By Dr. Orr Karassin

DURBAN, South Africa (Dec. 9, 2011) — The Durban Conference enters its final stretch, and with the start of speeches by senior country representatives, there is reason for cautious optimism. The European Union, via Climate Commissioner Connie Hildegard, announced its wish to renew the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only legal document ever included at the climate conference, and tools of enforcement, control and supervision accompany it. The Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and parties will be left with no binding legal framework to reduce emissions. For the past four years, conference participants have tried to form an alternative protocol that will extend beyond developed countries to include developing countries. Negotiations nearly reached a halt because of resistance from the United States to commit to any legal agreement until 2020. Despite this and an equal expression of non-commitment from China, the European Union declaration may help drive negotiations forward. The European Union, in a move of goodwill, announced that it is willing to extend the expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol for a renewed commitment period even without the accession of countries like Japan and Australia, which are opposed to re-signing their commitments. However, with this one-sided commitment, the European Union has requested a clearly outlined roadmap to achieving a committed agreement from all parties in the near future.

The European Union’s leap forward may indicate a new approach for negotiations. It shows a willingness to commit individually without multilateral commitment ahead of time. Without a doubt, the European Union’s ability to significantly commit to reducing emissions without equivalent commitment from other developing countries is attributed to widespread support among the European public to fight climate change.

Results of recent surveys in Europe show that a majority people — about 90 percent — believe that global warming is a proven phenomenon that is caused by humans and that the government must take serious action to stop global warming. In comparing this data to that of the US, the source of differences between the two becomes apparent. There is widespread resistance in the United States against taking steps to reduce emissions and fight global warming. A report recently published by Yale University showed that only 53 percent of Republicans think there should be some action taken to fight climate change, and among Tea Party supporters, support was even lower, at 34 percent. Among Democrats, support is much higher (78 percent), but still does not reach the level of support in Europe.

For these reasons, we can understand why European politician are willing to enter one-sided agreements to continue reducing emissions, while the United States refuses any legally binding agreement over the next decade. Although public support plays an important and central role in convincing governments to take significant action against climate change, so does the private sector. European industrial lobbyists disclosed in closed talks at the convention that they are willing and preparing to significantly reduce emissions further beyond 2012 and that they believe that in the long run this will benefit the economy and European industries. This might surprise most, given the Euro-zone crisis and fear of another downturn in the European economy. However, it is not the first time it has been stated. The Greek minister of energy, on his recent visit to Israel, said that he’s interested in developing alternative energy as a way to open opportunities for new businesses and to promote green economic growth.

Israel ought to adopt similar long-term visions. The Europeans understand now what others will understand later. Emission reduction in Europe will eventually lead to the growth of a new sector and will open the door to new job creation and income sources. The European Union’s commitment will accelerate the transition of European countries to a green economy and sustainable development that depends on renewable resources. Doing so will ensure that European countries will not be energy dependent on oil-producing countries. Whoever is giving on Europe today might find that this is the step that will dig Europe out of its economic mud and will ensure healthy and sustainable growth. Israel would benefit if it were to follow this path and think about long-term economic sustainability that will reduce emissions while also promising green growth.

In the United States we are finding that a significant portion of the population thinks that global warming is, at best, an urban legend or a malicious invention by scientists. Naturally, this type of approach leads to a lack of clear support to spur a change in American consumer culture and government policy.

Dr. Orr Karassin is a former Green Zionist Alliance representative to the board of directors of Jewish National Fund in Israel, and an advisory-board member of Aytzim: Ecological Judaism.

Orr's other dispatches from Durban are available here:

• Will Durban Pick Up Where Cancun Left Off?
• Want a New Kyoto Protocol? Japan Doesn't
• Mixed Results at End of Climate-Change Talks

By Dr. Orr Karassin

DURBAN, South Africa (Dec. 5, 2011) — Negotiations at the climate talks here are gaining momentum as the senior representatives of the countries who will take the reins arrive. This may constitute a turning point on the road to an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in a year.

The protocol obligates industrialized countries to decrease their greenhouse-gas emissions by five percent by the end of next year. The absence of a new obligatory agreement would make it difficult to ensure that countries decrease their emissions of greenhouse gases. Sadly, the leaders of some countries would prefer that outcome. For example, Japan's senior representative here announced that Japan would not support the renewal of the obligations that were included in the Kyoto Protocol, citing the protocol's exclusion of the world's two largest carbon emitters — China and the United States — as well as other significant emitters, such as India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa. Japan's announcement effectively blocks the adoption of an agreement to extend the validity of the Kyoto Protocol and to renew the carbon-reduction obligations of developed nations. Despite this, the president of the climate-change conference announced that there is hope that the Kyoto Protocol obligations will be renewed for an intermediary period until a new encompassing international agreement can be reached.

While governments fight against a new international climate-change treaty, scientific findings on climate change continue to mount, revealing that the impact of climate change has begun already. Research by the World Meteorological Organization indicates that 2011 is the 10th hottest year since measurements began. Overall, the 12 hottest years on record have occurred over the past 15 years. Additionally, the North Pole's icecap has receded at an unprecedented rate.

This week, more than 20,000 politicians, government representatives, U.N. officials, environmental activists and journalists are flocking to Durban, which has been suffering from the effects of inclement weather. During November, rainfall in Durban was twice as high as the annual average. More than 700 homes were destroyed by torrential rains that led to the deaths of several residents. So Durban is working to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. For example, to help protect against the eventual rise in sea levels, the city is planting vegetation on its beach-front dunes, helping to stop beach erosion. The city also has built breakwaters using sand brought from the cleanup of the Durban harbor.

Also, when the city built a new soccer stadium, it began planting a 2,250-acre forest to offset the carbon released from the stadium's construction. Sixty poor families are raising the saplings and selling them to the municipality. The objective is to plant about 900,000 saplings.

