For there to be a substantive deal in Copenhagen there must be numbers. Numbers that spell out the commitments rich, developed countries make to cut their greenhouse gas emissions; and numbers for how much money they’re prepared to give to developing countries to help them develop low-carbon economies.
Developing countries – from those with big, fast-growing economies like China and India to tiny Pacific island states that might vanish if sea levels rise – want the wealthy Western economies like America and Europe to demonstrate they accept responsibility for their historic fossil-fuelled industrial growth that’s caused the rise in greenhouse gas emissions we’ve seen so far.
So they want the rich countries to make legally-binding commitments to reduce their emissions significantly. And they want to see the numbers.
For their part, the rich countries want the bigger, fast-developing countries to make commitments to curtail their emissions as they grow their economies. China now emits more CO2 than the USA but absolute emissions levels are misleading. Per capita, every American is responsible for as much CO2 as five Chinese. Developing countries say they need financial help to put their economies on a low-carbon path. And again, they want to see the numbers.
But right now, in spite of all the political rhetoric of “urgency”, the chance of a planet-saving deal in Copenhagen looks remote.
The biggest stumbling block is the likely absence of a US Climate & Energy Bill before the Copenhagen meeting. Only just arrived in the Senate (where Waxman-Markey has become Boxer-Kerry), it is not at the top of Barack Obama’s agenda, who is mired in his domestic health reforms. There is no guarantee it will be passed before Copenhagen.
If it isn’t, the lack of a firm US domestic commitment to greenhouse gas reductions, signed into law, seriously undermines the US position at the talks and removes any incentive on developing countries to agree to anything.
There are some numbers on the table – from the European Union, for example, which has offered to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 (based on 1990 levels) and to go for 30 per cent if there’s a deal in Copenhagen.
Developing countries too have made significant moves. China’s President Hu has promised “notable” reductions in his country’s energy intensity (but no numbers yet); India is pushing ahead with projects like a massive solar energy programme. But countries like China and India still want a sign, like the passage of the US bill, that the biggest, wealthiest country on the planet is genuinely willing to take action on climate change.
We’ve come a long way since the Bush era; the USA is now engaged in the process. But my best guess is still that in late December I will stand in front of a camera in Copenhagen to tell you that the world has fudged it, has missed its self-imposed deadline.
There will be face-saving rhetoric; perhaps an agreement to agree numbers as soon as possible, probably in further negotiations in 2010 once the US bill is passed. The fudge will be justified for the long term as “better delay for a short while to get a really robust deal than rush through one that’s too weak – get it right, rather than get it now”.
Deal or no deal? We’ll have to wait and see.
Commentsoldest first
I watched the interview with interest.US domestic policy was put forward as the horse and the cart the rest of the world.
Deliberate evasion was the tone. A no numbers interview continued with a feeling of ‘look here the rest of the world we will not be pushed around by anybody into creating targets’
Perhaps though, the aggressive course America’s representitive was discussing is in itself a deal , without the need to talk percentages ..
Copenhagen though, as you say will reveal all.
i noted protestors trying to stop electricity production at a coal powered power station . i saw no explanation as to where they would replace the loss of electricity.Perhaps we should go back to parafin lamps, bicycles and horse and cart.
The Channel 4 new’ coverage of the Copenhagen meeting is quite outrageous. It was so one-sided. There were no dissenting voices heard either about the absurd rhetoric of Gordon Brown with his ‘only 50 days left to save the planet.’ There are plenty of scientists, as well as politicians, who disagree with the need for the Copenhagen proposals, but not one was used.
i wonder what the last ice age was blamed on . then the subsequent thaw??
The history of the earth;s climate shows that there have periods when the temperature of the earth has been higher than today with much lower CO2 levels.For example in Roman times.
Temperatures this century have not increased and infact have fallen since 1998 whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise. The climate is complex and is affected by the sun;s intensity,orbitof the earth and many other factors.
Many scientists do not agree that CO2 is a significant factor in global warming so I would to see Channel 4 hold a trlevised debate.
Climate change has become gravy train for many people and they don’t want it to end..
Leave a comment
* Required field.