Climate Talks End on Divided Note
UN representatives have been working to create a draft political agreement to be presented at next month's climate change talks in Copenhagen.
But the lack of a legally binding deal at the five-day summit in Barcelona has left many at the talks disappointed.
With the clock ticking, this was meant to be the final step towards a global agreement.
This gathering in Barcelona was to produce the next blueprint for the fight against climate change - the document all leaders would sign next month in Copenhagen. Only - it hasn't - and they won't.
Behind closed doors - the splits are as wide as ever.
Africa wants more action from richer countries - frustrated their carbon emission cuts don't go far enough.
Augustin Njamnshi is here, lobbying for Pan African Climate, an organisation that campaigns for climate-related and equity-based development.
He told me: "What we're asking for is that the developed countries adapt and change their way of life so that life will be much more comfortable and tolerable on earth.
"Climate change is forcing the poor people to adapt. They have no choice," he said.
Africa wants cuts of 40 per cent using 1990 emissions as the baseline.
The EU says it will commit to at least 20 per cent, perhaps going as high as 30.
Australia, Japan and New Zealand have also set targets at a lot less than forty per cent.
Canada is considered a joke among climate campaigners, particularly when politicians talk about cuts compared to what future emissions might be.
And there will be no commitment from the United States until Congress discusses the issue.
That means the best that can be hoped from Copenhagen is a political agreement.
It's nothing legally binding, but it will be a framework for the future with all the important numbers missing.
Slow progress
Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Commission's main climate negotiator, rejects the idea that the Barcelona meeting has been a failure.
He sees it as an important step in the process.
"You will still have a result and a deal in Copenhagen that should allow implementation of emission reduction measures and adaptation measures in the time after Copenhagen.
"So we shouldn't stop implementation because everyone in the room knows we have to do something about the problem," he said.
When I ask how long it will take for a full climate change treaty to be agreed, he talks in terms of six months to a year.
Some of the protestors here acknowledge that while not being the huge success that was being forecast a year ago, Barcelona does mark slow and steady progress to a climate change deal.
"Better to have a good agreement in a year than a bad one now," is how one delegate summed up the week's events.
"They're still talking, still moving forward," argues Duncan Marsh from the Nature Conservancy, a US-based conservation organisation.
"And there's growing evidence government leaders are engaged behind the scenes at unprecedented levels."
Yet like others he insists there has to be a deal in months.
Global solution
Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele looks like a scientist. And he is. A very good one.
He's an expert climatologist and also vice chairman of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides scientific advice to the politicians.
He insists what is needed is a global solution.
"Each year we are losing, in a period when we emit two times more that what natural systems can absorb, we are building up the thickness of that CO2 layer around the earth and we are buying warming in the future we could have avoided. So time really matters."
The global financial crisis has undoubtedly hit developments here.
Developing nations can't say how much they will cut emissions until they know how much aid they'll get.
Richer nations won't commit to aid figures while their economies are struggling and they know how much it will cost
Outside, the campaign groups are inventive in their efforts to attract media attention.
On Friday, it was the "green spacemen" of Greenpeace, who were demanding to be taken to the "Climate Change leader" making the point that no-one seems to be driving the discussions to a conclusion.
When the world leaders gather in Denmark next month, there will be more demonstrations.
And if they don't give an indication that a deal is close, those protests will be louder - and angrier.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
8 Comments so far
Show AllI would rather have 1% of the climatesaving efforts of 99% of the people, than 100% of the climatesaving efforts of 1% of the people.
---J. Paul Snydly
If we make it, it will be because WE did it, not because of anything the elite did.
Education is the way. But computers do not educate. Neither do colleges scrambling for corporate funds.
Family does.
And humorous as 'old goat's' finale is, the inescapable facts are first that, bad as family can sometimes be, only family educates the child away from greed, and second that American adults are the most monstrous, squalling children in the room adhering proudly to the maxim, Selfishness is a Virtue. Following this Anglo-Saxon 'lead', family in the west has has become a joke; a sentimental absurdity expressed as an unpleasant, grinning obligation at odd, obscenely commercialised times of the year.
Then there are countries elsewhere taking the initiative. They see the simple truth that the only way to the front is to lead, and no one follows unless the lead is founded on service, which does not mean the likes of buying one's individuality by being a wage slave at McDonalds, or paying taxes to send thousands of paid cyborgs, lethally armed killers who scream for mommy when damaged by those they seek to damage, into many countries elsewhere in the name of regime change.
America is screaming nuts!
What Copenhagen needs to do is develop and enforce an international framework for Patent Law: any country that pushes the technology, and makes a breakthrough that other countries need to adopt to battle GW, THAT country gets the invention rights.
That way any one country can choose to take this issue seriously, on its own, and could end up with a MASSIVE foreign trade advantage if its good behavior ends up with a technological breakthrough that other countries want to deploy.
Otherwise, there's no reason to 'go first'.
as long as multinational capitalists run the world we ar all doomed
It seems that most of the world "leaders" are taking a "You go first" position because they are fearful of the economic impact of a commitment to responsible behavior. They talk about the necessity of a global agreement and the participation of the U.S.A. as if they cannot individually act and make the necessary commitments.
As if the arrogant dimwits in the U.S.A. and other retarded nations are holding everybody hostage.
Someone needs to raise the bar.
Somebody needs to go to Copenhagen and say "We are moving ahead because we are decent, caring people who believe in the advantages, economic, ecological, and health related, of changing our destructive behavior. We would love to share this commitment with all of the world community, but we refuse to be restrained or further violated by nations which are trapped within their own dissolute addictions".
Global overpopulation and extreme money-power concentration are the source of climate problems, and ignorance and greed are the causes. The rational solution is education and the fastest way to educate is online. Instead of junking old computers, developed countries could send them to people who don't have access to them and get them online. Educated people have less children. Online computers may not reverse the greed of the money-power, but they will start a groundswell against it. That could be why the money-power junks (recycles) used computers, or am I being paranoid?
Ahhh... kali at work... the blind men and elephant ... the monkey that attempted to grab the fruit that had fallen into the bottle and in grasping it could not get its hand back out through the narrow neck.
The myth that the system that exists cannot be changed quickly and creatively because of greed by accumulation.
The myth that we must fear change, which is a 'modern' notion.
and the child said.... can we change now?