Hw Al Gore derailed the Kyoto Protocol

I remember it well. After reading his book “Earth in the Balance” I had high hopes for Al Gore but I remember the betrayal – his singualr roll in scuppering the Kyoto Agreement.

Now he tells the world that all that needs to be done is to adopt “new” technology.

This man has to be exposed for who he is.

Don’t fall for this charlatan

How the Kyoto Protocol Was Gored

Joshua Frank

Counterpunch,

1 August, 2017

Seems as though Al Gore’s part-documentary part-campaign flick is reaching quite a few people this summer, environmentalists and skeptics alike.

Perhaps the ol’ VP is repenting for some of the dirty deeds he supported during his compliant years in Washington.

One of the more egregious of Gore’s follies, while serving his country, came about in the late-1990s when the Clinton administration was debating whether or not to back the largest international environmental pact in history, the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Gore, the big “enviro,” despite common belief, was the one most responsible for Clinton’s derailment of the landmark accord.

Seems contradictory, I know. Here’s the most populist environmentalist speaking out about the fact that the Earth is rapidly warming — indeed, pointing out that humans are at least partially to blame. Yet, when he had the power to do something significant at the governmental level, Gore refused to act. In fact, Gore’s culpability in enviro degradation goes well beyond his family’s past ownership in Occidental Petroleum, where they owned over a quarter of a million dollars in the company while Gore sought the presidency in 2000.

It was the winter of 1997 when Vice President Gore, who was in direct control of Clinton’s environmental policies, flew to Japan to address the international delegation about the US position on the Kyoto Protocol. Gore and Clinton had just come off an election victory and it was time to pay back the big oil and gas companies who had handed over $6 million to their party the year before.

Gore warmed up his attentive audience by affirming that Clinton and the US public believed the Earth was in peril and that all global citizens must act swiftly to save it. But in typical Gore doublespeak, he declared the United States would not support the agreement because it did not ask enough of developing nations, even though the US is the leading polluter in the world.

As Gore put it then, “Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the US Senate.”

Gore soon returned to Washington only to reiterate his message that the Clinton administration would not put the Kyoto Protocol before the Senate. “As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change,” he said.

It was at that moment when Clinton and Gore ruined any chances of the Kyoto Protocol being honestly debated in Washington. Later in November of 1998, Gore “symbolically” signed the accord, likely to appease his environmental pals like the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, a close friend.

But the Vice President’s tepid gesture couldn’t have carried less weight. The Clinton administration, with Gore’s guidance, refused to allow the Republican controlled Senate to decide on the Kyoto Protocol for themselves. Gore advised Clinton not to send the Protocol to the Senate to be ratified. The blame could have burdened the Republican Party, not the Democrats and the Clinton administration. But instead the buck stopped with Al Gore and Bill Clinton. Predictably, President Bush followed their lead.

And there you have it. It was Mr. Global Warming himself who first tried to kill off the Kyoto Protocol.

JOSHUA FRANK, author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005) edits www.BrickBurner.org. He can be reached at: BrickBurner@gmail.com.

Greenhouse gases - New Zealand's shame

The first fact makes nonsense of the second assertion

Greenhouse gas emissions 22% higher than 1990 levels

New figures show New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions are at an all time high, but the country is still on course to reach commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.

Radio NZ,

13 April, 2013

The Ministry for the Environment has released the Greenhouse Gas Inventory which details emission levels and measures progress on the country's Kyoto target.

The report says New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 were 72.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, more than 22% higher than the level recorded in 1990.

However, it says the country is on course to meet its target for the first Kyoto commitment period of 2008 to 2012, although the final figures won't be ready for another year.

Green Party climate change spokesperson Kennedy Graham says New Zealand is on track to achieve that target only because of large areas of forest planted in the 1990s.

"That is a five year period in which our forestry happened to absorb so much carbon that we can come in under the radar of our committment, notwithstanding that our gross emissions have increased hugely from 60 million to 73 million in 21 years."

Dr Graham says once New Zealand begins deforestation, remaining forests won't be able to absorb the increasing levels of carbon emissions.

