In 2009, countries of the G8 approved a target of 2 degrees (Celsius) as the maximum amount global temperatures should be allowed to rise above historical (pre-anthropogenic) records if the world was to avert catastrophic global warming.

The G8, or Group of Eight, is a consortium of industrialized nations (France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, United States, Canada, and Russia) whose joint policy decisions on issues like global economic development, security, energy, terrorism and crisis management represent recommendations rather than rules. The European Union, or EU, represents a ninth ex-officio member spoken for by the three EU member states (Germany, France and Great Britain).

Anthropogenic, or manmade, global warming is the term climate scientists use to describe the current epoch of climate change, and the 2-degree target is now the accepted upper limit which scientists and global climate policy makers use to calibrate greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, which are aimed at preventing further warming. These GHGs include carbon dioxide, or CO2 – the gas most implicated in global warming – methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorinated hydrocarbons or refrigerants like CFC and HFC.

The Montreal Protocol did a good job of curbing the production and use of ozone-depleting CFCs and HFCs, though the job is by no means complete. Carbon regulation schemes – (cap-and-trade, carbon offsets, carbon credits) – are expected to corral CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, the willingness of both developed and developing nations to participate in these schemes, which are expensive and which impact the poor to the greatest degree, has become the biggest stumbling block to any concerted effort.

The proof of this unwillingness is apparent in at least the last two COP, or Conference of the Parties), talks, which are sponsored by the United Nations, or UN, under its Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The COP talks are an offshoot of the Kyoto Protocol. In 2009, the COP15, was held in Copenhagen and was an unmitigated failure. Rich nations, having just come through a recession, were unwilling to damage their recovering economies with carbon schemes. Poor nations, who someday want to be just as rich, were equally unwilling.

That unwillingness remained fixed at COP16, in Cancun, a session which one website accurately described as a “triumph of climate capitalism.” The biggest loser was Bolivia, and UN Ambassador Pablo Solon expressed his opinion (widely shared) that COP16 was actually a step back from preventing further global warming.

“It’s easy for people in an air-conditioned room to continue with the policies of destruction of Mother Earth.”

COP17, in Durban, South Africa, beginning Nov. 28 and lasting until December 9, is not expected to be any more successful, even with the attendance of eco-celebrities like U2’s Bono and American actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

People the world over are tired; the world itself seems tired, an aging planet which has seen far too much misery, loss and cruelty. The global economy is in meltdown, with no relief in sight. The Kyoto Protocol is due to expire next year, but hope may already have expired, leaving homo sapiens not much more than a species which has failed to live up to its promise.

Next, says a warming earth, it may be time for another, less greedy, species to rise to the top of the food chain. I’m voting for rats, which (rumor to the contrary) are clean, sociable, and not as likely to kill one another as humans.

Who do you vote for?