World leaders have finally acknowledged what had long appeared inevitable: there will be no deal in Copenhagen on an international treaty to tackle climate change. With the summit to forge a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol less than three weeks away and a vast gulf between the positions of industrialised and developing countries, only those supremely optimistic that fear of climate change would become a unifying force could have perceived otherwise. The final communique of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation grouping, which includes key players China and the US, sensibly opted for a realistic approach. Presidents and prime ministers made it plain that in place of a binding agreement on global warming, there would be a political statement of intent.
Environmentalists are disappointed. They said that the leaders had missed a great opportunity. There is no doubt that the lack of agreement on a target to reduce the emissions of gases blamed for rising temperatures has been a setback for those calling for action. If these warnings are right, the window to take concerted action and prevent climatic disaster is rapidly closing. However, it is wrong to put haste ahead of fair negotiations.
There is still vast disagreement, after all, on the obligations of countries towards climate change. That was clearly on show at the Apec meeting in Singapore at the weekend. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said he would attend the summit; his nation and the European Union are seeking cuts in greenhouse gases of between 20 and 25 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. US leader Barack Obama is unlikely to go; his country has yet to join the Kyoto pact and the US Senate is stalling on approving dramatically weaker pollution cuts of meeting 1990 levels by 2020.
President Hu Jintao reiterated the developing world's position. He hoped governments would work together to achieve positive results in the Danish capital. Nonetheless, he repeated Beijing's position that China and other industrialising nations could not be forced to put climate change ahead of growth that would reduce poverty. His contention that developed countries had to bear the brunt of the effort and must provide technology and finance to poor nations to help them cut emissions continues to be the sticking point to clinching a deal.
The differences are not so much a recipe for disaster, as finger-pointing. More than 40 leaders have already agreed to go to Copenhagen. Those of the most-polluting countries - the US, China and India among them - are unlikely to be present. With the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012 and so much hope having been pinned on Copenhagen as the venue to finalise details for a successor pact, it would seem an easy matter on whom to apportion blame.
But, this is not a matter of blame, shame and anger. Whatever our views, there has to be sober discussion and careful consideration rather than grandstanding. Accusations will only cause positions to become more deeply entrenched. An artificial deadline will be missed and a way has to be found to settle differences.