Agriculture was the largest contributor to New Zealand's emissions in 2011 , closely followed by the energy sector, the Greenhouse Gas Inventory said.

The four sources that contributed the most to the increase in total emissions since 1990 were emissions from dairy cattle, road transport, agricultural soils and release of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from industrial and household refrigerant and air-conditioning systems.

The carbon market

Europe's Carbon Emissions Market Is Crashing

Marketweek,

28 March, 2013

Carbon markets were supposed to help the world fight climate change by making fossil fuels more expensive, thereby curbing the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This year, the market is pricing a lifetime of pollution at less than the cost of a tank of gasoline. Using one type of United Nations carbon credit, in January it was possible to offset 581 tons of emissions, about as much as the average European generates in 80 years, for €23.24 ($30). The price has climbed to $82. “The fact that prices are so cheap says the market is broken,” says Edward Hanrahan, director of ClimateCare, in Oxford, England, which invests in carbon-reducing projects. “It’s not spurring large emitters to make investments” in reducing emissions.

Carbon markets were set up to help developed countries meet the emissions targets they agreed to under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The idea is to issue factory owners and utilities permits for a certain amount of pollution, with a declining number of permits issued each subsequent year. Companies that don’t use all their allowances can sell them to companies that exceed their limits. There are also markets like the UN’s Joint Implementation program, where companies can buy carbon “credits or “offsets” to help meet their emissions quotas. The money they spend on credits is invested in UN-approved emissions-cutting projects.

The European Union Emissions Trading System is by far the biggest carbon market, accounting for 89 percent of the $61 billion in trading worldwide in 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Users range from German power company RWE (RWE) to Danish brewerCarlsberg (CARLA). RWE emitted 140 million tons of CO2 in 2011 and had a cap of 89 million, so it had to buy 51 million tons of either carbon permits from other EU companies or offsets on the UN market.

When the EU started its Emissions Trading System eight years ago, policymakers expected the price of carbon would have to hit €25 to €30 a ton or more to coax industry to shift to renewable energy. David King, the science adviser to Britain’s then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, said companies wouldn’t change for less than €100 a ton. After trading on the EU ETS began, prices reached a high of €31 per ton. But the economic slump beginning in 2008 slowed industrial activity, depressing prices. Permits for delivery in December 2013 (and valid for seven years) touched a low of €2.81 on Jan. 24. They closed at €4.15 on March 22.

Lawmakers in the European Parliament are due to vote April 16 on a European Commission proposal that would delay issuance of new permits through 2015, temporarily restricting supplies in hopes of lifting prices. Prospects for passage are uncertain. Poland objects out of concern the plan would boost energy prices. Cyprus says it can’t afford to lose revenue from auctions. Greece is also opposed. Germany hasn’t decided how to vote. Without a big adjustment to the structure of the European market, buyers fear it “might just fall away,” says Abyd Karmali, head of carbon for Bank of America (BAC) in London. “You might end up with a patchwork quilt of measures across the 27 member states, where each state decides to put in place its own policies.”

In the U.S., proposals for a national carbon-trading market supported by President Obama stalled in the Senate in 2009. Japan’s government shelved a trading plan in 2010. At the same time, Japan, Canada, and Russia have declined to take part in the second round of quotas called for in the Kyoto agreement, which came into effect on Jan. 1, so companies there no longer require any permits or offsets. With the EU ETS foundering, support is growing for alternative approaches to curbing emissions, such as a direct tax on carbon. Even some oil company executives have endorsed the idea. “A carbon tax is much more straightforward,” Rex Tillerson, chairman ofExxonMobil (XOM), said in an interview with Charlie Rose on March 7. Dieter Helm, a professor of energy policy at Oxford University, agrees that taxing carbon would be more effective. “We want a carbon price to reflect where you want to go,” he says, “and not just current circumstances.”

The bottom line: With the price of carbon below €5 a ton in the EU’s Emission Trading System, companies have little incentive to cut emissions.

