The Cancun meet is deeply divided. Governments are not taking a chance. They do not want to hear the noise of protests as they go about stitching a dirty deal that may not combat climate change or give the poor the right to development This week the world is meeting, once again, to deliberate on a possible global agreement to cut emissions that are speeding catastrophic climate change. But this time in the Mexican city of Cancun, things are not expected to be much different from the disastrous outcome in Copenhagen last year. The fact is that climate change deliberations are not about the environment. These are intensely economic negotiations as the world has to decide how it will limit greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn are linked to growth as we know it today. What is cooking at Cancun Negotiators at U.N. climate talks in Mexico are trying to define the climate actions required of developed and emerging economies to overcome the main block in sharing the burden of carbon emissions cuts. Following are three proposals on the table at the November 29-December 10 negotiations in Cancun. SITUATION NOW n Only industrialised countries report their greenhouse gas emissions annually to the UN. n The UN does not comment on progress toward emissions targets, although a country which misses its Kyoto targets will be penalised under a successor round n Developing countries do not have to report their emissions regularly, or their efforts to control these. If they do publish, developed countries should pay for the reporting and measurement INDIAN PROPOSAL n All countries, rich and poor, which contribute more than 1 percent of global greenhouse gases will report to the United Nations every two to three years n Other countries will report every four to five years n A U.N. group, comprising experts drawn from around the world, would assess the reports n Developed countries report their emissions, progress toward emissions cuts, and their contribution to green funds to help poor countries cut emissions and prepare for a hotter world n Developing countries report their emissions, and progress to their climate actions to slow growth in emissions EU PROPOSAL For developed countries: n Annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions n A full national report every four years on funding and technology help for developing countries, plus their own greenhouse gas emission projections n New rules for international review of reports For developing countries: n Full national communication every four years, including emissions levels, projections, and mitigation actions planned and implemented and funding and other help received n The poorest, least developed countries submit national emissions reports at their own discretion U.S. POSITION All countries: n "We think there should be more reporting; not just on your inventories (emissions levels), but also on your actions," said Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate change nInternational review of commitments "could be formalized" For developed countries: n Annual reporting of emissions For developing countries: n "Our sense is that the bigger you are the more significant your emissions, it might be useful to have more frequent reporting" n "Perhaps every two years might be acceptable. That's fine" — Reuters The world has to agree to cut emissions. But because carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels run our economies, the world also has to decide it will share not just ecological space but also economic growth. The rich industrialised countries, with large historical contributions to emissions still present in the atmosphere, have to agree to reduce these so that they can make space for the rest to grow. This is why climate change negotiations show the world on its worst behaviour: the already rich do want to share. They would prefer to point fingers at the countries, which are now joining the race to get rich. But before we discuss what will happen in Cancun, let us get two things straight. First, the threat of runaway climate change is real; urgent and very serious. Climate scientists may not be able to pinpoint today if the variable and extreme weather we are seeing is because of climate change. But they are certain that these are the kind of changes we will see in the years to come as the world gets warmer - more rain in less rainy days leading to floods and drought; more variable rainfall and change in temperature, which will impact crops. More storms, more diseases and disasters. So be clear even as the world squabbles and procrastinates not to take action, we are in deep trouble. India and other countries in the region are very vulnerable to these changes. We are victims. Secondly, let us also be clear that, as yet, the world has not found answers to cut emissions at the scale that is needed, without compromising growth. In spite of all the talk of renewable sources of energy and certainly the potential, the rich world remains seriously addicted to fossil fuels - coal, gas and oil - to run its industry or drive its massive fleet of vehicles. It is not willing to make the huge investments needed to transform its energy business. It is in this backdrop that the world is meeting in the tourist beach city of Cancun. Climate negotiations started at the end of the 1980s. The first big agreement came, when in Rio in 1992, the world hammered out the framework convention on climate change. This agreement stressed on the urgency to combat climate change and agreed that the already industrialised countries would take the first action and would also pay the developing world to avoid the growth of emissions. In the late 1990s came the next breakthrough when the developed world (called Annex 1 in the agreement) resolved to set legally binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol. But soon things started falling apart. The US, by far the world's biggest polluter - responsible for one-fifth of the current emissions with less than 5 per cent of the world's population — walked out of the agreement. The US rejected the Kyoto Protocol, calling it fundamentally and fatally flawed because it did not include China and India. It conveniently forgot that this global deal was premised on the principle that the rich would reduce emissions to make space for emerging countries to grow. Then four years ago in Bali, Indonesia, there was a late-night breakthrough. The world agreed to the Bali Mandate, which provides for enhanced implementation of the terms of the climate convention. It was agreed that the industrialised world will take on tough mitigation targets and that the emerging world - China and India - will also take domestic action to avoid emissions, but these would require funds and technology. The deal was hard won - it required the world to shame the US and its allies - to accept its will to decide in the common interest. But if Bali was the turning point, then Copenhagen was the nadir of climate negotiations. In Copenhagen there emerged a new coalition of the willing - countries wanting to bring the US on board on climate negotiations at every cost. The result of that meeting was the now infamous Copenhagen Accord, which aims at changing the terms of the framework convention by removing the distinction between the developed and developing. Under this deal, the concept of historical emissions has to be set aside. All past records of pollution, of say the US, would be wiped clean. All countries would have to take actions (called differently) but which would have to be comparable. To ascertain how comparable these actions are, the deal is to have a regime to measure, record and verify (MRV) emissions. This is what is being discussed and resisted in Cancun. In this deal no money or technology is being promised. The assumption is that we are all 'big' boys who want a seat on the high table of polluters. Therefore, the cost of transition to a low-carbon economy - and remember these will be substantial — will not be paid. In this deal we are equal sinners. The future of the Kyoto Protocol, which demands binding targets from rich countries, is at stake in Cancun. The US wants this agreement junked. Its followers are working hard to make it happen. But all this would be acceptable if it moved the world towards an effective agreement to cut emissions and combat climate change. Instead what the US is promising is the mother of all bribes - it will not cut its emissions and will not ask countries like India to take actions that are substantial.