World Cup metaphors were the order of the day as the Bonn climate talks closed without a result, writes FRANK MCDONALD
THE CONTRAST between the fevered atmosphere of last December’s Copenhagen climate summit and the sedate gathering in Bonn over the past two weeks could not have been greater. It was as if all the fizz had gone, to be replaced by a flat, rather bland and not easily identifiable non-alcoholic drink.
There was also a question of scale. Copenhagen attracted 40,000 participants, including 120 heads of state or government. It was chaotic, noisy and even insane, especially in the last few days when realpolitik took over and a deal of sorts – the “Copenhagen Accord” – was cobbled together behind closed doors.
The city had billed itself as “Hopenhagen” because so much hope was invested by so many in a Flash Gordon-style dash to save the earth. And then, to the inexpressible delight of climate change deniers and sceptics, it was the hopes of environmentalists, scientists and ordinary mortals that were dashed, giving them all a hangover.
Bonn was low-key by comparison, with an attendance of around 5,000, and was all about picking up the pieces to prepare for this year’s summit in Cancún, Mexico, starting in late November. Progress was made in some areas – but all of the hot-button political issues, notably what to do about global warming, remain unresolved.
Outgoing UN climate chief Yvo de Boer, who’s leaving to join KPMG, used World Cup imagery in his farewell speech: “We got a yellow card in Copenhagen and the referee’s hand will edge towards the red one if we fail to deliver in Cancún and beyond.” But he honestly doesn’t believe that there will be a comprehensive deal before 2020.
Delegates queued at the Mexican government’s booth in Bonn’s Hotel Maritim to get visas for the Cancún summit and Mexico’s climate envoy, Luis Alfonso de Alba, even held out the hope that they might achieve something of real significance there. It was “irresponsible . . . to say that we can’t achieve something in Cancún”, he said.
There was another booth in the hotel lobby, called the Climate Deal Oracle, where the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) conducted an opinion poll among negotiators and observers about when they think there should be a global climate agreement – and when we would get one. Most didn’t think it was going to happen in Cancún.
With the World Cup getting under way in South Africa, everyone else was also using football metaphors to characterise the Bonn talks. “Many coaches at home haven’t prepared their teams properly. Some of them are playing a completely defensive game, when they should be out there on the offence,” said Wendell Trio of Greenpeace.
“Some, like the Saudis, are constantly offside, but they manage to avoid penalties”, he went on. “Most of the OECD countries are trying to expand the size of the net (a reference to the loopholes many of them seek, to avoid cutting emissions) and the US is still arguing whether coming out of the changing room is a necessary part of the game.”
Indeed the US delegation had nothing to say in public on the Bonn outcome. Its strategy, revealed in a document accidentally left on a hotel computer and passed to the Guardian newspaper, is to stick with the non-committal Copenhagen Accord while projecting “the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations . . .” Perhaps the only positive aspect of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the effect it has had on US public opinion. By highlighting the risks of relying so much on fossil fuels, American environmental groups hope the disaster may even spur the US Senate to adopt climate change and clean energy legislation before the end of this year.