Anticlimax in Copenhagen

Rumors had been flying for months that the recent UN-backed Copenhagen conference on climate change (COP15) would be contentious. It was, and then some.

The event had been presented as the climax of 15 such conferences convened by the world body since Bali in 2007. And the dramatic drum rolls had increased in volume and frequency since that time.

The first thrust was getting broad acceptance of urgent scientific warnings that unabated greenhouse gas emissions will soon deliver a host of catastrophes, from rising sea levels to much-increased desertification (and a calamitous decrease in food production) to increasing extreme weather events; and acknowledgement that the time has come to act, and act in a big way worldwide with the majority of countries participating on the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ to use the language of the earlier landmark – and also hugely controversial – Kyoto Protocol.

That accomplished, COP15 was supposed to provide the ‘what, when, where, how and how much’ framework needed to crystallize these ideas and put them into gear.

What resulted, after torturous, marathon negotiations that dragged on long after midnight and involved some very hands-on maneuvering by US president Barack Obama and his team – amid reported snubs, and myriad new schemes and counter-schemes – was a five-nation climate ‘deal’ forged by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Mr Obama characterized it as an “unprecedented breakthrough.”

But there was little sign of triumph. More like the exhaustion of all concerned. And in the cold grey light of a Danish winter morning, reactions to it ranged from “disappointing” to “a sell out.”

In fact, it was a statement of political intentions, but without critical numbers, any agreed verification process beyond generalities, and any legal obligations, or even a timeline.

Easier said than done

The fact 193 countries, a sea of sectoral experts, advisors and NGOs, and President Obama himself turned up, underscores the fact that the message has gotten through. But, with the eyes of the world literally on the Danish capital via the blanket TV coverage, protestor violence, ambulances and long lines of Darth Vader police bearing truncheons reflected, inside the conclave, a walk-out by angry G77 nations, those at the mid- and lower-levels of the developing country category, which paralyzed any possibility of consensus and indeed threatened until the very end to scupper the entire proceedings.

Bitter accusations flew that it was the rich nations who intended to torpedo not only any acceptable COP15 agreement, but the bedrock foundations laid in Kyoto as well. And then, within these blocks, new divisions emerged, with obvious acrimony between the US and European sides in the developed camp. As well, sharp splits opened among the G77, with the African contingent in particular (led by a Sudanese diplomat who likened the negotiations to visiting a holocaust on the have-nots) being accused by President Mohamed Nasheed of the at-risk island state of the Maldives of reverting to outdated Cold War politics while disaster loomed.

With the walkout, suddenly there was more going on in the corridors than in the conference rooms, as crowds of delegates and diplomats scrambled desperately to find islets of common ground.

But the unmistakable message was that consensus was much easier to say than get.

As to why, the reasons are various.

By the numbers

First, the lack of hard numbers assured, single-handedly, that a meaningful accord (with teeth) could not be achieved. As Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Climate Change, put it before the conference began:

“We need developed nations to commit to short-term greenhouse gas reductions between 2012 and 2020. We also need short-term financing of climate mitigation in developing countries, plus a commitment to long-term financing. We need numbers on the table.”

The scientific numbers put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were the only ones firmly on offer, and they weren’t encouraging: global emissions must peak by 2015 to keep the planet’s temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade by the end of this century – and even then parts of Africa are likely to have to endure a 3-degree rise, causing massive damage. Whereas 1.5 degrees would likely avoid the submerging of various island states.

Among developed countries themselves, there is no uniformity. Europe has already agreed to 20% GHG reductions over 1990 levels by 2020; and Japan has signed on for an even steeper 25% cut by the same metrics. Australia and Canada have been accused of foot-dragging. And the US, a non-player in this process until Obama took office, has not gained much credibility after this late start by stating that it intends to lead while committing to only an intention to reduce its mammoth carbon footprint by 17% relative to 2005 levels.

The ire this has provoked was evident in the protestor chant, “1.5 to stay alive.”

Guesstimating the costs

At the heart of developed country reluctance, it’s said, are concerns about the huge, and in some sense imponderable, costs plus supply instabilities in the interregnum years between the fossil fuel era and the new age of alternative energy prophesied by believers; and this is ultra-critical to the meaningful shrinkage of CO2 concentrations. UN studies reckon that some $30 billion p.a. will be needed for short-term mitigation, while World Bank estimates postulate that a whopping $100-200 billion will be required by the developing world by 2020.

The new five-nation accord agrees with all of this in principle, and is said to be set to provide a system fore monitoring and reporting progress – the latter being hard-wrung from China. But again, it’s all maddeningly short on details and specifics, being only 12 paragraphs long.

It takes G2 to tango

The reality is, as again was noted before the Copenhagen circus began, is that meaningful movement is dependent on serious cooperation between the two global warming giants, China and the US. And, on the face of it at least, that was mostly evident by its absence at COP15.

One flashpoint was China’s resistance to firm mechanisms for emissions reduction monitoring, which it took as aimed at compromising its sovereignty. But there was obviously more to it. While PRC foreign minister Yang Jiechi called the COP15 results significant and positive, saying “…it is not a destination but a new beginning,” media reported his assertion that China’s rights include continuing its economic growth without the limitation of legally-binding emission cuts.

On Obama’s side, to be fair, his hands are more or less tied by the lack of in-place domestic laws on emission cuts.

At the same time – and largely off-camera – observers report real progress between the two as regards sharing clean energy technology and frank exchanges between their communities of environmental experts on the accurate measurement of GHG emissions.

Reading the runes

The common refrain sung by many of the participants after the climax is that a good start has been made, lack of detail notwithstanding. But other observers less in the public eye speculate that COP15 really signaled the end of the belief that the now two-decade-old UN process (starting in Rio in 1992) is the best way to deal with this thorny thicket of issues going forward. Simply put, they say the painfully obvious gulf of disparities between the 193 countries attending, ranging from claims and counterclaims re: environmental guilt and blame, costs and proposed, unprecedented cash flow shifts without a clear quid pro quo, and technological capabilities, not to mention the absence of anything like consensus on who can now effectively play the honest broker role, amounts to total gridlock, with the clock ticking ever louder.

Instead, they say, there may well be a shift in focusing future decisions – and action – on about 30 countries which collectively contribute about 90% of emissions. As evidence that this may work they point to the high contrast cooperation seen in the 17-nation Major Economies Forum in seeking solutions to these issues. They also see a narrowing of the number of issues being negotiated at a given time, such as technology sharing or the merger of carbon trading markets – which AVCJ sources have underscored as crucial to mobilizing the private sector en masse – as being more effective than the current broad UN approach.

As an obviously tired President Obama summed things up: “We have come a long way. But we have much further to go.”

AVCJ approached some of these private sector entities for comment. But perhaps unsurprisingly at this time, they declined.

• Tweet  
• Facebook  
• LinkedIn  
• Google plus  
• Save this article  
• Send to  

• Topics
• Cleantech
• Regulation