Coping with climate change

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saw the extent of Thailand's flood problem for himself this week. Now he intends to use it as a case study to press world leaders to commit to climate change initiatives at the "make or break" global summit in South Africa later this month. 

That should strike an emotional chord with the delegates in Durban because some of them held a preparatory workshop here in April and observed a moment's silence to honour the 53 Thais who had just died in the floods in the South. They had no idea of the horror that was to come.

Although the Bangkok climate change meeting failed to provide a breakthrough, the two-week South African summit must deliver constructive results, if only to justify its carbon footprint. 

Failure cannot be an option because the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol next year means that time has nearly run out for any kind of comprehensive climate deal to replace it. 

Global leaders must rise to the occasion because taxpayers cannot afford to sponsor any more expensive talking shops at which they "agree to disagree".

Unfortunately, the success rate of international conferences which pit the interests of the developing and developed worlds against each other is disturbingly low.The world is a selfish place, with national interests regularly being given precedence over global concerns. 

The dilemma is how to get these to converge. Remember that the historic Earth summit in Rio in June 1992 did show that it was possible. It successfully tackled the environmental, economic and social challenges facing the international community at that time. 

Its sequel, 10 years later in Johannesburg, was supposed to find ways of achieving sustainable development to combat poverty. Instead it was a resounding flop. What we hope to see in Durban is the kind of positive attitude that leads to successful compromise.

Some basic reform and new blood is needed. The delegates who always arrive at these conferences with closed minds and wallow in negativity should be told to stay at home. 

Keeping them company should be the time-wasters who talk a lot but never commit to anything and those who see the trip as a junket, displaying more interest in local beaches, nightlife or shopping venues than the conference agenda. Screening the delegates beforehand might help. 

And who wants to listen to the same lengthy speeches, wake-up calls and tired position papers which say nothing new?

Great things were expected of the Copenhagen climate change summit two years ago and what a disappointment that turned out to be. 

Plenty of sound and fury after a huge build-up, and then it all fizzled out in a clash of vested interests and bruised egos. 

The Cancun summit last year "glimpsed new horizons", to use the words of the host, Mexican President Felipe Calderon. 

That summit coined the term "ecocide" and, at the last minute, established the Green Climate Fund intended to raise and disburse US$100 billion a year from 2020, to help poor nations overcome the impact of climate change.

One way to obtain worthwhile progress at major international meetings is in quiet discussions between delegates meeting in corridors, coffee shops or venues outside the main conference halls. 

Another alternative would be greater use of video-conferencing and choosing locations that are less exotic than Bali, Barcelona, Poznan, Cancun and Durban to save money and avoid obvious distractions.

Mr Ban is right to call for a heightened sense of urgency. Climate change is not some vague future threat; it is a time-bomb that is already ticking.