CANcun couldn't

From Copenhagen to Cancun to South Africa, the nations hop in a bid to avoid taking firm decisions on the most compelling issue of the century - climate change. At every step, everyone agrees that action needs to be taken but none are willing to 'sacrifice' development for mitigation plans. This short-sighted view that refuses to acknowledge resource crunch will perhaps delay action till inevitable. For now, let's hear what Cancun concluded.

In the 1992 U.N. climate treaty, the world’s nations promised to do their best to rein in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted by industry, transportation and agriculture. In the two decades since, the annual conferences’ only big advance came in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, when parties agreed on modest mandatory reductions by richer nations.

But the U.S., alone in the industrial world, rejected the Kyoto Protocol, complaining it would hurt its economy and that such emerging economies as China and India should have taken on emissions obligations.

Since then China has replaced the U.S. as the world’s biggest emitter, but it has resisted calls that it assume legally binding commitments -- not to lower its emissions, but to restrain their growth.

UN talks in Cancun have reached a deal to curb climate change, including a fund to help developing countries. The Green Climate Fund is intended to raise and disburse $100bn (£64bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.

Nations endorsed compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts, despite objections from Bolivia. Debate on a larger pact was deferred to the 2011 conference in Durban, South Africa.

The draft documents say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made. The new agreement creates “building blocks” for a new global pact and, unexpectedly, gives recognition to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial countries by 25 to 40 per cent from 1990 levels within the next 10 years. Current pledges amount to about 16 per cent.

Bolivia has protested that the weak pledges condemned the Earth to temperature increases of up to 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 F), which was tantamount to “ecocide” that could cost millions of lives.

The deal is a lot less than the comprehensive agreement that many countries wanted at last year's Copenhagen summit and continue to seek. It leaves open the question of whether any of its measures, including emission cuts, will be legally binding. Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money - a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.

Underscoring what’s at stake in the long-running climate talks, NASA reported that the January­-November 2010 global temperatures were the warmest in the 131-year record. It's data indicated the year would likely end as the warmest on record, or tied with 2005 as the warmest.

Perhaps the mercury will rise higher before world nation leaders arrive at South Africa next year,