NZ leaves the Kyoto protocol

I'm not surprised that New Zealand's media should choose to suppress this bit of news.

(* Please note this was on after the 8 am news on Radio NZ, but was NOT included in the main news or (as of now), the RNZ website)

Tim Grosser, our climate change negotiator anounces with pride that no legally-binding agreement is “rock-solid” as they all “contain abrogation clauses” - besides which, we are just following the example of one of the world's greatest polluters, Canada.

On that basis why any government would want to enter an agreement with New Zealand eludes me.

This government cannot be trusted.

Whilst Kyoto was never going to do anything to reduce world's emissions this marks a point-of-departure for this government.

While finally Australia is moving to reduce emissions, NZ's greenhouse emissions have gone up hugely from 1990 levels, and this government has freed itself to further increase emissions.

One of the worst aspects of this is that previously New Zealand has relied on forestry to meet its targets – now foresters who have invested in forestry with the expectation of making money from carbon trading are being forced off the land

It is also a fine kick in the teeth to our Pacific neighbours, who will be some of the first victims of runaway climate change

'We've joined the wrong crowd" - Kennedy Graham, NZ Green Party

New Zealand's Day of Shame

Last day of New Zealand's legal commitment to Kyoto Protocol today

Today marks the last day that New Zealand is tied to any formal commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

If link doesn't work GO HERE


Other stories on this subject:

Government 'turns its back' on Kyoto commitment

Govt criticised for refusing second Kyoto stage

Carbon price fall could force some farmers off land

John Key – more pledges, more broken promises?

...and meanwhile the world burned

Doha climate talks: what to expect

Another round of climate change talks has every chance of suffering the same fate as the others: stalemate and failure

the Guardian,

25 November, 2012

• Doha has a special place in the history of diplomacy. Talks started there in 2001 under the World Trade Organisation, aimed at solving trade barriers that penalise the poor. The Doha round dragged on to 2008 without conclusion and is now in limbo. Doha is a byword for stalemate and failure. So when the United Nations chose the Qatari capital as the location for this year's round of climate change talks, starting on Monday, there was a collective groan from greens. There is every prospect these negotiations will suffer the same fate. The history of climate talks is as unpromising as the location – this year, the negotiations "celebrated" their 20th birthday, but after all that talking there is still no global treaty stipulating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and the best governments are now hoping for is to draw up an agreement in the next three years that would not come into force until 2020.

• This year marks the end of the first commitment period of the 1997 Kyoto protocol. But it was never ratified by the US, contains no obligations for developing countries and has been abandoned by others. Kyoto will limp on, as the EU and some developing countries want it, but without an effective new treaty there will be no global resolve to tackle emissions.

Compared with the urgent warnings from scientists – that we are on the edge of a "climate cliff" and only urgent drastic emissions cuts will save us from a world of extreme weather – the less-than-snail's pace of these negotiations looks not just absurd but dangerous. In frustration, some have suggested scrapping the talks. But without them, what mechanism would there be to enjoin all countries, developed and developing, to take the action needed? The UN provides the only forum where all countries have an equal say.

• The fortnight-long talks, which take place each year in the weeks leading up to Christmas, provide little in the way of spectacle, but sometimes stray into bad pantomime. Negotiators spend their days and long stretches of the night locked in technical discussions over such arcana as LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry, since you ask) and the CDM (clean development mechanism, a form of carbon trading). Adjusting the placement of a comma can take hours, and the texts are thick with square brackets, denoting all the terms that have not yet been settled. Only the presence of campaigning groups pulling stunts outside the halls – dressing as polar bears is a favourite, and every day the most recalcitrant negotiator is crowned "fossil of the day" – enlivens the proceedings. This year's accessory of choice looks to be the Homer Simpson mask, imploring governments not to put the "D'oh!" into Doha. (The jokes don't get any better as the talks drag on.) For the final three days, the ministers arrive and the real work begins. Last year, in Durban, the talks ran on past the final Friday night deadline, through Saturday and only finished as dawn broke on Sunday. All that achieved was an agreement to keep talking, setting a deadline of 2015 for drafting a potential treaty.

