Optimist or Skeptic? Will Copenhagen be successful?

If you happened to catch Yesterday’s post Cop15: IS this really the best we can do? A scourge of skepticism might have risen up in your person. Indeed as many observers have written, the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December is doomed to fail for a handful of reasons. The failed example of Kyoto, global recession, lack of investment in developing countries, lack of domestic Co2 targets, the minutia of 192 countries discussing a binding treaty etc.. I thought it would be good to go back and review what the big players in the environmental/energy/economic/and free market sectors had to say about what was expected from Copenhagen. In January 2009 at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland a panel entitled, ‘Rising to the Challenge of Copenhagen’ was assembled and moderated by New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman. The panel included;

Al Gore – Academy award winner, Nobel Peace prize recipient and chairman of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., an unofficial adviser to Google’s senior management, and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Yvo de Boer - Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen – Prime Minister of Denmark.

Jeroen van der Veer – CEO of oil company Royal Dutch Shell.

Jacques Aigrain- CEO of Swiss Re.

The consensus that these men came to regarding Copenhagen:

1) A clean and established emission reduction target must be agreed upon and a binding treaty to meet these targets must be signed.

2) There must be an agreement on financial support, provided by developed countries to developing countries to maintain continued Co2 reductions while still advancing their economies.

3) A framework for the market economy in regards to the reduction of Co2 emissions established by the Global body.

Some of the suggestions made by the panel to accomplish these seemingly simple goals were as follows;

• Establish a set global price for Co2

• Establish the principles for an energy trading system.

• Form sector agreements. For example, the steel industry would have different Co2 prices/targets than the Base chemical industry.

• Establish a coherent path towards energy savings and conservation.

• Developing countries such as China, India and Brazil must play a bigger role in the governing body.

• Developed countries must accept the duty to financially support developing nations before Copenhagen begins.

• Developed nations must establish domestic reduction targets before Copenhagen to have any leverage in convincing developing nations to sign on to binding Co2 reduction treaties.

In the 10 months since the panel dispersed some of these suggestions have been accomplished. The G-8 has been rendered null and void, thus being replaced by the G-20. The EU and Britain have suggested financial support packages for developing nations. Japan and China have both promised significant reductions in national Co2 emissions. So some progress has been made. So why is it that the majority of op/ed pieces I read these days are looking upon Copenhagen as a doomed international consortium?

Optomistic outlook (smiles)

Japan and the EU

The new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who had campaigned on climate change, promptly announced that this country would cut emissions by 25 percent by 2020, replacing the outgoing government’s more modest target. European negotiators privately said last week that this would pressure the EU to raise its own target from 20 to 30 percent, as it has long promised to do if other countries undertook similar commitments.

Grist/Geoffry Lean

Financial incentive provisions

The European Commission last week concluded that some $145 billion would be needed be developing countries by 2020 to reduce their own emissions and to adapt to climate change. It proposed that Europe should provide between $3 billion and $22 billion, with the rest coming from other developed nations (including the United States), the international carbon markets and the developing countries themselves.

Grist/Geoffry Lean

Britain’s focus

Prime Minister Gordon Brown;

If we are to achieve an agreement in Copenhagen, I believe we must move the debate from a stand-off over hypothetical figures to active negotiation on real mitigation actions and real contributions. I would urge the leading developing countries to bring forward ambitious and concrete propositions … that could be financed by these sources

Under the plan, funding would begin in 2013 and rise to $100bn a year by 2020. The money would be raised from private and public sources, such as levies on international carbon trading schemes. Developing countries would be able to apply for funds for specific projects.

Guardian/David Adam

A changing position from China

A Chinese president had traveled to New York to address the UN General Assembly for the first time in 40 years—and had chosen to do so on climate change. That alone signified how seriously his government was taking the issue.

Grist/Geoffry Lean

In that Speech President Hu Jintao promised to reduce the carbon intensity of China’s economy by “a notable margin” on 2005 levels by 2020

The country’s top leaders have been privately promising senior U.S. visitors that the giant country will be “a constructive and positive force” at Copenhagen. Detailed bilateral talks are continuing with hopes of a breakthrough when President Obama visits in mid-November.

Grist/Geoffry Lean

Skepticism (frowns)

Disputed and unresolved elements to the treaty

The interim U.N. meetings over the summer leading up to Copenhagen have not gone well. Still unresolved are fundamental differences between developed countries about whether the Kyoto Protocol should be continued or be abandoned altogether for an entirely new treaty. The document under discussion at the U.N. is some 200 pages of contradictory provisions from a variety of submissions from different countries. Practically every sentence contains bracketed language still needing debate and revision. The prospect of shaping this up into a coherent document by December, with only two more interim meetings to go, appears grim.

Mother Jones/David Corn

If the delegates arrive in Copenhagen without resolving much of the present 2,500 disputed passages in the negotiating text, there will be precious little chance of an agreement.

Grist/Geoffry Lean

The lack of a Climate change legislation in the U.S.

President Obama wanted to sign a measure before the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. The House passed the Waxman-Markey bill in June, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid set a firm timetable for the Senate to follow suit. But now the Senate has jettisoned its deadline for the bill, and momentum to quickly pass legislation appears to be vanishing.

Now, not only is there still no bill, but talk of a concrete deadline has disappeared entirely. Boxer’s panel will only commit to producing a bill—not voting on it—”later in September,” according to a statement. Reid’s office is even more vague, merely saying that the majority leader “fully expects the Senate to have ample time to consider this comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation before the end of the year.”

Mother Jones/Rachel Morris

The Catch 22 of Co2 reduction targets and financial incentive

Developing nations such as China, India and Brazil are refusing to commit to cuts in specific greenhouse gas emissions without first seeing financial concessions and near-term pledges to cut emissions from developed nations. Near-term targets from developed countries are one of the keys to unlock these negotiations. The five most advanced developing nations – which include Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa – have called on developed countries to “commit themselves to… reducing their emissions in aggregate by at least 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2020.”

Cool Green Science/Chrissy Schwinn

Yet the majority of developed nations such as the United States, Russia, Great Britian and Canada have not suggested or even agreed to support financial concessions.

Questions? (feel free to answer)

So is Copenhagen a potential success story or another failure in multilateral negotiation?

Can nations bypass their geo-political, and economic objectives to combat a global problem?

Is there a better approach to combat global warming?