Climate Change Talks in South Africa

Play
Download

The UN climate change conference is in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011. (Photo: Cien)

The UN climate change conference is in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011. (Photo: Cien)

International climate change negotiators are back at it his week in Durban, South Africa. Negotiators are scrambling to make significant progress in a process that seems to have fallen far behind the urgency of the the problem.

Anchor Marco Werman gets an update from the BBC’s environment correspondent, Richard Black.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. International climate change negotiators are back at it this week in Durban, South Africa. Negotiators are scrambling to make significant progress in a process that seems to have fallen far behind the urgency of the problem. Just this week there’s a new report out confirming that global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount ever last year. Scientists warn that the rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions is putting the earth on track to dangerous warming in the next few decades. But a global agreement to cut those emissions still seems a dim hope. The BBC’s environment correspondent, Richard Black, joins us from the UN climate change conference in Durban. It’s not news to the delegates there, Richard, that the earth’s surface continues to warm up and that greenhouse gas pollution is likely the biggest culprit. I’m wondering though how much of a jolt this new analysis gives the proceedings there in Durban to actually break the gridlock and reach an agreement on cutting emissions.

Richard Black: Well, you’re absolutely right, it certainly isn’t news and it’s worth remembering that virtually all of the governments here are also fully signed up to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is something that’s been sounding the alarm on this since 1997. So basically, we had the car crash in Copenhagen a couple of years ago when all those massive expectations of a big global deal just fell off the table with a resounding crash. So part of what this is about is trying to implement some of the much smaller bits that were agreed in principle last year at the summit in Mexico, and then look at what’s possible in the years ahead.

Werman: So what are the key sticking points right now? Does it still come down to the same kind of place we’ve been for the last few years, the inability of the US and China, which are by far the largest greenhouse polluters, to commit to substantial cuts in their emissions?

Black: Yeah, it’s interesting. You’ve got lots of these big countries that have subtly different positions, so there’s no doubt, for example, that the US is now being joined by Canada. Canada sees itself, it wants to parallel the US as closely as it can, so both of them are unwilling to do anything looking up to 2020. China has got its own system, a five year plan. And then we have India, which over the last couple of years has been rather conciliatory, but this year has a new environment minister who’s being very hard line in saying that as a major developing country they shouldn’t really have to do very much. You’ve got the small island states and some of the least developed countries that are very worried about climate impacts, and they’re pushing for a lot of progress as soon as possible. And they’re largely backed by the European Union, which also wants to get cracking on talks for a new deal as soon as possible. And as you can see, Marco, there are very different visions of what the future ought to hold.

Werman: Now, the goal ultimately is an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, but you’re saying the conference participants are kind of going to focus on smaller goals. Give us an example or two of those smaller goals and how that might lead the conference ultimately to a big agreement.

Black: Okay, so sure, so the one in which there’s probably most likelihood of actually finalizing something here is what’s called technology transfer. In the United Nations climate convention it’s acknowledged that developed countries should help poorer countries to develop cleanly. So one of the ways of doing this obviously is to transfer clean technology from rich countries where [inaudible 3:15] has been developed into the poorer countries. But there are issues there for example, over intellectual property. So how do you get an agreement there which satisfies everyone and you can actually start doing something on the ground? So that’s the kind of smaller agreement that may well be finalized here.

Werman: But you know, the real thing is to kind of get back to the ideas of the Kyoto Protocol, and that protocol expires next year. It’s the only truly global treaty right now on greenhouse gases. What happens then?

Black: Well, that’s a very good question and this is one of the things that’s brought urgency to the talks in the last couple of years. The protocol itself doesn’t expire. What expires are the commitments that a number of developed countries have made under it to reduce the greenhouse gas emission. So there’s a little concern around, particularly in developing countries, that if the EU and the other countries inside the Kyoto Protocol don’t make new pledges inside that protocol which kick in pretty soon, is the protocol a shell with no meaningful content even though it continues to exist? That’s the concern.

Werman: So if the Kyoto Protocol does become a shell as you say, and there is no agreement coming out of Durban, I mean it looks like the results in Durban could potentially be pretty dismal. I mean what is the bare minimum you expect to come out of this round of talks?

Black: Anything is possible and when you analyze what negotiators have been putting into the public domain, obviously they don’t give away everything at this stage. They probably don’t give away everything until the final night. But it could be a complete car crash. Equally, you could emerge with all these technical things from last year being tied up and you could end up with agreement of how to go forward, another try if you like, in reaching a global treaty. Anything across that spectrum is possible at the moment.

Werman: We’ll be checking back in through the week at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban. The BBC’s Richard Black speaking with us from Durban, thanks so much.

Black: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Discussion

2 comments for “Climate Change Talks in South Africa”

  • Anonymous

    So, do you guys listen to the news?  It has been thoroughly established that despite the claims, the IPCC ‘reports’ are in fact in many cases simply the claims of radical environmentalists with agendas.  That along with the release of the Climategate and climategate 2 emails has made it very clear that if in fact global warming is a problem, and if in fact it is caused by human beings (evidence of which is completely lacking btw), its not something we need to worry about any time soon.

    And now today we hear about how parts of the Australian government have deliberately suppressed evidence that shows that the sea level is not in fact rising any faster than it has in the past.

    So in conclusion, if global warming is a problem, those that support the claim that is a problem have lost their credibility by lying, suppressing information, and personal attacks on scientists who produce information contrary to the alarmists claims.

    • Anonymous

      It is bizarre that many of the There-Is-No-Man-Made-Global-Warming ideologues and religious zealots and their fellow-travellers should dare to talk about lack of credibility, lying, suppression of evidence and attacks on scientists when that is what they have been doing so much of for so long.  Just taking one of these, in the utterly self-discredited cacophany that comes from the denialists and delayists, the self-discrediting comes from their massive internal inconsistencies, from what they say. 

      Summarising:  Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.  Oh, yes it is, but it is not increasing.  Oh, yes it is, but the increase is not mostly man-made.  Oh, yes it is, but we have saturation.  Oh, no we don’t, but we have an infinitely large negative feed-back.  Oh, no we don’t, but our religion/ideology is GOOD, so, somehow, either magically or because all of maths and science is wrong if not evil (yet they use TV or radio or the net – lol), Man-Made Global Warming does not exist.

      This is an humungeous lack of credibility.  All delayists and denialists add to it by never acknowledging that what each is saying is a fundamental contradiction of the majority of their fellow delayists and denialists, while claiming that only what they are saying is correct.  Each denialist/delayist completely lacks credibility unless they say that what they are saying contradicts the majority of their colleagues, and consequently that the majority of the delayist/denialist position completely lacks credibility. 

      Compare this humungeous fundamental lack of credibility of the denialists and delayists with the IPCC AR4 reports which had trivial errors in a few paragraphs of the ca 2000 pages of the reports; a negligible dent in its credibility.  Very few other 2000 page factual documents have so few errors.  Yet the massively funded PR machine successfully spun these trivial errors into ridiculous over-promience.  Talk about motes and beams!