Copping out in Copenhagen?
Posted December 17, 2009 at 6:08 am 
Filed in: This morning’s NYT on-line (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html?_r=1&hp) is running a piece entitled, “Hopes are Fading for Climate Accord at Copenhagen.” This well-reported story lays the blame for inaction at the feet of the Chinese and the inartfully named “Group of 77,” an organization of 130 developing countries that is pressing for huge emissions cuts by the industrialized world, few curbs on their own fossil-fueled economic development, and billions in aid for technology transfer, mitigation and adaptation. On the other hand, imagining that 200 nations can effectively negotiate a complex agreement affecting the fundamental economics of each of them is a little much. This is particularly so as some of them (like the 39-member Associaton of Small Island States) believe they will cease to exist if the climate challenge isn’t addressed quickly and forcefully. Existential threats tend to make compromise a little difficult.
Nonetheless, now that the Obama Administration is fully engaged in the talks, the Chinese have replaced the US as global climate villains. As the piece reports:
“With just two days remaining in historic and contentious climate talks here, China signaled overnight that it sees virtually no possibility that the nearly 200 nations gathered would find agreement by Friday.
“A participant in the talks said that China would agree only to a brief political declaration that left unresolved virtually all the major issues.”
Note well that there are still two days left, and brinksmanship in any negotiation is not unexpected. And the Chinese plus developing world do have a compelling argument, that may sound familiar to anyone raising multiple children. It boils down to: “He got to, why can’t I?” In other words, the developing world argues that the US, EU and Japan enjoyed much economic success fueled by greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting energy and land development. Now that the world has figured out (well, most of it anyway) that allowing the free emission of GHGs carries negative consequences, the developing world views with some cynicism efforts to rein in global emissions evenly. Kind of like buying your older teenager a cell phone and then telling the younger one that you won’t be giving either of them any more.
The natural reaction to that perceived unfairness is going to be: “OK, if you won’t do that, what will you give me?” And that’s where we are in Copenhagen. Since Kyoto, the idea has been that the developed world must commit to real emissions reductions while the developing world shoulders “differentiated responsibilities.” For China and India, that means they are pledging emissions intensity reductions — committing to reduce the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of production. As the enviromental activists point out, that means their absolute emissions can still go up — perhaps by quite a bit. (President George W. Bush tried that as US policy seven years ago; didn’t go over very well.)
To make matters worse, there’s real concern in the international community about the verifiability of any such pledges. On top of that, there’s a wide gulf between levels of foreign aid the Group of 77 wants to see and the numbers thrown around by the US and EU. The G77 wants a pot of about $250 billion annually, the EU has been talking about $10.5 billion over the next three years, building up to around $150 billion over time. Our own Secretary of State Clinton arrived in Copenhagen to announce that the US would participate in a $100 billion fund using “a mix of public and private funds, including ‘alternative sources of finance,’ which she did not specify.” The extent to which roughly half a loaf is enough to satisfy the G77 — or how much higher the US and EU are willing to go — will be a key element in whether this COP-15 produces anything more than a “brief political declaration.”
Expectations had been lowered early on for this conference, and it appears the negotiations may live down to them. Good thing the Danes are paying to offset all the emissions generated in the course of the confab, or the entire exercise might have been a net negative for the planet! Stay tuned.
Previous Post
May 21, 2012
May 11, 2012
April 30, 2012
