:From Montreal 1987 Kyoto 1998 Bali 2008 Copenhagen 2009 To Mexico City 2010:Combating the Challenge of Global

al Climate Change or Maintaining the

::From Montreal 1987 Kyoto 1998 Bali 2008 Copenhagen 2009 To Mexico City 2010:Combating the Challenge of Global Climate Change or Maintaining the Global Economic Regime:: Karno B. Batiran Prolog With less optimistic voice the U.N. secretary Ban Ki-moon announced, at the last session of the 15th Copenhagen (Cop15) United Nation Climate Change Conference 2009, that the summit have reached the agreement. Finally we sealed a deal, He said. The Copenhagen Accord may not be everything everyone hoped for, but this is important beginning. Some moments before Obama, with also not very optimistic tone, announced that the Copenhagen Accord have been sealed by the Ad-hoc working group of the countries or parties on the annex 1 of Kyoto protocol. I think we should still strive towards something more binding than this but that was not achievable at this conference, Obama stated. Kyoto was legally binding than this and people still fell short anyway. He concluded. The Ad-hoc group including U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa had been arrived to the agreement so called Copenhagen Accord after marathon negotiation among the countries. It is a non-legally-binding accord which is weaker deal rather than the Kyoto protocol and likely only use as the diving -board to jump to the next summit in Mexico City, Mexico on November next year as scheduled. And seemingly just to resulting something after long run two weeks negotiation, to avoid to be considered as a failed summit. The series of failures The end of Kyoto protocol will be on 2012 and need to deal a new agreement for the global climate change issue. In the Kyoto protocol saying that the countries especially the developed countries are obligated to reduce the greenhouse gasses emission by 5 percent each year up to 2012 which meant by the year of 2012 the emission will be reduce up to 25 %. But the countries failed to do it, even worse the most pollutant developed country U.S. are not ratifying the protocol. That was the first failure. After not fulfilling the obligation of reducing the emission and not ratifying the protocol then now come up the second failure is that the unwillingness of the developed countries to transfer the green technologies to the developing and under-developed countries for the adaptation and mitigation of the climate change, neither knowledge transfer nor financing the transfer process.

The developed countries keep delaying that transfer process. That was the second failure. Delaying the technology transfer to the developing and under-developed country for adaptation and mitigation of climate change (clean and green industry), neither to fund nor to transfer because it will shift the economic pattern which has been dominated by the developed countries to the semi-peripheries and peripheries which is meaning also sharing wealth and fairness on economic global system. Another issue is the transparency issue (Financial and the reporting and monitoring of the carbon dioxide emission) there is weak monitoring and reporting of the how the target of the emission will be really achieved and how to monitor if it will be really reduced by the countries. For example the suspicions of U.S. to China commitment to reduce the emission up to 40 %. And the ultimate failure has been the loose non-legally-binding agreement under the Copenhagen accord. The agreement even weaker than the Kyoto protocol which has been failed to pushed the political will of the countries for the global climate change. The content of the accord are: 1. the set of limiting the global warming up to 2 degrees Celsius. But it failed to mention how this would be reached, and 2. The prospect of hundred million dollars aid from 2020 for developing nations. And again it failed to specify where the money will come from and how the mechanism to use that money. Is the failure to maintain the global economic regime? It can be understood clearly and obviously that the U.S. want to maintain the global economic regime under the domination of the developed countries. Because if the Climate Change Conference arrive to the strong agreement and strong binding it will lead to the extreme shifting of the global economic pattern as the logic consequences of the agreement. If the global is shifting based on the strong agreement combating global climate change (such as the obligation to shift to green industry); it will be affecting to the economic pattern of the world. There will be trillions of dollars wealth transfer, millions of jobs losses and gains, new taxes policy, huge industrial relocation and so on. For example the shifting from the fossil fuel using will need a huge new investment on industry. It will bring negative impact to production process and even might cause a huge closing of many industries due to the inability to afford the new investment under the green industry framework. Epilog The next U.N. Climate Change Summit will be in Mexico by November next year. Will it be arriving at the strong agreement that can bring a significant change and action for combating the global climate change challenge or will it be just repeating such previous process from Kyoto Bali and Copenhagen?