Thus the Financial Times today. “US and China clash over draft text,” explains the newspaper. It is good to remember that all that the United Nations’ talks in Lima were supposed to achieve was to reach agreement on a draft of a global climate pact to be adopted in Paris next year. As it turned out, a number of developing countries rejected the draft because it purportedly blurred the distinction between what rich and poor countries can be expected to do. In the end, China sided with the poor countries and America with the rich ones. Consequently, the talks came to a stalemate. Surprise, surprise. It does not take much imagination to foresee the final outcome of climate talks. If the global climate pact in Paris ever gets signed and thus becomes binding, it will be nothing if not toothless. That is, it will have no effect on climate change worth talking about. The only reason to keep following the UN’s climate talks is to better appreciate the inability of the human species to deal with a catastrophe of global proportions created by itself. That fundamental inability should be remembered by generations bearing the dire consequences.

Addendum (December 14, 2014)

A day later, the Financial Times says it all in the title and byline of another article on Lima climate talks. “UN climate deal reached in marathon session,” runs the title. Indeed, most of the participants practically collapsed after the session was declared closed. “Watered-down deal sets stage for Paris 2015,” runs the byline. Put somewhat differently, the deal is hardly a deal. Marathon sessions are not the best way to get anywhere, anyway. As for Paris next year, Lima says it all. The ultimate deal will hardly be worthy of that lofty name. The art of watering down will reach new heights.