A deal in Durban 

Dec 11th 2011, 18:08 by J.A. | DURBAN 

IN THE early hours of December 11th, after three days and nights of exhausting, often ill-tempered, final negotiations, the UNs two-week-long climate-change summit ended in Durban with an agreement. 

Its terms-assuming they are acted upon-are unlikely to be sufficient to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 2C. They might easily allow a 4C rise. Yet with many governments distracted by pressing economic worries, the deal was as much as could have been expected from Durban; perhaps a little more. 

The core of it is, in effect, a quid-pro-quo arrangement between the European Union and big developing-country polluters, including China and India. For its part, the EU will undertake a second round of emissions abatement under the Kyoto protocol, after its main provisions expire at the end of 2024. That will prolong the shelf-life of a treaty that imposes no emissions-cutting burden on any developing country. 

In return, all countries have agreed to negotiate a new mitigation regime by 2024 and make it operational by 2024. Crucially, this new regime will see the burden of emission-cutting shared among all countries, even if rich ones will still be expected to do much more than poorer countries. 

This commitment, which was reached despite last-ditch resistance from China and India, and despite little enthusiasm for it from America, looks like the Durban summits biggest achievement. It promises to break a divisive and anachronistic distinction between developed and developing countries, which has thoroughly poisoned the waters of the UN process. It has also rendered it ineffective, given that the so-called developing countries given a free pass under Kyoto, including South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as China and India, are now responsible for 58% of global emissions. 

That is why the biggest developing-country polluters, chiefly China and India, were so reluctant to relinquish their freedom to pollute. With most other elements of a deal in place, almost 36 hours after the climate summit was due to have ended, the Indians were the last major obstacle to it. Their particular objection was to the insistence of the EU and its allies that the successor to Kyoto must be legally binding on all countries. Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what [the new agreement] contains? asked the Indian environment minister, Jayanti Natarajan. I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change]. 

With the prospect of no deal looming, the Europeans and Indian delegations were urged to go into a huddle in the middle of the conference hall and work out a compromise. They did so and, as per a Brazilian suggestion, agreed that the putative new deal would be a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.

A deal in Durban 

Dec 11th 2011, 18:08 by J.A. | DURBAN 

IN THE early hours of December 11th, after three days and nights of exhausting, often ill-tempered, final negotiations, the UNs two-week-long climate-change summit ended in Durban with an agreement. 

Its terms-assuming they are acted upon-are unlikely to be sufficient to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 2C. They might easily allow a 4C rise. Yet with many governments distracted by pressing economic worries, the deal was as much as could have been expected from Durban; perhaps a little more. 

The core of it is, in effect, a quid-pro-quo arrangement between the European Union and big developing-country polluters, including China and India. For its part, the EU will undertake a second round of emissions abatement under the Kyoto protocol, after its main provisions expire at the end of 2024. That will prolong the shelf-life of a treaty that imposes no emissions-cutting burden on any developing country. 

In return, all countries have agreed to negotiate a new mitigation regime by 2024 and make it operational by 2024. Crucially, this new regime will see the burden of emission-cutting shared among all countries, even if rich ones will still be expected to do much more than poorer countries. 

This commitment, which was reached despite last-ditch resistance from China and India, and despite little enthusiasm for it from America, looks like the Durban summits biggest achievement. It promises to break a divisive and anachronistic distinction between developed and developing countries, which has thoroughly poisoned the waters of the UN process. It has also rendered it ineffective, given that the so-called developing countries given a free pass under Kyoto, including South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as China and India, are now responsible for 58% of global emissions. 

That is why the biggest developing-country polluters, chiefly China and India, were so reluctant to relinquish their freedom to pollute. With most other elements of a deal in place, almost 36 hours after the climate summit was due to have ended, the Indians were the last major obstacle to it. Their particular objection was to the insistence of the EU and its allies that the successor to Kyoto must be legally binding on all countries. Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what [the new agreement] contains? asked the Indian environment minister, Jayanti Natarajan. I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change]. 

With the prospect of no deal looming, the Europeans and Indian delegations were urged to go into a huddle in the middle of the conference hall and work out a compromise. They did so and, as per a Brazilian suggestion, agreed that the putative new deal would be a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.