Sayed Talat Kamal reports from Durban, South Africa that developing countries are expressing concerns that they are taking climate change more seriously than wealthy nations. The US, in particular, is criticized for not prioritizing key issues related to climate change. Delegates at the UN Climate Summit in Durban, as well as European representatives and the leader of the African bloc, have criticized the US stance. Mali delegate Seyni Nafo stated that developed countries are not treating climate change as a serious global issue, despite their leadership in other areas such as democracy, human rights, and market access. Nafo emphasized the need for the US to show leadership in addressing climate change. The EU's chief negotiator, Arthur Runge-Metzger, expressed concerns about the US delegation being hindered by the current US domestic situation, where climate change is seen as an unpopular issue. He noted that the Obama administration faces challenges in advancing climate change initiatives due to opposition in Congress. The US is seen as delaying negotiations by seeking conditions in the agreement that would legally require all countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. This has stalled discussions on how to raise the US$100 billion designated for helping poor countries transition to low-carbon economies and address the impacts of global warming. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, resulting in higher global temperatures and leading to extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, rising sea levels, droughts, erosion, and increased salinity. It is widely understood that a temperature increase of over 2 degrees Celsius would bring about irreversible climate change. According to global studies supported by the UN and the scientific community, in order to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, global emissions need to be reduced to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 and to 95 percent by 2050. It is also crucial that emissions do not peak after 2015. While the US does not support binding targets, it prefers voluntary commitments from countries to reduce emissions. The US has pledged to reduce emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, a commitment that is unlikely to change in the near future according to Jonathan Pershing, the US delegation chief. Runge-Metzger argues that even if all countries fulfill their voluntary pledges, it would only amount to about half of the emissions reduction needed to prevent a potential climate catastrophe. In a strong statement, Rene Orellana, leader of the Bolivian delegation, has firmly rejected the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Redd) initiative, emphasizing that Bolivia does not view forests as mere carbon stocks. Orellana highlighted the importance of forests for food security, water resources, and biodiversity for the indigenous population, stating that forests play a much larger role than just offsetting emissions through carbon credits. Redd stated that the forest's function is often simplified to just carbon stocks. Orellana criticized certain aspects of the Green Climate Fund, particularly the payment system based on results of eco-friendly projects. Despite recent political unrest in Bolivia, the country has remained steadfast in its environmental stance at the 17th conference of parties to the UN climate change convention. This year, Bolivia passed groundbreaking legislation granting nature the same rights as humans. Scientists warn that heat waves, which currently occur every 20 years, could become an annual occurrence due to rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Additionally, global warming posed a threat of inundation to coastal areas and islands, putting up to 250 million more people at risk of water scarcity within the next ten years. Advocates for climate action contend that stabilizing carbon concentration in the atmosphere would only slightly impede economic growth by 0.12 percent annually. However, they argue that the benefits of improved health, enhanced energy security, and more reliable food supplies would outweigh these costs.