The 17th conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, popularly known as COP17, is taking place in Durban, South Africa, at a critical moment, as the historic 1997 Kyoto Protocol is set to expire next year.
However, like the climate-change conferences in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun, Mexico, last year, COP17 can be expected to spend much and produce little.
Indeed, the extravagance of these conferences seems to grow, rather than shrink, as their dismal results become more apparent. COP15 in Copenhagen lasted 12 days and is estimated to have attracted 15,000 delegates and 5,000 journalists.
The carbon emissions created by so many people flying to Denmark was real, while the emissions targets that the conference sought remained beyond reach.
That will be true in Durban as well — and on an even greater scale.
The real problem is that the expectations concerning meaningful action on climate change, as opposed to gimmicks such as US President Barack Obama’s last-minute arrival and minuscule gestures in Copenhagen, are now lower than ever.
There are two problems that cannot be wished away.
First, the US under Obama’s ineffective leadership has drifted yet further into a “What’s in it for me?” attitude on key issues requiring international action.
‘SELFISH HEGEMON’
In place of what the economist Charles Kindleberger once called an “altruistic hegemon,” the US that the world now faces is what I call a “selfish hegemon.”
Thus, the US has virtually pulled out of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, with Obama acquiescing to greedy business lobbies that will not settle unless more of their demands are met.
However, not only has Obama abandoned Doha, he has also seriously endangered the multilateral trading system by diverting US efforts and resources to discriminatory bilateral trade deals and, most recently, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will principally aid countries that are worried about an aggressive China and seek political security rather than increased trade.
The same is true of environmental action: After Australia’s belated ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2007, the US remains the only signatory that has not ratified the agreement.
The second problem is that the sheer weight of the US in international affairs, though diminished nowadays, has nonetheless led to a corruption of the principles that should underpin a new climate-change treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
For example, unlike the WTO, whose dispute-settlement mechanism imposes penalties for abandoning negotiated reductions of trade barriers, the targets for emission reductions are not binding and enforceable commitments.
The US has not agreed to accept such sanctions for failing to meet emissions targets, but, without penalties, the exercise is largely futile and only encourages cynicism about the effort to combat climate change.
Moreover, abandoning the Kyoto Protocol’s exemption of developing countries from obligations for current emissions, the US has insisted on obligations from China and India that reflect a common form of “taxation” of emissions.
However, there are persuasive reasons why these countries insist that the obligations must instead reflect per capita emissions, a criterion that would require far greater emission cuts by the US than its leaders now contemplate.
TRADEOFF
Besides, these countries correctly say that the tradeoff between action on climate change and poverty reduction is more compelling for them at their level of per capita income, unless they can access newly emerging technologies at low cost.
This demand suggests that the US should subsidize the flow of technology to India and China from US firms holding patents, which is highly impractical.
That is where the US$100 billion Global Climate Change Fund, promised at the Cancun COP16 conference, comes in.
Unfortunately, even environmental icons in the US, such as form US vice president Al Gore, are so heavily invested in new green technology that their self-interest is tied up in this fund being spent on developing privately owned new technologies that are protected by patents.
The new “Green Revolution” seeds that the Nobel laureate agronomist Norman Borlaug developed with public money were freely available to all users anywhere.
The technology developed by the money spent from the Global Climate Change Fund should also be equally available to all, including India and China, which would then enable them to agree to more emissions cuts.
PAST DAMAGE
Indeed, even the contributions to the fund should have reflected the past damage by the developed countries over the course of a century of carbon emissions — an obligation based on the well-established tort principle that the US has accepted for domestic pollution.
However, here, too, the US has rejected the idea outright.
Several such sensible ways to design the Kyoto Protocol’s successor treaty have been undermined by efforts to accommodate inappropriate US-led demands and objections, resulting in the impasse that became evident at the COP conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun.
Those who do not believe in magic know better than to hope that it will somehow disappear in Durban.
Jagdish Bhagwati is a professor of economics and law at Columbia University and senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under