New York City, NY, 10150-6297, December 12, 2005

Andrew Revkin, in the New York Times of Sunday, December 4, 2005, reminds us that the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 dealing with the GHG emissions, was built along lines of the 1987 Montreal Protocol for eliminatring chemicals that harmed the ozone layer.

Richard A. Benedick, the Reagan administration’s chief representative in talks leading to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 points out that it was actually easy to establish a regime to phase out the chlorofluorocarbons because those were made by a handful of companies in a few countries and that taking CO2 out was rather a much more complex matter. As a result Revkin quoted Benedick having said that the “annual shindings” of the UNFCCC/COPs degenerated to sound bites instead of a “sober-contemplation of difficult issues.” I start my analysis of the final results of COP11 // COP/MOP1 with above observation as I feel that by using the words “Annual Shindings” the above intended to tell us that a certain brotherhood of diplomacy was created where a self-interest of country delegates, international institutions’ bureaucrats, NGO representatives, and even international environmental organizations’ representatives, has bonded to see always a full glass when envisioning in their minds the achievements of diplomacy that produces a half full glass at best.

I am not saying above because I think now that the KP discussions were a total failure - I do not easily either accept Revkin’s suggestions in that first paper that this 2005 Montreal meeting is in effect the preliminary meeting on how to “start over in addressing the threat of global warming” with progress coming in the future from “focused initiatives by clusters of countries with common interests rather then from further mega conferences”. I simply have difficulty with my observation that some express their self-interest by contending that from December 4 to the night between December 9 and 10, 2005, history was made in Montreal.

The Canadian Environment Minister, Dr. Stephane Dion, President of the Montreal 2005 COPs, made a rather gallant proposal that was nothing but a reiteration of his mandate according to the KP which stipulates clearly that in order to start a second period of GHG reductions starting 2012 it is requested to start discussion by 2006 in order to hammer out the exact language for the post-2012 second KP period.

Despite what some expressed, there was no need for re negotiating a KP like program for after 2012 because KP does not end at 2012; further the post-2012 regime will require some form of clear targets or mandates to be operative. No one who signed the KP was left to allow himself allusions that post-2012 we enter a period of lawless voluntarism. The fact that the US delegate discovered at midnight that what walks like a duck is indeed a duck was quite humorous, leaving him in company of cute rubber-ducks as the high point of COP/MOP1, and former US President Bill Clinton saying that the Bush administration was “flat wrong” - was this an allusion to a flat-footed rubber-duck? The US even was told in clear undiplomatic terms by the Canadian distressed Prime Minister that the US was not having “a global conscience.” (For my take on the possible role of the oil industry in the timing of the pulling out of the rug from under the Canadian government to coincide with the conference, please turn to SustainabiliTank.info article dated November 27, 2005.

OK, by 6am Saturday December 10,2005, after the clock was stopped the previous evening for December 9, 2005 closing date of the conference, an agreement was reached on text for future action under KP article 3.9 (future commitments) - after a compromise to take into account Russia’s desire for consultations on voluntary commitments.

So what was achieved? Was there anything enlightening that was more then requested in the KP itself? Where all the requirements of the KP article 3.9 fulfilled? The answer is a clear NO. This because the US, Russia, Saudi-Arabia, and probably further allies of those three countries, had not agreed to the idea that the discussion will be about targets of GHG reductions. So was there a glass at all - if by “glass” we mean a vehicle to collect achievements toward GHG emission reductions for the past 2012 period? NO, in effect there was no glass present; so the articles talking about pessimism and optimism as if these were disciplines judged with a glass in hand, are besides the Montreal reality.

Yes, Montreal had a positive role to it by showing that there is a keen interest in the approach of many countries and NGOs, but it cannot be negated that many self-serving industries led by short-sighted principle were also present. They, as always, used the festival atmosphere to sell their venom even though it becomes clear that these efforts are being given much lower credits now, after the last series of so called nature catastrophes. President Clinton had it right: “just as the US had taken a precautionary approach in its fight against terrorism, there is no more important place in the world to apply the principle of precaution then the area of climate change”. Now, onto Nairobi, November 2006, to hear also about the start up May 2006 of the discussions for the period beyond 2012.

Mr. Richard Kinley, acting head of UNFCCC secretariat, press release saying: “This has been one of the most productive UNFCCC meetings ever” seems a bit bombastic even though the agreement leading to discussions May 2006 is a non-debatable positive follow up to the requirement posed by the KP, nevertheless it is nevertheless handicapped by the fact that it will not start out with ideas setting new targets for the post-2012 period, it is generally believed that the discussion will lead there anyway.

All having been said, cobbling together the many particular decisions taken these weeks at Montreal, over 40 in their number, including the passing of a major part of the Marrakech Accords, it is possible, as Dr, Stephane Dion suggested, to call this material “The Montreal Action Plan”.