The scientists and the apocalypse - Climate Change: The Facts - page 174

its parent bodies would open negotiations to develop a framework convention so that an
agreed text could be ready for signing at UNEP's anniversary 'Earth Summit' in 1992.
In Washington, February 1990, attendance at the third full session of the IPCC had
swollen to 260 delegates from 62 countries. President Bush opened proceedings with
an enthusiastic speech in which he demonstrated his commitment to the UNEP plan by
repeating an offer to host the first session of Convention negotiations. 20 Throughout the
year, WMO and UNEP busily prepared for these negotiations in various ways, even by
conveningan ad hoc planninggroupofgovernmentrepresentatives. 21 Theymetonlyonce,
just after Sundsvall, but for all appearances at least, the UNEP plan was on track right up
to the World Climate Conference. There, Thatcher took the completed and approved IPCC
report as 'our signpost', directing UNEP and WMO, which were 'the principal vehicles'
taking us to 'our destination', a climate treaty. 22
As we know, the poor countries alliance made sure that these vehicles never hit that
road. What was their beef?
The aspirations of the poor
In the early days of the UN, its impoverished members were in fragmented minorities, but,
asdecolonisationprogressed,amajorityemergedandbegantoassertitselfinthetradetalks
as the Group of 77. On the environmental front, even before Stockholm, it became clear
that coordinated global action would only be possible if made attractive to governments of
thedecolonisedworld.Thisgenerallymeantsomecommitmenttoaflowofresourcesfrom
rich to poor, but with some sort of legitimation looking better than a ransom payment. And
thatstilllefttheproblemofeconomicgrowth.Theconflictbetweenenvironmentgoalsand
the development goals of the so-called 'developing' world had to be resolved. And so it
was: in the doctrine of sustainable development. 23
The sustainable development philosophy promoted famously in the 'Brundtland
Report' (1987) would be epitomised in the 'Rio Goals' and 'Agenda 21' of the Earth
Summit, but by then it was already well established in the climate talks, as is evidenced
by the Framework Convention. This document defined the differential commitments of
its signatories across the developed/developing divide and called for the one side to
help the other towards their common future through transfer of money and technology.
'Technological transfer,' as a condition of agreement, was not new even with the climate
negotiation. Throughout the 1980s the UN Law of the Sea talks had been locked down
by such demands. If only under a new banner the climate talks were similarly stalled with
the bigger players, including Brazil, India and China, pitched against the USA. Not only
should legally binding emissions targets be limited to those who have caused the problem,