While the Copenhagen climate summit had raised expectations unnecessarily only for the international community to end up with a damp squib right in its lap, this time round certain political strategists have changed tack.
Rather than doing their best to lower temperatures from a climatic point of view, they seem to have been more interested in lowering expectations of the outcome of the summit in order to ensure any small progress registered could still be construed as an important step forward.
While Copenhagen was promoted as the be all and end all, the EU wisely described the run- up to the Cancun conference as a significant “intermediate” step, hopefully building on the Kyoto protocol and paving the way towards a global and comprehensive legally binding framework, integrating “the political guidance” given in the Copenhagen accord.
In fact, the deal does not include a commitment to extend Kyoto beyond 2012 when it is due to expire but it did prevent a collapse of climate change negotiations. Multilateralism, although not strengthened, has also been somewhat saved.
Whether future summits will turn into a never-ending global talking shop remains to be seen.
The problems that arose during the talks also helped the worst case scenario from materialising, with British Climate Minister Chris Huhne’s expressed fear that talks risked becoming “a car crash”.
Mr Huhne had a point when he showed concern the danger was this could easily tip into a “zombie conference” where decisions were endlessly deferred.
All that it commits to regarding Kyoto is that its future would be decided in further negotiations over the next two years.
It might have heralded “a new era of international cooperation on climate change” but it still left many issues unresolved, primarily whether to seek to enshrine the goals into a legally binding agreement and to identify the sources of the annual climate-related aid industrialised nations have promised to cough up.
From an American perspective, I can understand the statement that it is “a balanced package that lays the ground for future progress”.
In setting standards for reporting actions each country is to take, American concerns that countries could manipulate the emissions and economic data they submitted for international review will be addressed.
On the positive side, although Cancun remains a fudge it is an improvement on the acrimony with which Copenhagen had collapsed.
Ban Ki-Moon had a good reading of the situation when he urged nations to agree to a modest deal without holding out for perfection.
The most delicate stage will, in my opinion, be reached in the post-Cancun period, when the EU will need to reassess – as it has already committed to do at summit level – the situation, including the examination of the option to move beyond 20 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions to be prepared to react to the ongoing international climate negotiations.
It is for this reason the European Council has been tasked to be prepared to report back on this issue by spring 2011.
The timing could not have been worse from a US administration point of view. Although I have no doubt President Barack Obama’s climate intentions are still as solid as they were during the Presidential race itself, I have a deep suspicion the fight over US environmental policy could shift next year as the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, leaving the Obama administration chasing “smaller victories” in the effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
If Mr Obama could not even get the climate Bill passed this year when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and he has already said that he will pursue smaller measures, his ambitious climate Bill risks ending up as dead as a dodo, although I would love to be proved wrong.
From a purely local perspective, we cannot afford to treat lightly what the European Environment Agency had to say on Malta that climate change is the main challenge facing our environment and also needs to be taken seriously as it may have devastating consequences for the island’s future.
It is a pity the minister concerned has repeatedly turned down my offer to list item by item which of the 96 measures approved last year by the House of Representatives have been implemented or else are “work in progress” in line with the climate mitigation strategy they form part of.
Even more worrying is we still need to be reassured as to whether the Malta Resources Authority has the necessary administrative capacity in place to harness the challenges climate change poses to our islands.
While we hope Malta’s benchmarking position on climate will get real, particularly in view of our obligations as an Annex 1 country as of this October 26, let us augur the “hope” surrounding the climate negotiations will gain momentum without tipping into “hype” once again.
Meanwhile, anyone who expected to solve Kyoto in Cancun must have been living in cuckoo land. After all, Kyoto remains unratified by the US and major emerging powers like China and India are not included in the agreement.
Let us hope in the coming months, initiatives that can make a difference on the ground will materialise.
Brincat.leo@gmail.com
www.leobrincat.com
The author is shadow minister for the environment, sustainable development and climate change.