Buenos Aires

Raining on the parade: the United States put a dampener on the tenth UN climate-change convention. Credit: D. LUNA/AP

The latest global meeting on climate change wrapped up in Argentina this week, having made only modest steps towards cutting future greenhouse-gas emissions.

Delegates from many nations said that the United States and its allies, such as Saudi Arabia, thwarted progress at the tenth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

From 6 to 17 December, representatives of some 200 countries got together to discuss present and future climate-change negotiations. Russia's recent ratification of the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions brings the protocol into force, so many delegates were keen to talk about what might happen after 2012, when Kyoto obligations expire. But the United States opposed such discussions. “We need to absorb and analyse lessons learned before committing to new actions,” says Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation to the meeting.

During the conference, the United States strongly opposed the idea of using any seminars scheduled between now and next November to jump-start discussions about 2012 and beyond. Environmental groups attacked this position as deliberately obstructive. “I really think they've sunk to a new low here, by not only taking their own path but actively blocking other countries from pursuing the path they want to take,” says Jeff Fiedler, climate policy specialist with the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

“They never answered the question ‘why are you objecting, why don't you just step aside’ even though we asked them multiple times,” says Debbie Reed, legislative director with the National Environmental Trust, a Washington-based environmental coalition.

Delegates haggled until sunrise on the last day of the conference over the wording that will regulate the seminars. In the end, it was agreed that just one seminar would take place before the next annual meeting to “promote an informal exchange of information” and to “continue to develop” appropriate responses to climate change. This at least leaves an opening for discussions about policy after 2012, says Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies with the Virginia-based Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

In future, the United States may have less sway over such issues. The 2005 conference will be split into two sections, one stream of which will be for Kyoto parties only: US delegates may not be able to take part in these sessions.

Saudi Arabia also caused dissent at the meeting, by asking for money from the ‘adaptation fund’ to offset the economic losses it will suffer when petroleum exports are reduced. By 2010, the country expects lost fossil-fuel exports to cost it billions of dollars annually. But the adaptation fund is meant predominantly to compensate developing countries and vulnerable island nations.

Although Saudi Arabia always raises the issue of compensation, this year's suggestion that it be provided by the adaptation fund was especially contentious, says Reed. “We're having a hard time raising money for developing countries,” says Reed. “So for a country like Saudi Arabia to demand compensation for lost sales of oil — it's worse than ironic.”

Despite these difficulties, the meeting struck some hopeful notes. The European Union and other nations renewed a pledge to deposit $420 million annually, beginning in 2005, to fund developing countries' efforts. And, following Russia's lead, Indonesia and Nigeria have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.