The politics of climate control in Copenhagen
We are now nearing the end of COP15 with very little seemingly achieved, and I along with many like me, are seriously questioning whether it is just a utopian dream that 192 countries can all agree on emissions control targets and then help each other to implement them… Maybe countries should just stick to implementing their own emissions control programs and forget this fantasy of an international agreement at Copenhagen?
Then reality hits and I realize that an international agreement is important not just to create a collective warm and fuzzy feeling, but to have some way of putting pressure on countries who do not make good on their promises. This is a defining moment in the global democratic system, and it is for this reason that Connie Hedegaard, the incoming COP15 president has clearly stated that “failure is not an option”.
There are three key elements to a successful Copenhagen deal:
1. Firstly there must be the willingness for all countries to declare their proposed emissions targets, and for these to be significant enough to prevent a 2 degree rise in global temperatures.
2. Secondly there must be a commitment by developed countries to assist the developing countries meet these targets.
3. Finally all countries must be prepared to submit to international law on the implementation of these targets. This is no small undertaking.
Enter the main players in the Copenhagen Summit… While the world leaders are all smiles and handshakes in the press conferences, the fact is that the back room deals are where it is all happening, and right now they are seriously stalling the process. Much of the wrangling is between the “developed” nations, with the US as the main flag-bearer, and “developing” nations championed by China.
The fact is that China and the US together contribute an astonishing 40% of global emissions, so without their agreement, the whole process is basically a waste of time. The debate has raged between China and the US since Kyoto in a tone only slightly more grown-up than something you would hear in a school playground with both whining; “If you aren’t going to do it then why should we???” The US pulled out of the Kyoto talks when the US Congress vetoed Clinton’s agreement to it, and now in Copenhagen the US has again made it clear that they will not be party to an international agreement that does not bind China and other developing countries to the same agreement. The Congress veto of Kyoto caused a huge backlash in the American community however, and Obama will not be keen to repeat that public relations disaster with his already precarious popularity ratings.
Meanwhile China has expressed their unwillingness to commit themselves to international obligations, and has said they will conduct their own emissions programs and create their own targets. Similarly, India has rejected binding targets, promising to keep their per capita emissions below developed country levels. Importantly, China, India, Brazil and many other developing countries have made it clear that there will need to be financial and technological assistance in order to achieve any real emissions reductions.
Australia and the EU are leading the way in facilitating the process of reaching an agreement, while others major players like Japan and Russia are playing along so far. However, the whole world is holding their breath to watch the outcome of the battle of wills between the US and China in this massive strategic game.
All we can hope is that the environment is the one that wins in the end, not the petty political agendas. After all, isn’t it blatantly absurd that they are arguing about whether they should allow a 1.5 degree or 2 degree temperature increase, while the survival of the world as we know it rests in their hands?
Related blogs you might want to check out...
Blog owner
Page
