Copenhagen Analysis

The climate summit in Copenhagen was no success, not even a small one. Pledging to give funds to the victim countries can’t be a result. That’s why one can’t criticise the results, which many world leaders have warned not to do. Copenhagen was an all-out failure writes Sirajul Islam

Following two years of zealous preparations and two weeks of intense negotiations, the much talked about Copenhagen conference on climate change yielded little. The 193-nation meeting was left with little to show for itself but an unclear commitment to edge global warming to 2 degrees. An eleventh-hour deal agreed upon by a smaller group of countries, including the United States, China and Brazil lacked any legally binding limits to CO2 emissions, and was not adopted by the assembled delegates but they’ve merely ‘noted.’ The combined pressure to negotiate that had built up in the weeks and months leading up to the conference have disappeared into thin air like CO2. It will hardly be possible to build it up again before the next climate conference in Mexico. Without the minimum of figures that the powerful countries should have committed themselves to in Copenhagen, an agreement in Mexico will not be enough to achieve the distant goal of climate protection, insofar as an agreement is even possible. The fight against global warming has been set back by years.
   The consequences will be widely felt. With every wasted year, the path toward climate change becomes steeper and pricier. If the leaders come together again in a few years, perhaps having realised that climate change is actually dangerous, then they will be amazed to discover that reversing this is a lot more pricey and difficult than it would have been back in 2009. The solution to the climate problem will become all the more unlikely, just as it is becoming all the more drastic. It is almost like someone who is seriously ill, but going to the doctor too late. Worse still, those who were at the forefront of climate protection are now losing authority. European Union justified their climate targets by saying that someone had to make a start. That was right. However, what happens when no one joins in? Those industries that were regarded as a burden when it came to climate protection will regard the Copenhagen failure as a liberation. They will push even harder to avoid strict guidelines. The conference made it clear just how little others were prepared to negotiate.
   Above all, national selfishness stood in the way of an agreement. As long as one country can hope for short-term economic advantage by opposing measures the majority support, the others won’t voluntarily join in. That can only change if such a refusal has consequences. There are already methods of imposing sanctions, whereby many developing countries like Bangladesh are only given financial and technical aid if they agree to reduce their CO2 emissions. However, naturally that won’t help when it comes to big developing countries like China or India or unwilling developed industrialised countries like the United States. The only thing that may work here is threats, such as a climate tariff, that states with a real climate target might impose on imports from states that have no clear climate goal in the future.
   In a globally connected world, economic sanctions bring many problems, and would not be easy to impose. However, to simply wait until the blockade continues at the next conference is no alternative. The states that are willing to solve the climate problem have to make a serious threat to go forward alone. And they must be able to protect themselves against others who derive an advantage at the expense of the rest of the humanity. Forget Copenhagen. Now we are making a climate treaty in 2010 in Mexico. That is the message from those who are talking up the conference, and trying to sell the result as some kind of progress. But after the fiasco there is no sensible reason for assuming that things will be any better next year.
   From the very beginning it was an illusion to believe that the two biggest climate sinners, China and America would allow themselves to be roped into a binding agreement with clear emission targets and international monitoring. The new global power China is using its growing weight above all to uncompromisingly ensure that there is no international interference in its national sovereignty. It is also greatly sobering to realise that the Europeans, the model students, when it comes to climate politics, have no appreciable influence any more on climate diplomacy. Whether the EU offered 20 or 30 per cent reductions played no role in Copenhagen. The decisive moment was when American President Barack Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made a deal in the latter’s hotel room. It has never been made diplomatically clear that the Europeans have lost enormous influence when it comes to the central questions in international politics.
   In Copenhagen, the world had to experience a climate disaster of the political kind. Those who want to see a resolute climate protection will have to reform the process, in order to achieve ambitious targets in the big economies that emit the most greenhouse gases.
   There are some hurdles that have to be cleared. First, it is only when the American delegation has a climate law that has already got through their Congress that they will make any commitments. It is the most important stumbling block, one that cannot be cleared through international negotiations. President Obama still has a lot of work to do in persuading his people in his country. He is a taskmaster, and he proved he can do it when we see the healthcare reform bill passed the Senate hurdle. He may not be terribly ideological, but he seeks to achieve what can be achieved rather than holding to specific ideas that are impractical politically. He demonstrated how to compromise at first in order to provide a foundation for future reforms. So, the world should use this resource to get the job done.
   Secondly, the world has to handle the next big player China cautiously. There is no big way to make sure, I mean, international monitoring of China’s efforts to see whether they’re reducing emissions they’ve already pledged, or will pledge in future. So, the world has to devise a formula to get that job done. Otherwise all of China’s assurances that it wants to drastically sink greenhouse gas emissions will be worthless. Thirdly, the topic of legally binding limits has to return to the negotiating table. And fourthly, the Europeans have to fix their position also.
   Over 40,000 politicians, diplomats, scientists, journalists, lobbyists and NGO activists travelled to Copenhagen to save the world. 140 private jets flew, travelled and landed there to make sure the world should reduce carbon emissions while each of the planes burnt more or less 750 litres of jet-fuel per hour while their engines were on, and 1,200 limousines ferried delegates around. Just take a note of the carbon footprints the Copenhagen summit yielded, and just take another note of what the heated summit, which gave a new name to gigantism, offered. Analysts said it ‘offered nothing but a soapbox for alarmists and the self-important.’
   It is time to consider whether smaller, more businesslike conferences would make more sense. It would also mean allowing those scientists to speak who have expressed rational doubts about the scenarios presented by the IPCC. They have many facts on their side also. Evaluation would be more appropriate than roaring that the world is about to end. The question of whether binding and dramatic limits of CO2 emissions are the only correct way to protect the climate must also be revisited. A global competition for the cleanest energy production and investments in saving and replanting forests would be more easy and useful than the caps in emissions at the cost of economic growth. We want to grow too, and nobody knows if we won’t grow in future. So, if somebody says, ‘You Bangladeshis can’t manufacture’, then we also feel we are victimised.
   The climate summit in Copenhagen was no success, not even a small one. Pledging giving funds to the victim countries can’t be a result. That’s why one can’t criticise the results, which many world leaders have warned not to do. No one can make them sound better than they are. Copenhagen was an all-out failure. How this process is to be brought to an end in the next year remains a mystery. The format of the consultations at the UN level, in which every member state can exercise veto power, holds no promise of any success. The balancing of interests between those who want to preserve their standard of living and the emerging economies that want to soon reach such levels of prosperity appears to be impossible. Meanwhile, the global population is growing with its energy needs, which will lead to even greater CO2 emissions. Only the most stubborn climate change deniers would say that this is not going to impact the lives of millions of people.
   Delegates had demanded only numbers, timeframes and instruments at Copenhagen. They didn’t get them, and that’s going to be a problem for the governments. Many governments declared their CO2 emissions are to sink by this or that per cent by this or that year. The fewer the nations that participate in binding emissions curbs, the pricier that will be. The leaders, who are already under pressure over their this or that domestic policies but have until now been viewed with some respect for their work on climate protection, will now face a double burden because of Copenhagen.

The writer is a development professional and social sciences researcher, presently working as consultant at the Asia Regional & Bangladesh country office of INAFI — a global microfinance network, registered in the Netherlands. 

source: New Age