Oxfam Int'l

Climate activists set the table for major progress in Durban but went home hungry.

Negotiators from more than 190 countries head home after two weeks of talks toward a new accord to curb carbon emissions.

The final deal extends the expiring Kyoto treaty and levels the playing field for the US, but triggers no immediate action.

A condensed diary from Week Two of the Durban conference:

Sun: There’s a glimmer of hope when word circulates that China might consider some kind of binding agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

Tue: UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon says “The world cannot accept ‘No’ for an answer in Durban. Negotiators continue to provide “No” for an answer. Richard Harris reports for NPR that attaining the soft goal of stopping warming at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) is “proving to be a stretch” with the current voluntary emissions targets.

Wed: Progress toward a Green Climate Fund for developing countries, bankrolled by the largest industrial economies — but not much headway toward a broader deal to reduce emissions. Chief US negotiator denies that Washington is the roadblock, saying instead that the US has been “trying to drag this process into the 21st century.” That’s in part, code for an agreement that treats the US and China equally (China is now the top global emitter of greenhouse gases, though the US still produces more on a per-capita basis).

Fri: Nations seem to be rallying around an 11th-hour effort toward a process that would yield a all-inclusive emissions-cutting deal by 2015. Confusion reigns as a phony version of the draft circulates.

Sat: Talks stretch into overtime in the hope of salvaging some kind of deal, supported by Europe but with no assurance the world’s biggest emitters will go along. A draft emerges of a treaty that appears to be non-binding and doesn’t meet the timetable sought by the EU and others.

Sun: At about 3:30 a.m. on the second day of extra innings, and even after many representatives had left the conference, the #COP17 Twitter stream lights up with “history being made;” an agreement emerges that would lead to “a Protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force…” Observers can’t quite tell what that means, but it’s adopted.

As Richard Black wrote for the BBC after the final all-nighter:

“Not a protocol, not a convention, not a mandate; and I’ll place a small bet that phrases like ‘waiting on the Durban Platform’ will gain a lot of currency over the next four years at least.”

NGO’s that had been closely monitoring the talks registered immediate disappointment. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ chief strategist wrote that, “While governments avoided disaster in Durban, they by no means responded adequately to the mounting threat of climate change”

The food security advocacy group, Oxfam, issued a statement that seemed to summarize Durban succinctly:

“Negotiators at the UN climate talks have narrowly avoided a collapse, agreeing to the bare minimum deal possible. The plan gets the Green Climate Fund up and running without any sources of funding, preserves a narrow pathway to avoid 4 degrees of warming and gets a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol without key members.”

Yikes. Not exactly a howling success but not the complete collapse of the UN process, either, as some had predicted. What it all means will be sifted and sorted in the days to come but it appears that what was accomplished in Durban was barely enough to save face, not enough to claim a meaningful victory against global warming and its consequences.

Shayne Robinson / Greenpeace

Despite the Iwo Jima imagery, there are few signs of victory for climate activists in Durban.

The 194 nations that, for nearly 20 years, have been hashing out prospects for putting the brakes on global warming, are at it again — this time in Durban, South Africa. Whereas at one time the world was looking to the US for leadership on a climate solution, the theme of Week One appeared to be the emergence of the US as an obstructionist force in the process.

Sun: Activists wasted no time in creating iconic images for the conference (see photo).

Mon: Expectations are set at “Low” for the 17th Conference of the Parties. Reid Detchon, VP of Energy and Climate for the UN Foundation, calls them “a transition phase.” There’s a dawning acceptance that the original concept for an agreement, modeled on the Montreal Protocol, which has worked well for reducing ozone-depleting gases, isn’t gonna fly for the climate issue.

Tue: “Substantive negotiations” begin after two days of preliminary activity. Environmental groups and shipping companies make a joint call for action at the summit to address stack emissions from merchant ships (currently reported to be about three-percent of total emissions).

Wed: 16 NGOs hold news conference to bash the US for not playing well with others, and urge the US “to not stand in the way.” Nations have trouble agreeing on arrangements for a Green Climate Fund to help developing countries reduce emissions and cope with climate impacts. If you’re playing catch-up with this concept, Reuters has a handy backgrounder. The US and Saudi Arabia appear to be the major obstacles.

Thu: NGO’s raise concerns that proposed changes to Brazil’s forest regulations might keep it from meeting its own emissions goals.

Fri: Major emitters essentially bigfoot the EU’s proposal for a climate roadmap to replace the expiring Kyoto treaty. The idea is floated of abandoning a new treaty in favor of a non-binding agreement.

Sat: Thousands march through the streets of Durban, demanding faster progress toward some kind of meaningful, coordinated climate action. The marchers may have been moving forward but as Tasneen Essop, head of climate strategy for the WWF put it, “After six days of talks, we seem to be moving backward, not forward.”

Week Two holds every prospect of being just as productive, which is to say, not very.

Despite annual predictions of the demise of the UN climate process, yes, there will be a COP18, next year in Qatar. The Persian Gulf state just happens to hold the record for most carbon emissions per capita.