• While the diplomats dither, time is running out. Global greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, having barely registered a blip from the financial crisis and recession. As a world, we are doing worse than ever on climate change, just when we need to be doing better – if emissions do not peak by 2020, scientists have warned, we may lose forever the chance to contain climate change to manageable levels. On current trends, the world is headed for 6C of warming, a level not seen for millions of years and that would cause chaos, according to the International Energy Agency. Fatih Birol, chief economist, says: "I don't see enough of a sense of urgency. We do not have time to waste. We need progress at these talks." Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN environment programme, warns: "While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement, they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal."

• Every conference centre, every hotel the delegates will inhabit, every piece of modern infrastructure in the city of Doha has been built on its oil and gas wealth. This is the first time the talks have been held in an oil-rich Middle Eastern country, and the UN evidently hoped the choice of site would encourage countries that have long been among the most hostile to a climate agreement. Ironically, the Middle East is facing energy issues of its own. The IEA has just forecast that the US will be the world's biggest oil and gas producer within the decade, thanks to the bonanza of shale gas and oil. This will redraw the geopolitical power map, and the economics of energy, and should make for interesting chats among the US and Saudi delegations.

• Barack Obama's re-election stands out as one bright spot. Although climate barely rated a mention during the campaign, even while superstorm Sandy raged, Obama will be looking to his legacy. This year's weather – Sandy, a drought in the US that pushed up food prices, disruption to the Indian monsoon, floods in Europe – was accompanied by some stark warnings. Satellite pictures showed melting across almost the entire Greenland ice sheet. The Arctic sea ice shrank to its lowest recorded extent. As negotiators gather in their air-conditioned conference rooms, they might want to spare a glance for the world outside. You can't put square brackets around the ice cap.

New Zealand gov't sides with Big Polluters

New Zealand joins the polluting nations in opposing Kyoto. Not that it is going to make a difference either way – it's already too late to make a difference and the die is set – but this a strong indicator of this government's approach - “drill baby, drill!”

NZ won't be taken seriously at climate talks, says Opposition

Opposition parties say New Zealand will have little credibility at international climate change talks given the Government has chosen not to sign up to the next stage of the Kyoto Protocol.

Radio NZ,

26 November, 2012

The annual United Nations climate change conference begins on Monday in Doha, Qatar, where negotiators from nearly 200 countries will continue to try to strike a global deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The talks are aimed at securing a new treaty by 2015 that would cap emissions from all countries including developing nations and come into force by 2020.

Climate Change Issues Minister Tim Groser says it makes more sense to work towards a binding global agreement than to sign up in the interim to the second phase of Kyoto, which covers countries making up only some 15% of emissions.

Labour and the Greens say the decision not to stick with Kyoto and the weakening of the Emissions Trading Scheme will effect New Zealand's ability to be taken seriously in the international negotiations.

John Key and Kyoto

John Key – more pledges, more broken promises?

Frank McSkasy

Continued from: As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities

As if John Key’s broken promises on environmental concerns  and reneging on pledges expressing  “National’s commitment to addressing global climate change.  We view this as the most serious environmental challenge of our time“ was not enough (see:  John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch), Dear Leader has made a new committment to New Zealanders,

“Next year New Zealand will name a binding commitment to climate change – it will actually have a physical rate that we’re going to hit – but instead of being what’s called a second commitment period that is likely to run from 2012 to 2020, we’ll be able to set our own rules around that.”

See: Key defends decision not to stick with Kyoto Protocol

This blogger demands to know from John Key why on Earth we should take him at his word?  This is a man who has broken so many pledges; back-tracked on so many policies; and paid lip-service to committments – that it has become a standing joke.

Some of Key’s previous statements on the environment include,

“What global Leaders know, and what the National Party knows, is that environmentalism and a commitment to economic growth must go hand in hand.  We should be wary of anyone who claims that one can or should come without the other.  And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.

