Molto interessante il giudizio dello scrittore e giornalista britannico (consulente editoriale del New Scientist, e considerato una delle penne più abili dell’ambientalismo del Regno Unito) Fred Pearce, raccolto dal Guardian: si voleva un accordo a tutti i costi _ osserva _ su un testo che offre solo piccoli avanzamenti concreti per ridurre le emissioni di carbonio. E’ pieno di promesse di futuri impegni, c’è stato qualche progresso, ma senza tagli veri il “trionfo” di Cancun sarà un fallimento peggio di Copenaghen.

Ecco il testo, in inglese.

“In the cold light of morning, many will agree that their diplomatic triumph offered little tangible progress to further reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. During two weeks of talks nobody upped their promises to curb emissions.

The text remains a record of work in progress, full of language promising deals on hard issues at some future date. A year after the intended deadline for a new climate agreement in Copenhagen, a deal is still far off.

The relief at getting an agreement – any agreement – is nonetheless palpable here in Cancún. And undeniably, there has been some progress. The texts enshrine the pledges to cut emissions made by the 55 nations and the European Union in the aftermath of last year’s failed Copenhagen talks. Crucially, that includes pledges from developing nations, who had no obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

However, the agreement acknowledges that the pledges are insufficient to meet the promise to cap global warming at 2 °C. Researchers from the Climate Action Tracker who were crunching numbers within the conference halls said the pledges set the world on track for 3.2 °C warming.

The texts “urge” nations to do more. Unless they do, it seems possible that no deal will be done at all. And the “triumph” of Cancun will look as disastrous as the breakdown of talks in Copenhagen a year before”.