What you measure determines policy

Another round of the annual climate meetings is going to take place and the most ambitious outcome will be limited negotiations on some elements, because there is as yet no shared vision of the problem and what to do about it.

The new climate regime will lead to commitments only for developing countries, because the United States, which did not ratify the legally binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, continues to insist on a framework with nationally determined emissions reductions monitored at the global level. The unresolved issue is multilateral agreement, on the basis of a political decision, when one criterion does not suit all countries.

The underlying issue is not trade rules but the global climate regime

The concerted opposition to the EU push towards forcing foreign airlines landing in Europe to become a part of its emissions trading scheme has led to an unexpected development, whose implications extend to setting the global climate agenda.

The theme of the Rio + 20 Conference was "Green economy in the context of sustainable development and eradication of poverty" and it has not been possible to the find common ground in the serious differences over what constitute economic growth and human wellbeing – ‘the future we want’. Humans have always altered their natural environment, what is new is that the adverse effects of economic activities exceed those of resource extraction. Soon the Earth will not be able to absorb the carbon dioxide generated by excessive consumption.

It was June of 1992. The location was Rio de Janeiro. The occasion was the world conference on environment and development. A large number of people had come out on the streets. They were protesting the arrival of George Bush senior, the then president of the US. Just before coming to the conference, Bush had visited a local shopping centre, urging people to buy more so that the increased consumption could rescue his country from financial crisis. Protesters were angered by his statement that “the American lifestyle is not negotiable”.

Background

Balancing national strategic interests and global concerns requires new rules for collective action

The upcoming sequel to the 1992 Earth Summit, once again to be held in Brazil, will provide fresh opportunities to draft a common global agenda to safeguard the well-being of humanity -- and the planet. But serious differences over what constitutes economic growth and human wellbeing may lead to a less-than-successful outcome.

The key issue is not defining equity but determining whether climate change is a sustainable development or an environmental challenge

A workshop on ‘Equitable access to Sustainable Development’ is to be held in Bonn in May as part of the negotiating process for a new arrangement on global climate change. The treatment of equity in a global approach continues to be an unresolved and divisive issue, because the approach of all counties seeks to define an elusive concept, equity, and tweak a failing system arrived at in 1992 rather than develop a vision for 2032.

Is climate change a sustainable development or an environmental challenge?