Paris Protocol? Or Do We need People Protocol?

Why it was selected for the venue of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is no longer a curiosity. Kyoto Protocol is dying its own death as per predetermined time-table made during its birth. Neither the parents-Japanese government-cared much. They had written off the child much before.

I witnessed the painful birth of the Kyoto Protocol. After marathon discussion , when industrialized countries pledged to 5 % cut in the emissions of Green House Gases (GHGs) by 2008-2012 from its 1990 level, I felt juice was not worth a squeeze. The countries there in Kyoto had used sledgehammer and finally cracked a small nut.

That reduction pledge, it was recognized, would never ever lead to the objective of ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ as agreed by nearly all countries at Rio in 1992 , during what is called as ‘ Earth Summit’. Coming out of the Kyoto’s magnificent conference hall, I cajoled myself that evening, more as faithful United Nations diplomat-‘small step could be good beginning for the giant step later’.

That giant step never came. International climate agreement even after serious attempts by UN did not move further. In fact it regressed. 17 years later, GHGs increased by nearly 60% of the 1990 level, as against the pledge of reduction of 5 %. Not only that the Kyoto international climate agreement also failed miserably in meeting the pledges to provide developing countries with $10 billion a year until 2010-2012, rising to 100 billion per year later. That financial assistance was needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and to adapt to climate resilient practices and help them deal with their own rising emissions as a result of needed development.

Developing countries continued to remind industrialized countries on the principle of ‘ Common but Differentiated Responsibility’. They kept repeating the necessity of allowing for their ‘ own development space’. That’s what exactly they argued while negotiating the Montreal Protocol for the substances that deplete the Ozone Layer and industrialized countries concurred and followed through. Not this time. Developing countries during 17 annual meetings and 100s of other UN meetings kept harping and did not budge to the pressure of taking up legally binding emission reduction targets. They even did not considered seriously ‘no regret options’ of decoupling their development from the carbon emissions which could, in reality, give them much more competitive edge over the industrialized countries and de-shackle their dependence on fossil fuel, which is the severe drag on their economy.

Kyoto Protocol is now dead and soon will be mummified without any golden attire to burry with. The negotiations for the next Protocol, to be agreed in Paris in 2015, have started. But there is no letting of the weak ambitious pledges by the industrialized countries. And there is no pausing of harping by the developing countries on reminding industrialized countries about their (industrialized countries’) historic responsibility having emitted most of GHGs.

The grave consequences facing the earth and humanity due to the climate change continue echoing and reverberating in the expansive conference facilities only to win some verbose scoring points for the audience and media. Every year since 1992, UN international meetings on climate change end by eulogy and self-patting on the successful conclusions that do not take us anywhere near to the final objective of the international treaty. Locked horns continue. Temperatures continue to rise, year after year.

Year 2014 seems appears to be different. I witnessed here in New York the scores of new and promising ‘protocols’ during the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit. The communities, business, coalitions are taking up the challenges, raising the bars and riding on the ambitious actions to address the climate change-called as a ‘defining challenge of our times’. I call these as street protocols, partnership protocols, coalition protocols, in short: people’s protocols. They are not being negotiated. They are being walked through and acted on.

• Just in New York on Sunday I witnessed nearly 400,000 people poured into streets to march for the action.
• The biggest private banks announced they would issue $20 billion in “Green Bonds” and that they would double the market to $50 billion by 2015, next year.
• Some 30 companies announced their willingness for Carbon Pricing
• The first ever-Global Agricultural Alliance, which was launched to enable 500 million farmers worldwide to practice climate-smart agriculture by 2030.
• Leaders of the oil and gas industry, along with national Governments and civil society organizations, made an historic commitment to identify and reduce methane emissions by 2020.
• The European Union pledged to adopt the 40 per cent emissions reductions target by 2014 and Grenada called for all island states to go 100 per cent renewable.

• A new Compact of Mayors, representing 200 cities with a combined population of 400 million people, pledged new commitments to reduce annual emissions by between 12.4 and 16.4 per cent.
• Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC, a voluntary group of nearly 100 states and non-state actors pledged to reduce greatly harmful short-lived greenhouse gases such as black carbon, methane and Hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) to get early benefits of reducing global warming.

• The Rockefeller Foundation announced that it would disinvest all its assets in fossil energy starting with USD 100 Billion, having already dumped the coal and tar sands. Following the Rockefeller example, over 180 institutions, organizations and pension funds have begun phasing out of fossil fuel investments.

Would all these lead to stabilization of the GHGs and limiting the temperature rise to 2 deg cent? Do we need international agreement at all, if yes?

Having failed to arrive at meaningful agreement on reductions, I do not help considering alternative approaches. 21st century would need new solutions to the old problems created in 18^th century.

Without international agreements the life expectancy all over the world has improved, many discoveries were made to fight diseases, digital technologies were developed and democracies are spreading steadily. All this happened at the initiative of people i.e. business, civil society, communities, and the government’s own initiatives.

To stabilize greenhouse gases and limit the earth’s temperature rise to 2 percent, we need a third way to help these very communities, businesses

and coalitions acting on their own protocols and agreements. Let there be thousands of Protocols that work. We no longer need international Protocols that keep limping and just cycling at the same spot. We need People’s Protocols. Hundreds and thousands of them. END