.

The UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, were supposed to end this past Friday night after nearly two weeks of negotiations. But the talks continued long into Sunday night with the delegates desperately trying to come up with at least some sort of agreement to avoid another COP15-style failure. In the very last hour the delegates managed to agree on a deal. This outcome was largely thanks to three powerful women politicians, one of them being EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

And so the 17th climate summit ended with an agreement that at least the EU believes commits all major developing countries such as China, USA and India among others, to accept legally binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately these binding targets won’t come into force until 2020, or even later in worst case. So basically, “the deal saves the talks”, but not the climate.

By waiting till 2020 to enforce cuts in greenhouse gas emissions our leaders have successfully ignored the 2 degrees target, which scientists regard as the final upper limit of safety against irreversible climate chaos, and set us on a path towards an increase of 4 degrees in global temperatures. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said that “delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions” and that this delay would mean a 4 degrees temperature increase.

“This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”

Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said that “the chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet.”

But not everyone agreed that the Durban deal was a failure. Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, was a bit more optimistic and said that COP17 was a “significant step forward“.

“For the first time ever we have a process within the [UNFCCC] where there are regular reviews of the scientific evidence and seeing where the commitments of countries are. [...] Up to now we have not even had a commitment to [be guided by] the scientific evidence,” he said. “If you talk to the Russians, they will tell you their scientists say there is no global warming.”

Ban Ki-moon welcomed the outcome and said that the deal is “essential for stimulating greater action and for raising the level of ambition and the mobilization of resources to respond to the challenges of climate change.”

“Taken together, these agreements represent an important advance in our work on climate change,” Ban said, calling on countries to “quickly implement these decisions and to continue working together in the constructive spirit evident in Durban.”

We made it. EU’s strategy worked. We got a roadmap that marks a breakthrough for international fight against climate change. Good night.

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) December 11, 2011

So what’s in the Durban deal? Reuters has a good rundown on what was agreed on this past week during COP17. If you can handle the dry legal language you can find the final texts here. The text talks about a process to “develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force that will be applicable to all Parties to the UN climate convention.” What the terms “legal instrument” and “agreed outcome” really means for a future climate deal is still pretty uncertain. It wouldn’t surprise me if countries will use these unclear terms to delay much-needed action on climate as the UN process develops. The delegates in Durban also made little progress on the much-needed Green Climate Fund.

“The Durban talks made headway on agreeing the design of Green Climate Fund to channel up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to poorer nations, but achieved little on establishing where the money will come from to fill it”, Reuters writes.

Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns for Oxfam, said that “governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund.” If countries doesn’t quickly intensify their emissions cuts “we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees [of temperature increase],” Charveriat said.

So despite the delegates reaching an agreement in the very last hour, and then some, this was another COP failure. But what would you expect from a summit which received minimal media attention and interest from world leaders? Our climate will die while we’re busy saving the banks and a failed economic system.

The U.N. chief warned that humanity is “running out of time.”

He told the gathering of heads of State, international economists, business leaders and representatives of civil society that to avoid national and global “disaster” will require balanced development that will lift millions out of poverty and, at the same time, protect the planet and ecosystems that support economic growth. He said, “It is good business – good politics – and good for society.”

“China is going to leave all of us in the dust,” Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change declared the previous day, the Associated Press reported.

The diplomat leading the U.N. Climate talks said that China is surpassing the U.S. and Europe in developing clean and low-carbon energy as a way to spur its economy.

“China is committed to winning the green economy race,” she said. “And honestly they are not doing it just because they want to save the planet. They are doing it because it’s good for the economy.”

Last year China increased spending on low-carbon energy by 30 percent to $51.1 billion, “by far the largest figure for any country,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The accounting firm Ernst & Young reported in September that China for the first time surpassed the U.S. in its quarterly index of the most appealing countries for renewable energy projects.

“You can leapfrog – you don’t have to follow the model of the north,” Figueres declared. “China is showing this.” China’s chief climate negotiator Su Wei has said his country will boost energy efficiency in its next five-year plan being worked out this year.

