Another end of year, another climate summit. This year two-week summit is held, in contrast of previous snowy Copenhagen, in sunny Cancun, Mexico. Can we expect some substantial outcomes or is it going to be just beach vacation for high officials?
After the last-year disappointment and excessive failure, there is no more great expectation now even in public for any binding agreement. Some representatives (Canada, US,..) criticize the UN process, mainly because of veto in decision-making process and its stalemate character of negotiations. To get into agreement opinions of approximately 200 hundred of people with various political and economic interests, and of different level of national vulnerability, it is seems to be as impossible. Generally , there are expected increments, which should take more binding form next year in South Africa. The UN call for agreements on forestry protection, climate financing and technology transfer.
The climate change influences geopolitical situation. Dilatory exceptions may come from more sides. China refer to historical responsibility of the US and refuse big cuts in emissions. Till fossil fuels are cheap, there is no economic will to change its pattern. And of course, US economy want to come to stay. ALBA nations (Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua) issued Cochabamba proposals endorsing new carbon market scheme. The scheme ask for higher financial support to vulnerable and developing states, establishing International Climate Justice Tribunal, and higher cuts in 50 % cuts in emissions till 2017. This act was marked also as a ransom (Ed Miliband, UK).
BASIC or advanced industrialized economies (China, Brazil, India, South Africa) ”have actually cut backroom deals with the U.S. to limit the scope of climate change negotiations. “ And EU? Dealing now with austerity matters, would probably not willing to provide shining financial help or reconsider substantial investments.
The outcome will probably deal mainly with financing. It would be quite problematic, where there is no strong political will and clear nationals´ advantages. The Global Energy Policy Center propose creation of flexibal global carbon pricing and creation of green fund. For closer explanation (http://www.global-energy.org/international/cancun-climate-summit). If any financial commitments are approved, there will be demand for rules of punishment, e.g. trade restrictions, as we can observe not following rules of already committed agreements.
Politicians should not try to persuade us about their will and comprehension, because we would wait in vain. I think that they should demonstrate what it is still in political power. It is not news that politicians have many times less influence that economy or financial system. It is time for them to show, that they still have a power in their hands to make substantial changes and also influence economy not vice versa. And also how writer and professor Lomborg concisely describes, they should not focus how make the fossils more expensive, but how make green technology cheaper and comparable. Then there would be no problem for changing and transferring economies. As digital revolution happened with big investments, so as should also green one. Investments (0,2 % GDP) in research and development can make green technologies accessible and expendable.
I hope that Mexico sun will not blind the seriousness of problem and that conference would not turn into vacations.