Was it just about words?

Following the disastrous Copenhagen summit, any new conference that left the glass half full was always predestined to be considered more than a partial success.

But, in real terms, was Durban just a feast of words? And will it help in any tangible manner in meeting the daunting challenges ahead?

Only last July, the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change had stated that giving in to forces of low ambition would be an act of climate appeasement. He had even defined it as “our Munich moment”.

As was the case in Cancun, enough had been achieved to save the UN process but not enough to save the planet!

Someone once equated climate change with a classic case of the prisoner’s dilemma. The theory goes that every country will benefit if all countries take action to combat climate change but it’s only in my interest to take action if I know others are doing so too and if I think they’re not it’s in my interest not to.

While Cancun reversed the downward spiral, one still begs to question whether Durban will restore a sense of renewed momentum. To say that reactions to Durban were mixed is a gross understatement.

That a deal was effectively struck was an achievement in itself but the postponement of certain actions dampened the outcome considerably.

Some have even gone to the extent of claiming that the deal is nothing but a guarantee that our children will be worse off than us. As well as that the world’s climate debt continues to soar, thus postponing action merely threatens an environmental austerity far greater than today’s economic woes.

In principle, the world’s governments have agreed on a mandate to adopt a legal agreement on climate change no later than 2015, which will come into force in 2020.

But while it might be an all time first that the world’s emerging economies have agreed to enter into a legal arrangement on emissions reduction, many are of the opinion that the compromise reached is likely to prove ineffective because it will merely lead to a delay until 2020 of the actual implementation process.

Even the binding nature of any international regimes is in doubt because, in most cases, the devil is almost always invariably in the detail.

It is good to learn of a $100 billion a year commitment for the Green Climate Fund by that date but we still have to figure out whether pledges will actually turn into realisable commitments as well as where the cash will actually come from.

Prior to Durban, the mere notion of a legally binding global agreement involving the world’s major emitters seemed distant and remote. The door has been reopened since then.

The targets that have been set should be subject to review from 2013-2015 to decide whether they need to be toughened or not.

While the US and China understandably found the “pledge and review” process of voluntary pledges adequate enough to ensure carbon reduction on a global level, the EU itself and a number of developing countries still find this far weaker an accord than a legally binding treaty. That is mainly because the voluntary process could prove to be too prone to politicians going back on their commitments.

The discussion still needs to commence as to how far and how fast will countries (or, rather, should countries) be cutting their carbon dioxide.

This is in itself particularly worrying because emissions have risen by nearly 50per cent over these past 20 years. And all indications suggest that they will continue to rise.

Even if governments will wrap up the Durban Platform by 2015 and sign an eventual legal document, it still has to be seen whether all governments will have ratified it within the following five years. If anything, Durban has heightened public awareness further. The summary conclusion of certain American editorialists, like The New York Times, was that the underwhelming response to the genuinely bad news of rising temperatures shows again how far world leaders are from making the hard decisions necessary to control the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Rather than bothering about more summitry, we all need to address the question as to what to do about the rising emissions in the next decade.

Lehman Brothers and Greece have showed us that debts are not always honoured. Will the same lack of political will surface in the climate sector?

I agree with those who equate such treaties with nuclear disarmament agreements. They are a great starting point but their success is entirely dependent on the willingness of signatories to actually begin to disarm.

The train might take some time to reach the station. Even whether it will or not remains in some doubt. But, at least, we can reassure ourselves that it has not been derailed and that the transition to a low carbon economy can still happen, albeit at a more sluggish pace than hoped for.

Meanwhile, the prospect of the next climate summit in Qatar beckons.

Brincat.leo@gmail.com

www.leobrincat.com

The author, a member of Parliament, is the Labour Party’s spokesman for the environment, sustainable development and climate change.