European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard called on U.S. business to take greater initiative in embracing a more energy-efficient economic model.

Governments can provide the conditions for green growth by setting “a price on carbon,” Hedegaard said. “If it costs a lot to pollute a lot, then business has an incentive to pollute less.”

This article was first published in People’s World on February 4th, 2011.
Author: Juan Lopez.

During the G8 the world leaders failed to agree on specific targets for climate cuts. They only agreed on “substantially reduce” global emissions by 2050, without any legally binding targets or a roadmap. The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticizes the G8 climate outcome and says it’s “not sufficient”, and that “much more needs to be done” if the world is to be able to agree on a new climate agreement during the climate talks in Copenhagen later this year.

“The time for delays and half-measures is over. The personal leadership of every Head of State or Government is needed to seize this moment to protect people and the planet from one of the most serious challenges ever to confront humanity.”

Ban Ki-moon warned in a statement, issued shortly after the G8 climate meetings, that if the world’s leaders “fail to act this year, they will have squandered a unique historical opportunity that may not come again”. But the Secretary General did welcome the G8 long term goal to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. But said that for it to be credible it requires “ambitious mid-term targets” and “clear baselines”.

“In order to achieve such a global goal, developed countries must lead by example in making firm commitments to reduce their emissions by 2020 on the order of the 25 – 40 per cent below 1990 levels that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us is required. It is disappointing to note that thus far, the mid-term emission targets announced by developed countries in the MEF are not in this range.

Every country must do its part, based on the principle of equity. Developing countries also need to contribute by undertaking national efforts to mitigate emissions that are nationally appropriate, measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Developing countries need funding and technology assistance. Funding is also needed to assist vulnerable developing countries adapt to the harmful effects of climate change.

We stand at a historical crossroads. Business as usual is no longer viable.”

Green Blog twittered during the G8 meetings and you can read all the “tweets” here.

Photo credit: rockcohen

Leaders from the European Union (EU) have just agreed on a new watered-down climate deal to tackle global warming. The actual emissions cuts could amount to as little as 4% by 2020.

Yesterday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in Poznan that “the world is watching us. The next generation is counting on us. We must not fail.” He also called for the EU to show the way and leadership on the climate crisis for other countries. Unfortunately it seems the short-sighted “leaders” of Europe ignored him. Instead of 30% emission cuts by 2020 the EU leaders only agreed on cuts by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

But the actual emission cuts could end up being as little as 4% by 2020, environmental groups warned. That is because of special exemptions for dirty industries in Europe as well as allowing cheap emission cuts overseas to be counted to the EU total. The latter has been heavily pushed by the new Swedish right-wing government who has called for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries.

“EU leaders will probably trumpet the deal on climate change as a great success, but in reality this is a big failure in EU ambition,” said Delia Villagrasa, Senior Advisor to WWF.

“Basically, Europe just decided to off-set about two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies get for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to climate change. This is not quite the third industrial revolution we were expecting,

“The result of this race to the bottom is that Europe will reduce its own greenhouses gas emissions significantly less than the proclaimed 20% target by 2020.”

EU leaders on the other hand have said the new climate deal is “historic” and “ambitious”.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called the plans “the most ambitious proposals anywhere in the world”, saying that “Europe has today passed its credibility test. We mean business when we talk about climate.”

And French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a press conference in Brussels that “this is historic” and that it “was difficult up to the last minute” to reach an agreement on the deal.

“A flagship E.U. policy now has no pilot, a mutinous crew and numerous holes in its fuselage,” said Sanjeev Kumar of the environment group WWF.

“This is a dark day for European climate policy. European heads of state and government have reneged on their promises and turned their backs on global efforts to fight climate change,” Climate Action Network Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF said in a joint statement today.

“Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi, Donald Tusk and Nicolas Sarkozy should be ashamed. They have chosen the private profits of polluting industry over the will of European citizens, the future of their children and the plight of millions of people around the world. The Parliament can and should amend the worst parts of today’s deal.”