Ignore the Doomsayers, Copenhagen Could See a Breakthrough on Climate Change

The UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15) was supposed to be the make or break summit. Gordon Brown gave us “fewer than 50 days to set [a] course” to rescue the planet from devastating climate change. There was, for Brown, “no plan B”: the fate of the world would be decided in Denmark.

Two months on and it appears salvation will have to wait a little bit longer.

The major 2009 climate talks in Bonn, Bangkok and most recently Barcelona were blighted by a reluctance to compromise on all sides. Tensions reached a tipping-point when the G77 staged a walk out at the Barcelona talks, blaming the developed nations for setting feeble emissions targets.

Bargaining positions have been clearly defined all year – the poorest nations, most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change despite contributing least to the problem, want money for development and technology to ‘green’ their economies. They reckon US $400 billion a year should cover it, a figure baulked at by richer nations during these difficult economic times. Most EU nations agree on a minimum 20% reduction of emissions on 1990 levels by 2020, but this can’t become a global target until the US passes a climate bill of its own, which won’t happen until after Copenhagen. Without the US on board, the emerging superpower (and now world’s largest polluter), China, has argued that before the People’s Republic commits to anything that might curb its rampant economic growth and growing market dominance, the US has got to get its act together.

Back in October, the US Climate Change Envoy, Todd Stern, issued a portentous statement on Channel 4 News, saying it was “certainly possible that there won’t be a deal” in Copenhagen. The US has been dithering on climate change since the Kyoto Protocol and the eight years of denial and damaging environmental policy has not abated in the post-Bush era. Obama’s manifesto of change has forced the main parties further apart than ever; the GOP continues to bury its head in the tar-sands and block climate change legislature, making environmental reform impossible until next year.

So it came as little surprise when the day after talks broke down in Barcelona, Stern issued a statement that a legally binding deal at Copenhagen wasn’t “on the cards.” The UK followed suit as Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, moved the UK’s position from securing a legally binding deal to laying the ground work for one in 2010. APEC leaders appeared to deal the final blow in Singapore a couple of weeks ago as they issued a joint statement, that time had run out to obtain global consensus.

So far, so depressing. But it isn’t all doom and gloom for Copenhagen; in the past couple of weeks there have been some serious reasons to be cheerful.

Talks between Obama and Jintao in Beijing week sparked hopes of “green tech-sharing” between the world’s two biggest polluters, and both said that Copenhagen should be the start of a deal to “rally the world.” China was already one step ahead of the US having announced a “carbon intensity” target which was rumoured to curb emissions’ intensity by around 40% by 2020. Last week the figure was made public, confirming the speculation. China’s target isn’t legally binding and “will be dealt with internally” – which essentially means it’s up to them whether they they fulfill their promises. But, in recent years China has reduced 1.5 giga-tonnes of CO2 through voluntary green initiatives. If they deliver on their 2020 target a further 4 giga-tonnes of planet warming gas will be contained.

As a result of the talks and not wanting to lose the moral and political high-ground to China, Obama was ready to announce targets of his own; 17% reduction of emissions on 2005 levels in ten years, incrementally going up to 83% by 2050. The 2050 target is a 70% reduction on 1990 levels, which is still short of what most scientists say is required, but suggests the US might finally be taking responsibility for being historically the worst carbon offender. The initial target is low but that’s because Obama needs to get a bill through a hostile House and Senate.

Pressure on the US political elite isn’t only coming from Asia though; Brazil recently pledged emissions cuts of at least 36% and a dramatic reduction of deforestation by 80% over the next 10 years, which has environmentalists and the Amazon rainforest sighing with relief. There’s never been more pressure on the US’s cumbersome political system to deliver a ‘Carbon Bill’ as soon as possible, if they want to avoid looking more sheepish than a lamb wearing a Christmas woollen.

A delay in a global deal is definitely unwelcome but not surprising after a year of frustrated and failed negotiations. After the debacle in Barcelona the Chair for the Group of the Least Developed Countries, Bruno Sekoli said, “We do not want a compromise deal. A bad deal is not good for… vulnerable countries.” That from the man who represents those with the most to lose if climate change continues unabated – and it’s important his richer peers take note. But although nothing will be signed, and Obama won’t be there for crucial final days,  the Copenhagen conference could still be a game-changer.

Posted by Kieron Bryan in Green Rush | December 2, 2009 1:37PM |