As workers dismantled the temporary structures at Durban ICC removing all traces of the two weeks of hectic negotiations, it became increasingly clear that there had been no real increase in ambition or the short hand used in climate change talks for increased emission reduction.
The industrialised countries spoke of the need to do more, pushing advanced developing countries to cross their red lines, or non-negotiables in the name of greater ambition. The European Union had gone into Durban linking a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol with an agreement to begin work on a future global pact which included all countries. The EU got its way, and felt the decision by China and India to sign on to a new global regime that includes them, was a big step in dealing with climate change. However, with the attention so focused on the new regime, little was done to step up efforts to reduce emissions under “the only existing legally binding agreement” or the Kyoto Protocol.
While a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol has now been secured, there has been no increase in the emission reduction targets that industrialised countries have taken on. Not only that, what the industrialised countries have secured is locking in their low targets for a period of eight years. While having demanded on the other side that world had waited long enough and needed to act quickly/ “Four years is enough time”, EU Commissioner for climate change Connie Hedegaard has said several times over the last fortnight.
With the global deal now secured, the European Union is expected to increase its target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. It will not as demanded by science and developing countries reduce its emissions by 40 per cent. The EU cites its internal legislative measure of 'Climate and Energy package' and its 'Renewable Energy' directive, which sets a 20 per cent share for renewables in the energy basket, for the 30 per cent emission reduction target. However, internal calculations by the European Commission reveal these internal unilateral measures do not prevent it from achieving a higher emission reduction target.
But it is not just in emission reduction targets where this asymmetry of effort. This imbalance is clear in the text of decisions on the Bali Action Plan adopted at Durban. This text of decisions places a greater deal of responsibility on developing countries, particularly countries like India. The differentiation between developed and developing countries that has been the bedrock of the global climate regime has already been written out, even before work on the Durban Plan on Enhanced Action has even begun. While there are specific timelines for actions or requirements that developing countries have to meet, there is no timeline for support, neither technology nor finance, from developed countries. Given that the Durban talks have been overwhelming about timelines, particularly a new climate regime, it is odd that there is no timetable for providing support that would help developing countries deal with climate change.
