The midst of the worst economic crisis for 60 years is hardly a propitious moment to negotiate a global deal to combat climate change. Given this backdrop, perhaps the outcome of the Durban summit – essentially a decision to postpone a decision on how best to co-ordinate a global response – was the best that could be hoped for. This postponement will only be worthwhile, however, if countries now put serious effort into agreeing a binding successor to the Kyoto protocol.
The deal thrashed out in Durban rests on three main pillars. The European Union and a handful of other wealthy countries will commit to a second round of emissions cuts after the main provisions of the Kyoto protocol expire in 2012. In exchange, all countries will negotiate a new “protocol ... or outcome with legal force” which will come into effect by 2020. The green climate fund, through which developed nations help developing ones offset the impact of environmental change, is also slated to become operational by the same date.
The impact of these agreements should not be overstated. Even if implemented, they are unlikely to keep global temperature rises to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – the point at which scientists say climate change may be irreversible: after all, the countries that the deal commits to legally binding cuts account for just 15 per cent of global carbon emissions.