World agreement on climate change hangs in the balance. Can Copenhagen really deliver the goods?
As the planet looks on, some of the most crucial negotiations in history are underway. Giles Crosse gets a feeling for initial developments.
“There were meant to be 15,000, but really there are more like 35,000 people here,” explains Anil Markandya, Professor of Economics at Bath University and advisor to Our Future Planet. He has published on the green economy, and is at the conference.
“NGOs are widely represented. Initial positives are being seen in how the low carbon way seems to be understood as the way to improve lives. On the other hand there’s the question of injustice surrounding the developing countries and suggestions of how they are going to be included in negotiation.”
There’s a major need to get past this. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an aggregate emission reduction by industrialised countries of between minus 25 per cent and 40 per cent over 1990 levels would be required by 2020 in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change, with global emissions falling by at least 50 per cent by 2050.
Even under this scenario, there might only be a 50 per cent chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences.
Behind the scenes
The leaking of a paper which suggests the Danish government had been attempting to develop early agreement among Western players, without the participation of developing countries has been the earliest stumbling block. It actually dates from 27 November, which is being used in an attempt to play down its importance. But there’s been widespread anger nonetheless.
“The draft Copenhagen Agreement is profoundly destructive - it violates the principles of the UN negotiations,” reacted Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth.
“In massively expanding the con of carbon offsetting, and in handing control of new money for developing countries to the World Bank, the largest lender for fossil fuel projects on the planet, this accord would be a disaster. The Danes holding secret backroom meetings with a few select countries is also deeply disappointing, the world expects the host country to be neutral.”
“Instead, we have Denmark colluding with other rich nations to stitch up the talks before they've even begun, and excluding representatives of developing countries, those which are the least responsible for having caused climate change, but who will suffer most if we fail to tackle it.”
At this stage it’s impossible to judge what the rift will mean in a fortnight’s time. At the moment early feelers are being put out by civil servants, working in behind the scene discussions to try and judge where potential sticking points and opportunities might be, before Ministers arrive and finally Heads of State hammer out the details.
“I think we will see China taking a very strong position,” says Markandya. “There’s a strong sense there in terms of allocation of carbon rights and it suggests they’ll take a firm position.”
“At the moment there’s lots happening, texts are being discussed by civil servants before the big hitters arrive. There is optimism as the US is taking a much more positive stance than in previous conferences and there’s a sense that this could help things move forward.”
What’s needed?
“A strong political endorsement of the science of climate change, preferably going beyond just the IPCC’s findings, and the extreme dangers of ‘business as usual’ including recognition of the precautionary principle,” explains Julian Caldecott, Advisor to Our Future Planet, describing the path to meaningful action.
“Net emissions reduction through ‘contract and converge’ will be needed to keep below 2 degrees this century, while recognising that this will be extremely hard to achieve and no one-size-fits-all approach will be equally applicable in all cases,” he continues.
Caldecott hopes there’s an overarching way to establish this, either through markets or tax or political agreement. Everyone’s emission reductions need to have a common financial value, but if for example Indonesia can save a billion tCO2 by protecting a peat swamp, then that is worth the same as billion tCO2 saved in any other way by anyone else.
Over the next few days there’s likely to be more work by profit driven oil states to derail an agreement. It will be up to other delegates to guide the dialogue away from a slugging match towards more productive conversation.
“I expect one or two individuals, Obama, Steiner, Pachauri, to pull together whatever can be pulled together at the last moment,” predicts Caldecott. Pointing to what might be acceptable in a fortnight’s time, he hopes for consensus on the political endorsements mentioned above, and an agreement to develop a binding treaty by June 2010.
A pathway to a high and stable price of carbon, however expressed, through markets, taxes or other means, which is key to investment in renewables, will also be needed.
The journey so far – end day four
• Kyoto Protocol likely to remain, as it will take time to ratify a new legal instrument. It allows the carbon market to function, and it’s also the only existing legally binding instrument there is prior to ratification of a new treaty to supersede Kyoto.
• Ministers to receive progress reports this weekend.
• Good progress made in technology: emerging consensus on the need for new technology mechanisms, to include an executive body to accelerate developments on technology and transfer.
• Consensus on need for consultative network for climate technologies, comprised of regional technology centres, support for developing countries on technology to adapt and mitigate on carbon, to create an overarching emerging architecture to deliver on technology.
• Desire for new overall process that engages the US, allows broader participation of developing States and stimulates action from now through 2012 and beyond.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Reports:
Fact sheet: 10 frequently asked questions about the Copenhagen deal
Fact sheet: Copenhagen – Background information
Fact sheet: The Kyoto Protocol
Fact sheet: Why technology is so important
Video’s:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow the cult of global warming when so many emminent scientists are now coming forward with the alternative theory that global warming is a cyclical event that the world has handled many times before and to much greater extremes. Where is the truth or is this just a tax raising and research funding exercise?
