The witty underwater Cabinet submergence of Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed and his government officials could draw renewed attention to his island nation which lies just over three feet above sea level and which could be uninhabitable in less than 100 years. The publicity stunt could also attract some people who otherwise show only passing interest in the environment. But it might not have the desired impact on climate change as a whole and what the world intends to do about it.
Nasheed well timed his watery meeting, as it comes ahead of the major UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting countries will negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol with aims to cut the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that cause global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere.
However, any possible new deal will need more than a gimmick, no matter how original. Wealthy nations want broad emission cuts from all countries, while poorer ones say industrialized countries should carry most of the burden. The pull and push debate has been ongoing for years but came to a head at UN climate talks in Bangkok earlier this month when the US was heavily criticized for failing to offer emission cuts or financing for developing countries — both considered crucial to reaching a global warming pact this year.
The spat in Bangkok laid bare what has been clear at the negotiating table for years — that a long-running divide between rich and poor countries shows no sign of abating despite promises by some major developing countries to cut their emissions of the gases responsible for climate change.
In Copenhagen, the debate will heat up even more. Developing countries want to do their part but have refused to agree on binding targets and want to see more ambitious cuts by the industrialized nations. They won’t sign any deal until the West guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance.
Developing country emissions now almost equal those of industrialized countries, so they must agree to reduce their rate of growth if there is to be a meaningful deal. But, though countries like China and India are doing their share to moderate their pollution, they refuse to make any promises until rich countries pledged to do more.
And since the world’s industrialized nations have so far caused most of the problem — and because poorer ones need to develop — they should be the ones that reduce the most.
Developed countries have agreed in principle to cut emissions by 25-40 percent on 1990 levels by 2020, the amount scientists say will be necessary. But only the EU countries have promised anything like this.
The US rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it exempted countries such as India and China from obligations. As such, there are doubts whether a new climate pact to rein in greenhouse gases can be reached by the time world leaders gather in Copenhagen.
The United States is the only major industrialized country that did not ratify the pact but it should be noted that the Bangkok talks ended just as it was announced that President Barack Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, for among other things strengthening the US role in combating climate change. That award could spur progress in Copenhagen.
Still, there is much work ahead, and as President Nasheed will attest, most countries are polluters. The atmosphere does not really care who is doing the polluting.
Tamils in Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan government’s treatment of the Tamils displaced by the war is both wrong and politically short-sighted, said The Economist in an editorial on Sunday. Excerpts:
The victory in May of Sri Lanka’s army over the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam should have been a cause for almost universal celebration. Yet the government, its reputation already tarnished by the manner of its final victory, risks squandering the richest prize that victory offers: The chance for national reconciliation.
The biggest obstacle to that reconciliation has become the fate of some 250,000 Tamils displaced by the war and now herded into camps. Their conditions are abject: Crowded, short of drinking water and with poor sanitation. Many have been displaced several times and have lost everything. Tempers are running short and confrontations with guards more frequent. Aid agencies have only limited access, and the press next to none. There are fears of worse hardship to come, and especially of the spread of disease. The imminent monsoon may turn a grim ordeal into a disaster.
The damage being done to Sri Lanka’s international image, however, may last longer. The Tamil diaspora will keep alive the calls for investigation of alleged war crimes by both sides in the climactic campaign. And the EU has to decide whether to withdraw Sri Lanka’s special trade privileges on human-rights grounds.
If, as seems likely, it does, the country’s garment exporters will suffer great damage, and employment will consequently be hit. But there is a far bigger danger, at home: That the end of the war fuels the ethnic resentments which caused it. Occasional gestures are made to reconciliation. More Tamil policemen are to be recruited. The president himself this week made a speech in Tamil. But in general, little has been done to make Tamils see the defeat of the Tigers as the liberation it should have been. Indeed, for those still stuck in the camps, the word rings painfully hollow.
