The Copenhagen talks are back on, following the walkout instigated by the African nations yesterday. However fears of new drafts and developed countries skirting responsibility hang over the talks and it remains unclear whether or not any agreements can be forged in the remaining few days. ACT! takes a look at the dangers of scrapping the Kyoto Protocol.

The walk out of developing countries, led by the African nations, was a result of anger towards developed countries who are attempting to move away from the legally binding treaty, the Kyoto Protocol that puts top priority on emission reductions of developed countries. Yesterday evening Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Environment Minister held an emergency meeting with developing nation leaders to try and alleviate fears that the Danes were planning to introduce their own draft proposal to world leaders on Friday.

It remains unclear whether the talks will overcome the rifts of the last few days and reach an agreement on Friday.

Developed countries have clearly attempted to derail the Kyoto Protocol; this is what caused the mass walk out yesterday. Many reports suggest Copenhagen is where a new agreement will be reached to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, suggesting this is the only time in which this can happen. This is completely incorrect. The Kyoto protocol was split into two periods, the first being a 'commitment period', which legally bound developed countries to cut emissions by 5.2% by 2012 based on 1990 levels. The protocol clearly mandates members to enter a second phase following 2012, Copenhagen is the final summit, following four years of negotiations where this second phase can be agreed.

The EU's announcement in October that they would work towards a single agreement indicated that they wanted to leave the Kyoto Protocol along with nations such as Australia and Japan and forge a new treaty that would include America.

The US seek a 'pledge review system', which would not include any binding targets, instead they would announce what cuts they are able to make and these would then be peer reviewed by other countries. This is a reversal of the top down approach taken under the Kyoto Protocol, in which countries decide what global emission cuts are needed and then negotiate each country's responsibility.

The Kyoto Protocol's 'second period' has been a long time coming with negotiations being incredibly slow over the past four years. This leaves the next few days to grind out an agreed treaty, while at the same time rumours suggest possibly all the developed nations wish to scrap the Kyoto Protocol; an action that I believe conflicts with co-operative values. We inhabit a finite planet and we cannot continue to live beyond our means. Developed countries are not arguing whether or not climate change is happening but fighting to sustain what is an unsustainable development at the cost of the development of others in poorer countries. It is these actions that are responsible for angering the developing nations over the past few days.

The 'pledge review style' treaty that developed nations seek, brings obvious problems, even in collecting the commitments of different nations. Recent estimates suggest that developed countries national targets, including the US, currently total 18% cuts by 2020 based on 1990 levels. When offsets are removed from this total the level of national emission cuts is considerably smaller still and certainly a long way off the 25%-50% demanded by the science and also developing nations.

So as the worlds focus remains on climate change and the need to act, we face the prospect of the developed nations responsible for climate change not only moving away from a legally binding treaty, but also significantly reducing their mitigation commitments. This kind of action does not fit with the co-operative values and principles of sustainability and equity and no one can argue otherwise.

Developed countries are attempting to shift the burden of adjustment to developing nations, which was never part of the mandate for the present Copenhagen talks, which were decided two years ago during the dramatic talks in Bali.

The UN population projections predict that if we were to adopt the developed nation's plans of 50% emission reductions by 2050, with developed nations reducing emissions by 80% and developing nations by 20% per capita, developing nations would in fact be responsible for reducing emission per capita by 50% due to population increases in the developing world. Clearly and undeniably this shifts both responsibility and the burden of climate mitigation, to the nations least responsible for the present levels of green house gases.

If developing nations are forced to cap emission levels at such low levels then the technology transfer and financial support from developed nations must match this, to avoid massively constraining economic and social development in the world's poorest nations.

The talks in Bali two years ago set out a three point plan on mitigation. First of all, developed nations would agree on a 'second period' of the Kyoto protocol, which would include deep emission cuts in line with the science. Secondly, it would see the US, who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol under Bush administration, agreeing a comparable effort. Thirdly, for the first time developing nations, supported through finance and technology, would agree on mitigation actions that would be "measurable, reportable and verifiable".

The first point is already on the brink of collapse as developed nations attempt to strike up a new treaty, and Obama has failed to pass any meaningful US emission cuts through the American senate, we face developed nations reaching a combined emission reduction target that is unthinkably low and ignores any scientific evidence.

Developing nations are now demanding that those countries that put most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that promised to take the lead in global actions to combat climate change live up to that promise in Copenhagen. Thus they call for the survival of the Kyoto protocol, and the commitment to credible emission cuts by each country to be top priority at Copenhagen.

Martin Khor, of South Centre, Geneva told the Guardian UK newspaper,

"The next few days will tell if Copenhagen ends as a partial success, with enough progress to propel another year of talks to success, or as an utter failure, with the unraveling of the global climate regime amid a finger pointing blame game".

We need to think co-operatively and think globally; our planet and whole existence depend on it.