In the years ahead it will be increasingly important that New Zealand marries its economic and environmental policies.  Global climate change awareness, resource shortages, and increasing intolerance of environmental degradation will give environmental policy renewed relevance on the world stage…

… And, in seeking the balance between environmental and economic goals, National will never forget that New Zealand’s outstanding physical environment is a key part of what makes our country special. Kiwis proudly value our forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, and oceans.  They are part of our history and they must continue to define our future.”

See: Ibid

“National will also ensure New Zealand works on the world stage to support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.  We are committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations and we will work to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed to at Kyoto.”

See: Ibid

Up until April/May 2010, Key maintained National’s supportive position on the ETS,

“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”

But by 9 November, National had completed a 180-degree turn on the the Kyoto Protocol, and completed what can only be deemed as a covert policy to repudiate the ETS and our committments to Kyoto. As Climate Change Minister Tim Groser said,

“The Government has decided that from 1 January 2013 New Zealand will be aligning its climate change efforts with developed and developing countries which collectively are responsible for 85% of global emissions. This includes the United States, Japan, China, India, Canada, Brazil, Russia and many other major economies.”

See: New Zealand Commits to UN Framework Convention

John Key has backtracked on the ETS and Kyoto Protocols – and now expects us to take him at his word at new committments announced today?

I don’t think so.

To rationalise National’s abandonment on Kyoto, Key stated,

“We are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of world emissions … New Zealand needs to play its part, it is playing its part, it’s already part of the emissions trading scheme and we’ve made quite a lot of other changes – we are there doing things about climate change. But I think we never wanted to be a world leader in climate change.”

I don’t think anyone could ever accuse Dear Leader of   “wanting to be a world leader in climate change“. He’s right on that score.

As for his laughable assertion that “New Zealand needs to play its part, it is playing its part, it’s already part of the emissions trading scheme” – that is the same ETS that National has gutted by excluding agriculture from, despite prior pledges to include it by 2015.

By October of this year, National  scrapped the five yearly State of the Environment Reports, despite John Key having endorsed it in September 2008.

See: National scraps crucial environmental report

No one could ever accuse John Key of keeping his pledges.

He is not to be trusted.

Addendum

For a full time-line of National’s slow dismantling of the ETS and backttracking on Kyoto Protocols, see: ETS – National continues to fart around.

Carbon trading: How to wreck the environment and the economy in two easy steps

-->Govt criticised for refusing second Kyoto stage

Conservation group WWF New Zealand says the Government has undermined its position in future climate change negotiations by refusing to sign up to phase two of the Kyoto Protocol.

Radio NZ,

10 November, 2012

New Zealand will instead make voluntary pledges under the Convention Framework.

This country will remain a full member of the Kyoto Protocol but will not face financial penalties if it goes above its emissions targets when the first commitment period finishes at the end of this year.

WWF New Zealand says the Government has shown it is not interested in reducing emissions at a time when efforts are underway to include all countries in a climate change regime that would begin after 2020.

Spokesperson Peter Hardstaff says New Zealand could be showing the rest of the world how to achieve a low carbon economy and a clean energy future.

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser says 85% of global carbon emissions come from countries that have not signed the protocol and the future is in the common space. He said the next step will be to set a formal target for New Zealand future emissions through to 2020.

The Kyoto Forestry Association says the Government has pulled the rug from under investors who have sunk many millions of dollars into forestry on the basis that it was earning carbon credits and the result will be deforestation on a large scale.

The Government's move breaks ranks with Australia, but aligns New Zealand with other major economies such as the United States, Japan, China, India and Russia.

NZ to quit Kyoto Protocol

In one sense, and one sense only, this is irrelevant that NZ should reject Kyoto and its cap-and-trade. But it is a strong indicator of where this government is at – if at all possible, beat others in the race to extinction.

New Zealand may quit Kyoto

New Zealand has been tipped to quit the Kyoto Protocol, designed to cut global emissions.

Stuff,

28 October, 2012

Government officials next month travel to Doha in Qatar for the latest round of negotiations on the treaty, but with less than four weeks before the summit, acting Climate Change Minister Simon Bridges says the Government has "not made a decision" on its commitment.

