Mexico fails to rate after Copenhagen fizzer

Thousands of journalists, world leaders and scientists descended on Denmark last year for the 15th United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen.
The media coverage of the conference was unprecedented even though it turned out to be a fizzer.
So what happened to Mexico?
The 16th UN climate change talks begin in Cancun in Mexico next month but a lack of interest in this year’s conference suggests a few things have changed since Copenhagen.
I was in Copenhagen representing Murdoch University. As a young journalist I was amazed and encouraged by the amount of coverage of one of the most important events this decade.
More than 15,000 delegates attended COP15. Barack Obama was one of them. Even Arnie “the Governator” was there inviting delegates to meet again in California.
In the lead up to COP15 the media attention was, for the most part, positive and gave me hope that a treaty would be signed during the course of the conference.
But after a week it became obvious the talks were not going to produce anything fruitful, no reduction of emissions, no binding treaty, no positive outcomes.
Now, 10 months on and a few weeks out from COP16, we are in no better position than we were before Copenhagen. The Kyoto Treaty will end in 2012 and the world is no closer to finding a replacement.
So what’s changed? Where is all the hype, controversy and political fighting? Is the Mexico conference doomed to follow COP15?
The media reports about the Mexican COP16 have been few and far between and have barely registered in the Australian media.
Climate talks were held recently in Germany and China but have failed to raise any hope that a result in Mexico will be any different from that of Copenhagen.
The absence of key decision makers and any heads of State makes Mexico’s conference seem less of a show when compared to the filibuster that was Copenhagen.
The Guardian has slammed the BBC for intending to send one reporter to cover COP16.
The BBC reportedly has blown its budget covering the Chilean mine fiasco and after sending 30 reporters to cover Copenhagen can now only afford one to cover its TV, radio and online affiliates.
To add to this, several key players have already expressed their belief that the Mexican conference will fail to provide a binding agreement.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, EU commissioner for climate action Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres have said they do not expect a deal this year.
Critics have said we should save the cost, fuel and ultimately the environment by not going to Cancun in November but instead begin gearing up for COP17 in South Africa.
Australian Ambassador on Climate Change Louise Hand will be in Cancun with a negotiation team.
But without any domestic agreement, which was the case in Copenhagen, Australia’s negotiating power will be weak at best.
Australia is negotiating towards what Ms Hand called a “balanced package”.
But after several unsuccessful attempts to pass carbon reduction legislation and mining sector tax schemes, Australia’s role will be a minor one.
The climate change debate has changed dramatically over the past year.
Opinion polls reveal a rising level of disinterest and distrust by a public tired of hearing scientists and world leaders argue over the science behind global warming.
This was highlighted in the recent federal election campaign. One of the reasons for the dumping of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd included his failure to produce a carbon pollution reduction scheme to address, “the greatest moral challenge of our time”.
He was forced to drop his controversial ETS and go to Copenhagen empty handed. As former journalism program chair Johan Lidberg said at www.copenhagen09conf.blogspot on December 2: “If the world could swing quickly into action to counter the global financial crisis it can do the same on climate change.”
The unpopular ETS scheme has not resurfaced since Rudd’s demise, leaving Prime Minister Julia Gillard to stand behind a Citizens’ Assembly which never was established.
But it seems Australians have moved on since Copenhagen, preoccupied with issues such as hung parliaments and boat people.
There has been little to no coverage of the impending Mexican conference in Australia’s media, save the fact that independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have been appointed to the Climate Change Committee established by Gillard as a replacement for the Citizens Assembly.
COP15 failed for a number of reasons including the failure of world leaders to commit to binding targets and a series of emails leaked from the East Anglia Climate Research Facility in the first week of COP15. This failure could have something to do with the lack of media movement in Mexico.
The East Anglia emails were taken out of context and misrepresented by the media but the impact they had on people’s perception on climate change stuck like mud.
The leaked emails allege staff at the East Anglia research facility where manipulating the science surrounding climate change. This sent a shock wave around the world and many people, even those in government departments and decision-making positions at the conference, became disillusioned.
So what’s next for climate change, for the Kyoto treaty and the future of our planet? Will Mexico fail just like Copenhagen?
The United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun will run from November 29 to December 10.
The conference will try to overcome the deadlock in climate change negotiations and again tackle the replacement of the Kyoto treaty.
Maybe it is a good thing we do not send 100 taxpayer funded delegates to Mexico as we did to Copenhagen.
A smaller presence of world leaders and delegates at COP16 may take the pressure off conference participants and allow for a more frank discussion on climate issues.
The same can be said for the media. But priority must be given to replacing Kyoto and producing new binding targets for global carbon emissions.

Comments are closed.