Ian McLean Green candidate for Tauranga

Climate change talks are going the way of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC started out in 1946 as a short meeting of a few countries who got together to regulate the mining (=hunting) of whales. It has evolved to become a word-fest lasting weeks, attended by many countries and hundreds of NGOs.

The first moratorium on taking whales was signed in 1986, 40 years after the establishment of the Commission. Today, very few whales are killed, and it might even be true that more is spent on the IWC meetings than on the net cost of hunting whales (given that scientific whaling is still an economic, albeit loss-making, enterprise).

Climate change meetings are following the same path. The first meeting was in 1979, but it took another 13 years before the serious challenges presented by climate change were confronted at an UN-sponsored convention in Rio (1992). Since then, we have had Kyoto (1997), the impressively disappointing Copenhagen (2009), and now Durban (2011).

There were many other meetings of the Parties to the Convention along the way (see http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php). Just as with the IWC, at each of these meetings, the world inches slowly towards agreements that might actually protect the resource.

In the case of whales, some are coming back, although others such as the northern right whale (now listed as two species) are still struggling and may be sliding towards extinction. In the case of climate change, the resource needing protection has more direct relevance. It is our planet as we know it, and the species under threat is our very own Homo sapiens (along with whales and lots of other creatures).

The naysayers cry that such comments are far too inflammatory. The climate change scientists say that the option of inching towards an agreement has long-since passed. We need an avalanche of change – a dramatic shift in the way we use our global commons – if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change this century.

What did Durban achieve? The European Union and several other countries agreed to continue the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 if other governments, including major emitters, agreed to negotiate a new legally binding treaty with deeper emissions reductions by 2015.

Sadly, this is more inching. The 'major emitters” are the USA, China and India. Of these, the country attempting most to deal with emissions is China. The USA refuses to shift from the George Bush stance that 'the American way of life is not negotiable”. While an important door was opened, the chance of the proposed agreement being reached is not high and more foot dragging is expected.

Durban also agreed to the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, aimed to be US$100 billion, to support developing countries. This fund aids economic independence, while avoiding the climate change consequences of industrialisation. This is a genuine step in the right direction.

After 25 years of protection, the northern right whale is not recovering from near-extinction. It was once so common that ships were unable to harvest all the whales available. For this species, the international negotiation process offered too little, too late.

Rapid change is not a feature of our international agreement protocols. Durban had some success. Let us hope that it also is not too little, too late.

Ian McLean is a local environmental consultant.