The UN Climate Change Conference wrapped up last week amid a chorus of criticism that leaders had missed a golden opportunity to take some concrete steps towards a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement.

Christian Aid warned that while no backward steps were taken in Nairobi, it was nonetheless a "frighteningly timid response to a significant global problem".

Tearfund meanwhile expressed its disappointment over a lack of leadership and accused leaders of demonstrating a "failure of political will" at the climate talks.

Christian Today caught up with Steve Hucklesby, Secretary for International Affairs with the Methodist Church, and an Executive Committee Member of Operation Noah, to find out his thoughts on the conference and what shape a feasible post-Kyoto Protocol agreement might take.

CT: NGOs criticised leaders at the UN conference last week for their complacency. Do you share in that sentiment?

SH: Yes, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, also talked in the past week about a frightening lack of leadership. People are already experiencing the impact of global warming yet still global emissions are on the increase. Given what we know about climate change, failure to commit to binding targets is simply irresponsible. Some governments are finding themselves increasingly out of step with both the scientific and business communities.

The Pacific Island State of Tuvalu is already seeing their islands disappear under rising sea levels. They are experiencing serious flooding from high spring tides. In Nairobi, the Government of Tuvalu, along with many developing nation delegations urged all governments to take decisive action.

There has as yet been no global target or set timetable agreed at the conference for emissions cuts. Are you disappointed with the way the conference turned out?

I don't think that we expected the Nairobi conference to deliver agreement on targets. It will be important to get the right targets and not just a lowest common denominator. We needed the Nairobi conference to put in place a timetable to work out post-Kyoto targets before the current 2012 targets expire. Very soon the parties to the Kyoto Protocol need to put figures to the deeper cuts that will be required. These will take into account the latest scientific evidence available. A new major report from the International Panel on Climate Change will come out in the early part of 2007. However there is a very real danger that we may not achieve agreement on new targets in the time available. This would be a terrible failure. There is no 'plan B' that can achieve justice for vulnerable populations.


David Miliband said it was "vital" that the US signs up to a post-Kyoto agreement. How optimistic are you that the US will join in? Is a post-Kyoto response to climate change possible without the US?

I firmly believe that it is in the United States' best interests to be a party around the Kyoto table. We will have to wait and see what effect the new political make-up in Congress and Senate will have over the coming two years. Public opinion in the US seems to be moving quite fast and the government is lagging behind. Therefore the US government has recently said that binding targets are an option that they could look at. It is vital that they are on board.

What kind of post-Kyoto agreement are you hoping to see?

I would like to see a treaty with adequate and consequential targets. If it were to cost us money to burn carbon then investment in conservation and renewable energy generation becomes financially attractive. While the cost of burning carbon is relatively cheap there is little incentive for business and consumers to invest in the solutions that are already available to us or, indeed, to develop the new technology that is so often talked about.

How should a post-Kyoto agreement deal with big developing countries like China and India which have big carbon pollution levels?

If, by 2012, China and India are still not signed up to targets to limit their growth in carbon emissions, should the rich nations be exonerated from taking responsibility for their own emissions? We have to bear in mind our responsibility for years of unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels.

But China and India must accept that they have an essential part to play and I think that they do. Their governments are both acutely aware of the potential impact of climate change on food production and water in their countries. I think that the time must come soon for China and India to accept binding constraints on their emissions. The more wealthy Kyoto partners must help to fund the development of healthy low-carbon economies in the developing world. There was much talk in Nairobi around the Clean Development Mechanism, which will assist the larger developing nations.

In the longer term we need every country to take part in a global partnership probably based on equitable rights to carbon emissions. Contraction and Convergence is one framework for such a partnership and is supported by the major political parties in the UK as well as many churches and Christian agencies. Achieving global consensus takes time. Meanwhile surely we in the UK have a moral responsibility to take a lead and introduce national targets that commit us to do our part regardless of the progress with global treaties.


About the UK government's new climate change bill which includes the goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. How optimistic are you that the bill can deliver the necessary cuts?


The UK government has proposed the introduction of interim targets and this is a welcome step. It can help us to plan effectively. However it is too easy to miss a target set over say, a five or ten year timeframe, and then blame the previous administration. Many campaigners and MPs are calling for the introduction of annual targets. We need to reduce our emissions by at least 3 per cent per year to do our part. More discussion will take place on this. Operation Noah and other campaign agencies within the Stop Climate Chaos coalition will continue to make their views known as the Climate Change Bill passes through Parliament.



End