| Sourced From |
BEIJING, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) — Developed countries are good at talking about emission reduction ideals, but lack concrete efforts to walk their talk. Inevitably, they failed to meet the 2012 deadline as set in the Kyoto Protocol
Under the Kyoto Protocol, a commitment period (2008-2012) was set in which developed countries were required to cut back their annual carbon emissions by 5 percent, on average, from their 1990 levels.
Most developed countries’ “progress,” however, was far from what the world is expecting, as reflected in the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report 2007/2008 (the Report) which was dedicated to the fighting of climate change.
The United States used to be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and was assigned a reduction of 7 percent, but it withdrew from it in 2001 under the Bush administration. Since then, its overall emissions had increased by 18 percent as recorded in the 2008 Report.
Canada agreed under the Protocol to a 6 percent reduction, but its emissions increased by 27 percent, as stated in the Report.
The European Union members as a whole had committed to an average reduction of 8 percent. The actual cuts were 2 percent by the end of 2008. The European Environment Agency, cited by the Report, suggested that the picture was unlikely to change by 2010.
Zhuang Guiyang, research fellow with the Chinese Academy of Social (CASS) Sciences, pointed out that developed countries set clear, long-term targets, but vague mid-term plans, rendering their climate targets a castle in the air.
That was just a tactic to take the moral high ground in international negotiations, he added.
Pan Jiahua, director of the Research Center for Sustainable Development of CASS, said priority should be given to clarifying mid-term goals for developed countries. However, considering their current progress made in fulfilling the Kyoto Protocol, the chances of all parties reaching common ground at Cancun would be slim.
The different fate for citizens of developed and developing countries would become extremely dramatic when their homes were threatened by rising sea levels and other climate disasters.
Here is an example from the Report: People in wealthy low-lying European countries could own government-subsidized houses that could float on water, while people in poorer areas could only afford a swimming class or life vest.
Developed countries’ advanced technology and rich resources may be their reason to shy away from their responsibilities in the global carbon reduction initiative. They can simply stand those threats with no harm done.
Climate change, however, equally threatens every one on this planet.