Climate change is already happening. If we are to stave off the worst possible effects, then we need to start taking action now. The city government of Durban understands that; we need federal governments to understand that too. Countries setting aside politics to agree to a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol would be a good start.

Dr. Orr Karassin was a Green Zionist Alliance representative to the board of directors of Jewish National Fund in Israel, and is an advisory-board member of Aytzim: Ecological Judaism.

Orr's other dispatches from Durban are available here:

• Will Durban Pick Up Where Cancun Left Off?
• Cautious Optimism at the Climate Discussions in Durban
• Mixed Results at End of Climate-Change Talks

GZA member Dr. Orr Karassin — a GZA representative on the KKL-JNF board of directors — led the KKL-JNF delegation to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP 17/MOP 7) Nov. 28 — Dec. 11, 2011 in Durban, South Africa. In 2010 she led the KKL-JNF delegation to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP 16/MOP 6) in Cancun, in 2009 she led the KKL-JNF delegation to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP 15/MOP 5) in Copenhagen, and in 2007 she headed the KKL-JNF delegation to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP 13/MOP 3) in Bali.

Orr's dispatches from Durban are available here:

• Will Durban Pick Up Where Cancun Left Off?
• Want a New Kyoto Protocol? Japan Doesn't
• Cautious Optimism at the Climate Discussions in Durban
• Mixed Results at End of Climate-Change Talks

And a free webinar is available here:

Examining Durban: How Will the Last Climate-Change Talks Impact Jews, Israel and the World?

By Dr. Orr Karassin

DURBAN, South Africa (Nov. 28, 2011) — Two years ago, negotiations over a new worldwide agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions “rolled over and died” at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Attempts were made to revive them at last year's conference in Cancun. This year's conference, which opened today, must try to “stabilize the patient’s condition.” In the meantime, fewer than 12 months remain until the previous agreement, known as the Kyoto Protocol, expires. Despite all of this, the impression here is that the countries that hold the key to remedying the situation are not feeling the sense of urgency necessary to spur signing the agreement required to stabilize the rise in temperature which is projected at a maximum of two degrees over the next 100 years. And there is a broad consensus that an inability to meet this target will have disastrous effects worldwide.

This year's conference is not expected to lead to a final agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol, but we hope that it will pave the way for a binding agreement for 2015—2020. For this to happen, solutions will have to be found for some of the main points of contention scheduled to be discussed at the conference.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol, which was signed in Japan in 1997 and came into force in 2005, established for the first time binding reduction targets for 37 countries defined as  “developed.” These countries were to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by an average of 5 percent as compared with 1990 levels, over the period between 2008 and 2012.

However, a number of the major players in the emissions arena, i.e. the world carbon market, were not included among the countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol’s demand for a  significant reduction in emissions. China — which since 2005 has become the world’s greatest emitter and has become responsible for 17 percent of annual emissions worldwide — is not subject to binding emission-reduction demands. Neither is Indonesia, which produces 6 percent of annual worldwide emissions, or India, which produces 5 percent of annual worldwidel emissions.

Developed nations have been scurrying around since the Bali Conference in an attempt to renew the Kyoto Protocol and to seize the opportunity to include the United States — responsible for 16 percent of annual worldwide emissions — which refused to sign the Protocol at the time and continues to present a significant stumbling block in negotiations. It is not surprising that prior to this year's conference, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, described the five obstacles to the achievement of a binding agreement as “the U.S.A., the U.S.A., the U.S.A., the U.S.A. and the U.S.A.”

The United States is leading the developed nations’ demand for certain developing countries to be included in any such agreement, which will for the first time define binding emission-reduction targets for a number of countries whose economies are flourishing, such as China, Brazil, South Africa and India, which, in the period since the Kyoto Protocol was signed, have become major emitters.

The status and legal validity of the commitments

While the European Union will insist on a legally binding agreement that's complete with control mechanisms, supervision and sanctions against countries that have not fulfilled their obligations, most of the swiftly developing countries, while demanding binding commitments from the developed nations, are refusing to respond in kind and assume similar obligations themselves. This turmoil is further aggravated by the United States, which at present is preventing the creation of any legally binding formula because of its justifiable fear that such an agreement would not receive Congressional approval.

Funding climate-change adaptation and emissions reduction

While the binding legal aspects of the agreement are under siege by the Americans, there has been a certain degree of progress since the Cancun conference with regard to formulating complementary arrangements for the funding of operations relating to emissions reduction and adaptation to climate change. The Cancun agreement on the establishment of the Green Climate Fund is particularly worthy of note: This fund is to raise and distribute $100 billion in aid to developing countries every year. However, so far no agreement has been reached with regard either to the fund’s management mechanisms or, more importantly, to its sources of funding. These last points require discussion over disputed issues such as who will bear the burden of the funding, and what portion will be borne by the private sector.

Hope for Durban?

If we are looking for a glimmer of optimism as the 17th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gets underway, we may hope for an agreement establishing the Green Climate Fund's funding and management. That would facilitate the provision of funding vital to many developing countries that are crying out for help in dealing with the damage caused by climate change. We would witness a transition in global policy on climate change, from responsibility (for reducing emissions) to obligation (to pay compensation for damage caused by climate change). Sadly, it doesn't look like we will see that transition this year.

Dr. Orr Karassin is a former Green Zionist Alliance representative to the board of directors of Jewish National Fund in Israel, and is an advisory-board member of Aytzim: Ecological Judaism.

Orr's other dispatches from Durban are available here:

• Want a New Kyoto Protocol? Japan Doesn't
• Cautious Optimism at the Climate Discussions in Durban
• Mixed Results at End of Climate-Change Talks