"My understanding is that decisions have yet to be made on that matter," he said.

But the actions of participants in the carbon market, and market signs, suggest the Government is preparing to walk away. It will soon pass legislation that critics claim will weaken an already ineffectual emissions trading scheme, the mechanism designed to put a price on carbon and encourage a transition to a lower-carbon economy.

Market watchers say changes to the scheme do not look like preparation for the Government agreeing to new emissions reduction commitments that would kick in from the end of the year. They say low activity on the carbon market, despite bargain prices, are evidence carbon emitting businesses think the same.

Last week carbon prices dropped to about $1 a tonne for some types of credits, but the market was quiet, with emitters resisting the temptation to stockpile cheap credits for the future.

"I'm surprised people are not filling their boots," one market participant said. "People seem to be having a tough time believing the market is credible."

There is growing speculation the Government's silence is because it could save face internationally by waiting for big players like China and the US to refuse to sign up to the second Kyoto round, before following suit.

But OM Financial carbon broker Nigel Brunnel thinks New Zealand will sign up to new commitments in Doha, but then delay ratifying them. That could buy time to pursue aligning with a group of Asia-Pacific partners, and adopting voluntary emissions targets outside of Kyoto.

That fits into two of the Government's climate-change themes, New Zealand doing its share, and not damaging competitiveness by enforcing heavy carbon payments on businesses when trading partners like the US and China do not.

Because of that, about 85 per cent of world carbon emissions are not covered by international reduction agreements, and it is said in government circles that China's emissions increase daily by New Zealand's entire annual carbon output.

Brunnel said companies with obligations to surrender credits had seen their value collapse, and he believed such businesses had lost faith in the market. Trading for some overseas-issued credits might also be slow because of talk New Zealand might not sign a new Kyoto deal, creating fears credit holders might not be able to surrender them under our ETS.

The Sustainability Council's Simon Terry said he did not expect New Zealand to accept a second set of Kyoto commitments in Doha, and he would not go himself because he could not justify the emissions produced to get there.

The Green Party last week tried to force the Government's hand, arguing New Zealand should show leadership.

But Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills called the Kyoto Protocol "somewhat flawed", given some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters weren't involved. He said nothing would change for the farming community should the Government end its involvement.

He said emissions and global warming were major issues. "But we weren't convinced the Kyoto Protocol was the most sensible approach."

Will the Kyoto Protocol survive the Durban climate talks?

Financial disagreements, a pressing need to reduce emissions faster and the unlikelihood of an international agreement over the Kyoto Protocol, leaves Durban looking less than promising

the Guardian,

Monday 24 October 2011 18.04 BST

It's October, so the annual round of UN climate talks must be close. This year it's the turn of Durban, where negotiators, campaigners and journalists will soon be headed, though probably not in the numbers that swamped Copenhagen in 2009 – or even Cancun last year. Can the South Africans succeed where the Danes and the Mexicans didn't?

A year ago the cynics were saying that South Africa saw the meeting more as a chance to attract tourists than as a serious negotiating round. But COP-17 (the seventeenth conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) will concentrate minds.

Running from 28 November to 9 December, it will be at least a theoretical chance to restore faith in the glacial progress towards agreement on an effective way to slow the human contribution to climate change.

There are three main stumbling blocks. One is whether to try to resuscitate the international climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, whose first phase expires in 2012.

The developing countries want to keep the Protocol, the only legally binding agreement requiring the rich world to make necessary (but far from sufficient) cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases.

The US has refused to ratify the Protocol, saying it won't accept constraints that do not apply to the world's other principal greenhouse polluter, China. And China, like other developing countries, is exempt from Kyoto's provisions.

The European Union and other industrialised countries say the US will never ratify Kyoto, and that therefore the world should let it die and work instead on some new and as yet undefined way to reduce emissions.

Then there's money. Both mitigation and adaptation (reducing emissions, and learning to live with the consequences of those you cannot avoid) are expensive, and the developing world says the rich are not keeping their promises to help them to pay to pollute less.

