Two years ago, some of the most important leaders from around the globe gathered at what was billed as one of the most significant international environmental events of the decade - the 2009 Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference.
World leaders were persuaded to travel to Denmark's capital to share in the final negotiations and bask in the reflected glory of a new, groundbreaking, global climate change treaty.
However 'Hopenhagen' as it became known, collapsed under the weight of unrealistic expectations, leaving many disillusioned and cynical about the ability of the UN to solve what many have regarded as the defining environmental challenge of the 21st century.
At the end of November 2011, politicians, officials and civil society leaders will meet again in Durban, South Africa, in an attempt to progress matters.
For Vernon Rive, senior law lecturer at AUT, the stakes are just as high as existed in Copenhagen in 2009, with global emissions continuing to rise.
"In 2011, they are fuelled not so much by rampant growth in Western economies, but rather by the steady rise of countries such as China and India. But, unlike the unrestrained optimism and hype preceding Copenhagen in 2009, expectations ahead of the Durban conference are low."
A central question hanging over the entire process, Rive says, concerns the future of the Kyoto Protocol.
"Negotiated in 1997, it was a time when the US economy was robust, and a united Europe was determined to take a strong lead in implementing innovative measures to reduce emissions."
Fast forward 14 years from Kyoto, and the world is now a different place, economically and geopolitically.
"China has taken number one spot as the world's largest carbon emitter. Its rate of economic growth well outstrips that of most Western economies, including the US," says Rive.
"As the increasingly influential BASIC grouping (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) position themselves to hold developed nations' feet to the fire on emissions reductions and financial support for developing countries on climate change issues, they also are looking to avoid being stung by growth-limiting emissions restrictions themselves."
Many would say that their position is completely reasonable, says Rive.
"Their standards of living are still low compared to western economies with long histories of resource exploitation and associated unrestrained emissions. The argument is that they should be given a chance to catch up. But conditions are certainly ripe for a South African stand-off."
Closer to home, New Zealand politicians are now pondering the future of this country's climate change policy. Earlier this year our fledgling emissions trading scheme was put under the microscope by a government-appointed review group. Amongst its recommendations was the indefinite deferral of the agricultural sector to enter the ETS.
"No one has yet figured out how to reduce emissions from the farming of cows and sheep, and the sector is so important to the national economy. So, it said that there is no real sense in bringing it into the scheme.
"There are compelling arguments to the contrary. But it is reasonable to assume that if the present government is re-elected, farmers will be breathing easy for quite some time to come.
"A Durban outcome which pushes the timeframe for a new international binding treaty out to the last quarter of this decade will not help the cause of those arguing for faster, deeper and wider emissions cuts domestically."
Click here to find out more.
The urgency for global commitment to tackle climate change
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.