Instead of filling us with promise, top leaders are stifling our hopes for a decisive deal with political
spin and the use of expressions like “balanced expectations” or “political deal”.

The latest subterfuge, to agree on “a political deal” only, was proposed by Denmark and immediately gained support from US President Barack Obama as well as leaders at the recent Asia Pacific summit in Singapore. No time frame was given on signing a new pact.

But those carefully arranged words and promises all point to the same conclusion: There will be no legally binding pact.

This political maneuvering was most likely engineered to salvage the talks, after numerous meetings failed to come up with outcomes that lived up to people’s expectations of the landmark conference.

Big questions, however, still remain: What will happen to plans for legally binding targets? What will happen after 2012, when the protocol expires? And do we have time to ink a new deal if the Copenhagen talks fail?

After spending so much time, energy and money preparing for the Copenhagen conference, it is a wonder that these politicians still gamble with people’s future.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to climate change, politicians seem to live in their own perfect and guilt-free bubbles.

Since the 2007 Bali conference inked the two-year plan to agree on a deal in Copenhagen, disagreements between rich and poor countries have stalled negotiations tackling climate change.

The never-ending bickering centers on who should be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions and how big the cuts ought to be.

Countries slowing down the negotiations have adopted a wait-and-see attitude before committing to anything.

Developing nations want rich countries to agree on significant cuts by 2020 and come up with money to help the poor cope. But following the recession, developed countries are reluctant to promise too much.

The gap between rich and poor countries has widened within the last two years and it seems neither group is willing to compromise for the greater good.

Obama, who initially built up hope that climate change would be addressed in a decisive manner, might fall short of expectations.

The US — currently the world’s second largest greenhouse gases emitter after China — is the only industrialized country that hasn’t signed the protocol. Carbon-capping laws in the US still need to be agreed on.

While the US Senate has approved legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent compared with 2005 levels, few think a law will be passed before the Copenhagen talks begin.

With only 12 days to go, it would be seen the Copenhagen conference is in need of a miracle to produce a legally binding commitment.

As the host of the Bali conference, which required the countries to agree on the new pact in Copenhagen, and as the world’s third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, Indonesia should help push for a real deal as agreed in Bali. If Copenhagen fails, in some ways, it will be our failure too.

Currently, 37 industrialized countries are bound by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent compared to 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012.

Without a legally binding agreement after the protocol expires in 2012, countries are likely to return to “business as usual” practices.

The hardest hit will be people living in poor nations.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported at the world food summit last week that Africa, Asia and Latin America could see a decline of between 20 and 40 percent in potential agricultural activity if the average global temperature rose by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

At present, the number of hungry people in the world has topped one billion. With the predicted food supply decline, the present figure might soon sound “modest”.

Disasters come next. Scientists have blamed climate change for frequent droughts, flooding as well as hurricanes and forest fires.

Should we all wait until the island states have gone underwater and rising temperatures have dried up the earth to agree on a binding agreement?

A binding agreement will force governments to act together, and companies to curb their harmful “business as usual” practices.

With 12 days to go, we can turn to Hollywood for inspiration.

As in the blockbuster 2012, we should not wait for scientists’ “prophecies” to turn into reality
and die in vain; we can build the arks and survive.

Popular

To my horror, it’s just a movie!

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Pentagon chief congratulates Prabowo on being elected President