The 2011 United Nations climate summit kicked off this week in Durban, South Africa, but as the meeting winds down, results thus far indicate little progress is likely to be made from the perspective of those worried about global warming, following similar failures in Cancun and Copenhagen in 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Adding to the troubles, another round of emails released from leading climatologists, which being called Climategate 2.0, provides new evidence to some that data refuting global warming theory has been hidden by researchers, inconveniently coming to light just days before the Durban conference.

The UK's Globe and Mail wrote this week that "With just days remaining to salvage the Kyoto climate treaty, a mood of gloom is descending over the negotiations. Even the most optimistic diplomats are finding it hard to imagine how a deal can be reached."

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, named for the Japanese city where the agreement was reached, was signed by 180 nations and set forth goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. That agreement, however, never included final approval in the United States or China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and is set to expire in 2012.

The Kyoto agreement set up tiers of countries that were supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by specifically tailored rates. The plan was supposed to cut annual emissions to a rate 5.2% below 1990 emissions levels by 2012. The treaty failed spectacularly to meet that goal, with CO2 emissions alone now up to a reported 30 billion metric tons, or a third more than were emitted in 1990.

Of the nearly 200 nations that signed on, only the 37 "developed" nations took on emissions-reduction goals; developing nations were given a pass so that environmental concerns didn't interfere with their economic development. Instead, those nations were supposed to host projects that would further the emissions goals -- projects paid for by the developed countries.

Despite that failure, many European countries and Japan have been actively trying to push through a new agreement in recent years, including the last chance in Durban, but such efforts appear utterly doomed.

What appeared to be the best chance for a new agreement, the 2009 Copenhagen conference, failed to achieve an a new treaty even with the support then of a new President Obama, who supported the effort, largely because China refused to play ball.

A big part of the problem now is the concept that richer, developed nations will provide financial assistance to developing companies to supposedly help them compensate for their costs to reduce emissions, costs which today's developed economies did not incur back in the day. But with real economic crisis in Europe and major budget deficits there and in the US, such financial commitments are very hard to come by as part of a binding climate agreement.

Given that, the European Union representatives are now said to hope for a deal to somehow be reached by 2015, to take effect by 2020 at the latest. The Kyoto Protocol only came into effective force eight years after it was adopted, they note.

US, Canada "Immoral?"

Some conference participants were especially critical of Canada, which announced its plan to quit the Kyoto Protocol, which it called a "thing of the past."

The US was also under its heavy share of criticism for its lack of leadership on a climate agreement, with one South African delegate saying the US and Canada were "immoral" for their stances.

“The US is a nation of great faith, of Christian commitment. We find it extraordinary that they are behaving like this. We find it immoral,” said Bishop Geoff Davies, executive director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute. “Environmental destruction is a sin against God. We say to faith groups in the US: You’ve got to recognize your responsibilities to combat climate change.”

China, the world's largest carbon emitter, gave a slight boost o the climate talks at the end of last week by suggesting it might sign up to a legally-binding deal to cut emissions, but it's commitment is partial and delayed.

"China has talked about a legally binding deal after 2020. The question is if China will be legally-bound. That would be interesting," EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said.

However, another Western delegate, who asked not to be named, said "There's no way China will sign up legally, but it doesn't want to be blamed if the talks fail."

India, the third biggest carbon emitter, has also stated it is not ready for a new binding agreement.

The result of all this, observers say, are either feel good proposals that really mean nothing, or absurd proposals such as one requiring that rich countries commit to cutting their “greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040.”
Sure.

More Secret Emails Released

Meanwhile, a not insignificant backdrop to the Durban conference has been the release of another swatch of emails from climate change researchers that bring into question their academic honesty.

Two weeks ago, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet.

Like the first "Climategate" leak of 2009, "the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public," according to James Delingpole in the Wall Street Journal.

"Many clearly confirm that top IPCC scientists consciously misrepresented and actively withheld important information…then attempted to prevent discovery," according to an article in the Sacramento Bee.

For example, scientist Peter Thorne sent an email to a number leading pro-warming colleagues stating that “We need to communicate the uncertainty [relative to global warming] and be honest,” in an a newly disclosed email from 2005.

Thorne also noted that a telltale "signature" of greenhouse gas warming was absent. “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

What will the world make of another failed climate conference in Durban? Can the issues possibly be resolved? What is your take on the newest release Climategate emails? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.

TheGreenSupplyChain.com is now Twittering! Follow us at www.twitter.com/greenscm