Failing Rationale of Climate Talks and the Hearth of Hope

In order to reverse the catastrophic impacts of global warming, majority of countries have come together time and again, against all divisive factors and unhealthy discords to coin common and effective solutions for sustainable living. The key thrust being incomprehensible and stupefying scientific evidences that has been persistently cautioning against the looming dangers. But, the question remains how far have we been able to redress the issue in actual sense. Let’s delve a little deep into the integral bullets of significant climate conventions to understand where we stand in the road to a sustainable solution .

1. Rio Earth Summit

It was 1992, when the world leaders finally zeroed down on creating a body exclusively dedicated to mull over raging concerns and trigger measures for a sustainable way ahead. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) saw the light of the day.

The prime objective being- controlling dangerous consequences of climate change, the set up failed to offer concrete solutions or adopt comprehensive measures to redress the problems at large. Governments were left at loggerheads. Lack of orientation, actions that need to be subscribed to coupled with absence of stringent policies rendered the Earth Summit ineffective. But, definitely it kick-started the era of psychological change worldwide, with more seriousness inculcated in humankind.

2. Kyoto Protocol

With the growing discontent post ratification of the mother treaty, signatories felt desperate need for a revision. With imprints of the forerunner, Kyoto Protocol,1997 ushered a new transformation by formulating emission reduction targets underlined by strict legal adherence. With its monstrous clauses aimed at global warming prevention, had set limits for each country, depending on their developed or developing status, the treaty brought with it bindings that reckless emissions would have never abided by in fear of losing their consolidation on international market.

A mammoth 5% reduction in comparison to 1990 was to be achieved within 2012 by developed countries. Developed countries like China, Korea enjoyed relaxation. Therefore, countries like USA, Canada, Russia expressed vehement reluctance to ratify, bringing down the control to just 14% of world emissions. The only consolations were non binding commitments by 70 marginal entities.

3. Copenhagen Accord

Although this established a landmark in the history of climate goals by bringing together the biggest emitters, committed towards a common aim- to reduce emissions, the goal was way below scientific recommendations. Green and low carbon future was beyond fathomable limits.

Whooping sanctions were made to poorer countries for adapting to climate change, pioneered by China, India, US, South Africa and Brazil. It was opposed by some African countries with a different articulation to cap the temperature rise to 1.5 degree Celsius this century. Not only was this appeal revoked, but also the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 was declared redundant. Independent emission verification was also stalled by some entities, ending into a complete pandemonium. Thus, acute reservations of selected entities led to critical confusion in Copenhagen in 2009.

4. Paris Conference

Later in 2015, 100 heads of government and 40,000 other delegates joined in to discuss a substantial bottom up approach that is both economically and politically viable for respective countries. The mindset to reduce global temperatures by 2 degree celcius was confirmed by each participating nation.

On the contrary a power such as the US dropped out of the deal and did very little to legislate verbal promises of reducing emissions by 18%, again leading to a deadlock. Japan declared increase of emission in place of investing into nuclear power plants. For plethora of resons including the mentioned Paris became the battleground for myriad subsidies demanded by both developed and developing nations.

5. Bonn Climate Talks

Paris agreement had set overbearing targets incorporating comprehensive international climate action for global warming prevention, with lingering voids that were bridged at a later date. The set of actions with reference to time, financial needs and entities responsible finds mention in the Paris rulebook. Ranging from transfer of technology, climate financing, adapting to deliberated changes and committed efforts demanded review that kick started in Marrakesh, continued being discussed in Bonn in 2017.

This marked the beginning of relevant talks with equal stakes being borne by each country. It is only a matter of time that proves rationality of the Bonn talks- whether it reaped benefits or failed miserably like innumerable other treaties remains to be seen.

Taking into cognizance the finances being invested into developing a concrete framework might not have fetched expected results, but the effort is definitely commendable. But, the very obvious reaction from across the world is grim. The only way to attain consensus on sustainability happens to be unanimity of thoughts and selflessly understanding heterogeneity of concerns to recommend the right solution.

Failing Rationale of Climate Talks and the Hearth of Hope
Article Name
Failing Rationale of Climate Talks and the Hearth of Hope
Often egocentric approaches by countries come in the way of coining sustainable solutions that is committed to benefit the world at large. Climate talks have been falling prey to personal interests, making climate control goals far fetched.
Publisher Name
Global Warming Political Union
Publisher Logo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *