Copenhagen so far: Accord or babel?
BY Ken Edelstein • December 17, 2009
Amid the unruly flow of the Copenhagen climate conference, it’s difficult to tell what progress has been made toward an accord. The prevailing view is that the meeting has bogged down in so much discord that a meaningful agreement isn’t likely.
The world’s wealthiest nations aren’t willing to cut their emissions enough to keep global temperatures from rising more than the key level of 2 degrees Centigrade during this century, while poor and developing countries remain committed to fossil-fuel-based growth that’s sure to increase their carbon emissions for decades to come. And the poor and developing countries are demanding aid from wealthy countries to help them deal with the effects of climate change and make the transition to the clean energy economy, but it’s far more aid than the wealthy countries are prepared to give.
It’s doubtful at this point that the conference will produce a legally binding treaty requiring deep cuts in greenhouse gases. That appeared unlikely before the conference began, however. The real question is whether a mix of smaller actions and the promise of continuing talks creates or halts momentum for combating climate change in the United States and China, first and foremost, and then in other countries.
The niftiest real-time report card on actual progress in Copenhagen may come in the form of Climate Interactive‘s “Climate Scoreboard,” an application in the form of a mock thermometer that’s programmed to show the bottom line: How high average global temperature are likely to get after all he participating countries’ pledges in greenhouse gas reductions so far are taken into account.
Climate Interactive was developed by a very credible group of climate scientists and computer modelers, which doesn’t mean it’s infallible — but it does represent something of a best guess based on the current understanding of greenhouse effects. And, as of this writing, it doesn’t look good. According to the Scoreboard, temperatures would rise by nearly double the 2 degree target — and that’s if all the countries that have made pledges delivered fully on those pledges.
Despite that sobering bottom line, there are signs of progress at the conference, officially known as COP15. For one thing, the actual work on international agreements is taking place far from the conference floor and even farther from the many protests that have dominated Copenhagen headlines since the weekend. UN Climate Change chief Yvon de Boer announced today that closed-door negotiations suddenly were moving quickly.
“This is very encouraging — we now have clarity on the process, we have clarity on the documents that will be the basis for work, we have clarity the process will be transparent,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Whether that “clarity” will amount to too-little-too-late, a successful Hail Mary pass, or just wishful spin on the part of de Boer isn’t clear yet.
In smaller working groups, however, delegates are trying to hammer out agreements in specific areas. One of those is a proposed Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) treaty, which appears likely to gain approval before the conference ends.
There also were signs today that wealthy nations would increase the amount of money they’ll put it into funds to help poor countries adjust to climate change. Led by Japan’s $19.5 billion pledge (and tied to the REDD treaty), they agreed to put up $22 billion to combat deforestation in developing countries. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would join allies in raising $100 billion by 2020 to help poor countries fight climate change — although that pledge was conditioned on China and other developing countries committing “to transparency in reporting their greenhouse gas emissions and allowing them to be verified.”
The happiest news out of Copenhagen so far has been that United States finally appears to be serious about coping with climate change. Not only is President Obama expected to announce that the U.S. is committed to reducing carbon emissions in 2020 by around 17 percent from today’s levels (and then to 80 percent by 2050), but the Environmental Protection Agency put credibility behind his promises by issuing a finding on Dec. 7, as the conference opened, that greenhouse gases are pollutants to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Then, late last week, not just one, but two, bipartisan groups of U.S. senators announced that they’ll sponsor legislation to reduce greenhouse emissions. The fact that at least one Republican backed each of those measures increases chances that the Senate will follow through before mid-2010 on the House’s passage last fall of climate change legislation.
The lead sponsor of climate change legislation in the Senate already was making it clear today that what happens in Copenhagen doesn’t stay in Copenhagen. According the New York Times, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told reporters that a followup conference in June or July to nail down legally binding treaty would be “realistic and necessary.” He also indicated, however, that — before voting for a climate change bill in the Senate — moderate senators will need to have confidence that developing countries had committed in Copenhagen to transparency and to other steps of their own to combat climate change. So that’s one place where the message coming out of Copenhagen is likely to have a real effect on domestic policy.
Even then, the U.S. targets fall sadly short of those set by other developed nations. The already more efficient economies of Japan and Europe are likely to come out of the conference aiming for still more ambitious percentage cuts. The significant point, however, is that the United States — which has contributed far more carbon to the atmosphere than any other country — no longer is standing on the sidelines.
Combined, China and the United States now generate 40 percent of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gases. China’s now the No. 1 annual greenhouse gas generator. While the its leaders have committed their country to reducing the amount carbon emitted per their amount of productivity, China’s economic growth at that rate will still cause its carbon output to increase over time.
Renewed willingness on the part of the United States to deal with climate change has partly been intended as a signal to China. China’s response unfortunately has stood in depressing contrast:
The standoff between China and developed countries—especially the U.S.—has been a leitmotif during the entire conference, with negotiators for China and the U.S. trading barbs throughout. The biggest divisions: The U.S. wants China to commit to international verification of any climate-change policies; China wants the U.S. and other rich countries to pony up huge sums of money for poor countries, while the U.S., Europe and Japan have offered modest amounts so far.
So the biggest remaining question of the conference may be to what degree China is willing to signal more aggressive steps to combat climate change on its part. The right signal could push the momentum in the direction of a virtuous cycle, in which developed nation’s commit to more ambitious cuts and more aide to poor countries, and give us at least a fighting chance to keep climate change manageable.
The wrong signal risks generate a vicious cycle of inaction and unwillingness to take the next step, which in turn could lead to a very hot UN climate conference next year in Mexico City.
Related posts:
