http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/11/durban-conference-climate-change
The latest climate change conference will help to strengthen the fight against global warming
UN climate change conferences don't of themselves cut greenhouse gas emissions. Negotiations about targets and texts cannot do that; only government policies that incentivise and require business investment in low carbon technologies and other emission-reducing activities can.
So the standard by which UN talks should be judged is whether or not they make such policy and investment more likely or less. And from that perspective the conference that has ended in Durban, South Africa, amid considerable drama, should be regarded as very much a success.
First, it has forced countries to admit that their current climate policies are inadequate. The Durban agreement explicitly refers to the "emissions gap" - the difference between the aggregate impact of commitments that countries have made, and the upper limit of emissions required to have a chance of meeting the globally agreed goal of no more than two degrees of global warming. That gap is large, and countries have now agreed that their targets will need to be strengthened to try to close it. In doing so Durban has snatched the 2C goal from the jaws of impossibility. It still looks very difficult to achieve, but if more concerted action is now taken early enough, it yet could be.
Second, Durban has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through a framework of international law. Since the failure of the Copenhagen talks two years ago, it seemed that the world had abandoned this ideal in favour of so-called "pledge and review", in which countries made purely voluntary national commitments. The legal approach has the great advantage of ensuring that national commitments outlast individual governments, making them much more certain for business and for other countries seeking confidence that their own low carbon policies will not be undermined by free riders elsewhere.
At the heart of the Durban deal is the extension of the Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding treaty signed in 1997. Although only the EU and a few other countries are likely to maintain their commitment to it, this is vital to preserve its legal rules and mechanisms, which have done much to enable climate policy in the last decade.
At the same time, Durban has set up a roadmap towards a new treaty to succeed Kyoto in 2020, which for the first time will require the big emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil, to make legally binding commitments too. This is a vital recognition of the key role these countries must now play (and in many cases are playing) in tackling climate change, given the rate at which their economies and emissions are growing. It is a very significant breakthrough.
Third, the conference has established a new Green Climate Fund which, if properly financed (still an "if" not a "when"), will provide vital support to the poorest countries to adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing.
So in all these ways Durban has given a major boost to climate policy and low carbon investment. Before the conference started, few people believed such a deal could be achieved. That it was is due to an unprecedented alliance of the European Union with the large group of poor and island countries that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Effectively defeating those countries, including the US, which did not want either to raise their ambition levels or pursue a legally binding framework, this alliance has provided a heartening example of how UN processes can empower small countries and progressive political goals.
So does Durban save us from global warming? No. In itself, as green NGOs have rightly pointed out, it does not divert the world from the dangerous path towards a four degree temperature rise on which we are now walking. But it will help strengthen the fight against it.
