A fair, equitable, just, transparent, ambitious and effective outcome was what South Africa had said it wanted from the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen this month.
But, Hopenhagen, as the crucial climate talks were branded before they kicked off on December 7, this week turned into Hopelesshagen as parties were apparently pushed to accept a compromise deal that would only hopefully see countries reaching a legally binding agreement that set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Mexico at the end of 2010.
The "Copenhagen Accord", noted by the 193 nations, was a non-binding deal for combating global warming that was brokered by the US and the world's major emerging economies - China, South Africa, India and Brazil - after
US President Barack Obama walked uninvited into a meeting being held by the presidents of the four nations on Friday.
The three-page document set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum increase of 2176C over pre-industrial times and held out the prospect of $100 billion (R7.4 trillion) in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations.
It was rejected by developing countries, which are to be worst affected by climate change, drawing the ire of Lumumba Di-Aping, chair of the G77.
Di-Aping called the accord the worst development in climate negotiations, equating what had been put on the table with the Holocaust.
He also criticised President Jacob Zuma for not showing greater leadership.
Zuma had on Friday told the Conference of Parties heads of state summit that the developing world was justified in raising its level of emissions as it continued on its development path, demanding that rich nations commit to ambitious, legally-binding emission reduction targets.
An agreement that recognised the common responsibility of all nations to reduce emissions, while not retarding the development of poor nations, was what was needed, he said.
He had earlier this month announced ambitious emission reduction targets for South Africa, but said these could only be achieved with sufficient financing, technology and skills.
South Africa had aligned itself with the African Union and G77 position that a common but differentiated deal was needed for developed and developing nations, that rich nations commit to targeted emission reductions and that the developed world finance adaptation by poor nations.
But, Zuma broke away from this deal in aligning himself and South Africa, which is already feeling the effects of global warming through changing weather patterns, with Obama's deal - a deal that may have been described by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as an "essential beginning" and US officials as "meaningful", but which in reality is no deal at all for those who are to be worst affected by the devastating effects of climate change.
We expected leaders of the world to show leadership, but, it is apparent, we gave them too much credit.
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5292809
