Maybe Angela Merkel was just smart as usual when she declined the UN Secretary-General's invitation for the 2014 Climate Summit in New York. Maybe the German Chancellor, being a self-proclaimed political pragmatic, sensed that the Summit would not produce any tangible results. Well, whatever, it is not my intention to discuss whether the results of the Summit were tangible or not. Or whether the event may have helped to create some momentum ahead of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the UNFCCC in Paris, in 2015, which is supposed to deliver a new global climate agreement.

Instead, I intend to argue that the approach of the Summit in general would have been better placed if it had focused exclusively on determined actors and partnerships that are taking the lead. The traditional strategy pursued in climate diplomacy has been to get all major emitters around the table and push them towards agreeing on greenhouse gas reductions. According to this logic, the climate negotiations are conducted in the spirit of disarmament talks: “If you don't reduce the number of your weapons (read 'emissions') I won't do it either!.” With the difference that, in contrast to disarmament talks, negotiators in climate diplomacy have nothing to threaten with…

Consequently, for almost 25 years now, ever since negotiations started on the UNFCCC, some good-willing countries (and an immensely active NGO community) have made tremendous efforts to convince a number of other countries that the world would be better off with a common (albeit differentiated) effort to combat climate change. For almost 25 years now, climate protection has been treated like a 'burden' that must be 'shared'. And for almost 25 years now, this approach has failed to produce a treaty that is up to the challenge – and consequently it has failed to reverse the trend in emissions. In fact, emissions are growing faster today than ever in human history...

The UN Climate Conference (or COP 15) in Copenhagen, in 2009, finally exposed the basic flaw of the system. It provided ample evidence that it is simply not possible to move in unison on a contentious issue like climate change - where large fortunes are at stake, where powerful industries are threatened and where political careers can be gained or lost by the position toward this issue. That it is simply not possible to move forward by consensus in the framework of a treaty that comprises over 190 States with very different interests. This worked for a while thanks to public pressure and a very creative and effective civil society – but it does not work anymore.

For the complete article, please see IISD.