Passing the buck, what else is new

At this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (APEC), it looks like global leaders have decided to put off making a serious commitment towards the climate change crisis, and seemed more interested in dressing up in matching outfits. Yes, they've decided to do nothing for time being. Inspiring. The leaders attending the conference, including President Obama, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, and Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, announced this morning that a climate change deal which would have been legally binding would be an impossible result at Copenhagen in month's time, where the United Nations summit climate change summit will convene. So, what will be in their sights will be achieving a far less ambitious, tough and detailed "politically binding" treaty, while hoping that legal requirements and hard data will be included as requirements. Mike Froman, President Obama's deputy national security adviser said:

There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days.

Rubbish. This crisis is the most serious threat to our planet's security and stability. There really is just no motivation to take any serious action or responsibility, the political will is still lacking.

Climate change experts meanwhile have seen the definitive objective of the Copenhagen summit, to take a serious stand with firm, legal requirmements, stripped down due to a lack of political will. Just last year, climate change experts were expecting an international successive agreement to the Kyoto Protocal, which has a 2012 expiration date. So, what now? More lofty rhetoric and little action.

The problem not only arises from a lack of political will, but also from an endless, almost infantile charade of "nanny-nanny-boo-boo", ie "it's your fault", "no, it's your fault". Developing countries wish to embrace stringent, but short-term reduction targets for emissions, and reject taking the blame for climate change, saying that it is predominantly the result of wealthy industrialized nations. America meanwhile is leading the charge for wealthy industrialized nations, countering that China and India, who represent rising developing countries, are going to be responsible for the majority of the future's carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol excluded such nations from taking responsibility, and any future agreement must include them. Now, that does seem fair, however America, led by President Obama, has to also take responsibility for that country's rather large carbon emission footprint. Negotiations to bridge that divide have been ongoing for months, throughout major cities such as Bangkok and Barcelona, but to little avail.

Obama also has to cope with the fact that the U.S. Congress has yet to pass any serious carbon capping legislation. Only when Congress legislates deep cuts in carbon emissions will Obama push for an international treaty with compulsory targets for emissions. Bryan Walsh seems to think that with dwindling expectations, this could provide an opportunity for Obama and other global leaders to outline a tougher political accord. A structure for any future deal could be drafted by envoys while Congress eventually hammers out some form of carbon capping legislation (hopefully in the form of tough and unyielding).

But while the political will is lacking, the bickering continues, and Walsh's hope for a stronger political deal being drafted at Copenhagen looms, President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, a nation which lies in the Indian Ocean and one day could be swallowed by climate change induced flooding, summed it the best for those of us who want immediate action:

We don't want a global suicide pact. We want a global survival pact.