With just one day to go, negotiators at the Copenhagen climate talks are desperately trying to reach an agreement after a week of protests, walk-outs and climb-downs.
The official Cop15 website features a story on its front page carrying the headline 'Failure in Copenhagen is not an option,’ but that really depends on what one calls failure. Developing nations (particularly African and island nations) would consider a rise of any more than 1.5 degrees Celsius in global temperatures over the next 20 years a failure, while for most developed countries, a cap of 2 degrees is the goal.
The last week in the Danish capital has been characterized by angry protests by environmental and justice campaigners and a dramatic walk-out by a large number of developing nations, which stalled the talks and resulted in the loss of a day of negotiating time. With so little time left until the end of the conference, many of the discussions surrounding Copenhagen's potential success or failure seem to be centering on whether or not a deal can be reached. But many campaigners and delegates are arguing that simply reaching an agreement is not necessarily a sign of success.
If the final document agrees on a cap of 2 degrees (a significan and progressive commitment, compared to current trends), that could still result in a rise in Global sea-levels of 6metres, according to scientific Journal, Nature. That would mean devastation for island-dwellers and poor inhabitants of low-lying countries, not to mention the potential impact on biodiversity through consequent extinctions.
Most worrying of all, however, in terms of defining 'success' at Copenhagen, is the fact that even if developed countries get their way (which seems likely), wealthy nations' commitments to emission-cuts are still far short of what is estimated to be necessary to make the 2 degree target a reality.
'Success', whether defined as reaching any agreement at all or reaching an agreement that would stabilise the world's temperatures sufficiently to avert disaster, is looking increasingly elusive.
UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, expressed frustration at what he sees as 'talks about talks' rather than talks about climate policy causing delays at the conference. Speaking to The Guardian, he said: 'It would be a tragedy if we failed to agree because of the substance but it would be a farce if we failed to agree because of the process.'
The 'process', however, is of significant importance to developing nations, who, Mr Miliband acknowledged, have learned to mistrust wealthy countries when it comes to commitments on climate change. One of the 'procedural' issues causing friction has been whether to continue under the Kyoto protocol – an option supported by poorer nations as its resolutions would be legally binding on nations that sign up to any deal. Many wealthy nations oppose such a legally-binding framework, for obvious reasons.
British delegates have been playing a leading and progressive role among wealthier nations, but on the eve of the conclusion of the talks, many believe that their and other countries' efforts will not have been enough. Prayer for a deal that is both effective and just has never been more important.