The third problem is really stark: how do you reduce emissions far and fast enough? Kyoto requires developed countries to cut theirs collectively to around 5% below what they were in 1990. Most climate scientists say what's needed is cuts of 80-90% below 1990 by the middle of this century.

There are some optimists as Durban nears. "The Kyoto Protocol is a cornerstone of the climate change regime, and nothing will be achieved unless it can be adopted in Durban", said the Chair of the G77 and China, Jorge Argüello of Argentina, in early October.

He said the group was "encouraged" by the "indubitable progress" it had made - a view not shared by a global civil society alliance, which said on the same day that the climate negotiations were "becoming like a Shakespearean tragedy, with betrayal piled upon broken promises".

Sara Parkin is founder director of Forum for the Future, and last year wrote The Positive Deviant: Sustainability leadership in a perverse world.

She says she stopped putting much hope into the international negotiations basket some time ago, but knows what she wants from these talks: "If anything is to come out of Durban it must include the US, and it must include a commitment to equity for poorer countries. If it doesn't produce both of these, then it will be worthless.

"What is clearer than anything else is that the sorts of things you have to do to get greenhouse emissions down are the opposite of what you have to do to achieve conventional growth", she says.

"In richer countries, certainly in the EU and the US, there doesn't seem to be an appreciation that the current crisis is in fact an opportunity to shift the economy towards a low-carbon lifestyle."

Parkin thinks Kyoto would not be too much of a loss if it were abandoned: "With Kyoto, we're trapped into something that's not ideal because it deals with emissions after they've been emitted.

"We have to be much tighter and clearer about what we need to do to stop emissions in the first place, which means moving upstream with taxes and incentives to decarbonise the economy."

And she thinks the few days spent in Durban itself can make little difference: "You need action now: campaign groups should be pressing national negotiators, so that they fear what will happen in their own countries if no progress is made.

"For example, why don't the climate change campaigners make common cause with the Occupy Wall Street protestors and the people camped outside St Paul's cathedral? It's long overdue for protesters to stop being just against things, but to collaborate for a new economy that's low on carbon and high on human wellbeing – including equity for poorer countries."

Saleemul Huq, a Bangladeshi scientist, is a climate change expert and a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development. While he thinks events like the Durban talks matter a lot, he says they are not the only place to make progress.

"In the last few years developing countries have started to take climate change quite seriously at home, including the private sector", he says.

"Even poor countries like Bangladesh are doing so. They're finding business opportunities and moving forward. The action is not in the negotiations. There's action across the world, on both adaptation and mitigation."

The Climate Change Convention entered into force in 1994. The most abundant greenhouse gas caused by human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2).

During the 1990s, CO2 emissions were rising at about 1.1% annually. Since 2000 they have been increasing at more than 3% a year.

The 2009 Copenhagen climate summit was so well-attended that the conference centre could not accommodate everyone who wanted to attend. By contrast, Cancun in 2010 had ample room for all comers – because climate change was by then slipping down the agenda of the politicians and the media.

It's unclear how long that haemorrhaging of concern may go on, but if it's not reversed soon the Convention could find itself sidelined. There are already voices calling for the negotiations to be handed over to another group, perhaps the G20 countries.

Sara Parkin is not persuaded. She says: "I'm not sure the Climate Convention has the agency which is needed to oblige countries to act. I don't think the G20 has it either.

"What could have it is the United Nations, but it would need to adapt to the changing roles of 21st century states and non-state actors in global governance."

Forget money, even forget emissions cuts: the prospects for agreement in Durban on the Convention's one legal instrument, the future of the Kyoto Protocol, look bleak, according to one of the main powerbrokers who will be there, the US chief negotiator Jonathan Pershing.

Speaking after the final round of pre-Durban talks in Panama on 10 October, Pershing said: "We do not believe that conditions are ripe in Durban for a legally binding agreement.

"We do not see a meeting of the minds on these issues... We do not want to launch negotiations on an agreement we would not be able to join."