At the recent Copenhagen conference to which 193 nations along with other delegates attended there was the expected mixture of sincere environmentalists concerned about the future of Planet Earth, manipulators, fraudsters, NGOs, firms and organisations hustling consultancies and outright propagandists. Even the United States Republican Party sent Congressional members to make the case that climate change and global warming are part of an international liberal conspiracy to deceive the world and set the stage for their hidden agendas. This volatile admixture of sincerity of purpose, sleight-of-hand environmental accounting and downright fraud has produced several important lessons regarding the way forward in addressing the environmental problematique, which presently confronts the global community. For the remainder of this article and next week’s I shall highlight those lessons that have a bearing on my evaluation of the LCDS and the MOU along with its associated Joint Concept Note.
Lessons to be learnt
The first lesson is that, despite the many diversions at the conference, a rare clarity has been achieved in arriving at a succinct, scientific-based consensus among nations on specifying the problem humankind faces and the yardstick for measuring progress in addressing it. Simply put both the metric and measuring rod have been adopted from the Nobel prize-winning United Nations 2007 Report. There are five key elements to this consensus. First, the conference accepted the scientific conclusion that the main greenhouse gas responsible for climate change and global warning is carbon dioxide CO2. Second, it was also accepted that the targeted average global temperature rise, which the world can accommodate is an increase of less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) when compared to the average pre-industrialization global temperature level. Third, it was agreed that the actual average global increase so far has been 0.75 degrees Celsius (1.35 degrees Fahrenheit) when compared to the global pre-industrialization average. Fourth, it was agreed that based on the heroic assumption national pledges already made to reduce CO2 emissions will all be kept; Planet Earth is already on track to see a 3.9 degrees Celsius increase, on average, when compared to the pre-industrialization level. Fifth, there was consensus that the most vulnerable regions worldwide are the least developed countries (LDCs), the small island developing states (SIDS), and the continent of Africa. Significantly, these three regions had expressed a preference for a lower target of a 1.5 degrees rise in average global temperature above the pre-industrialization level to be on the safe side.
At this stage it is important for readers to note that this yardstick for progress has been set at the global level. Reduced CO2 emissions in one part of the world, if countered by a greater increase of CO2 emissions in another part does not signify progress in dealing with the global problem. In other words, as a global problem there can be no unique regional solution because Planet Earth has a single unified atmosphere.
The second lesson is that, as we all know, there has been no agreement coming out of the conference to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires, which was what the Copenhagen summit was intended to achieve. Despite the gravity of the situation facing all nations, and the rare clarity of the summit in agreeing on a definition of the problem and what needs to be done to avert it, national interest prevailed over all other considerations. Emerging economies like Brazil, China and Russia, which had up to a decade ago championed poor countries’ concerns, deserted them at the summit. This would not have been surprising to regular readers of this column. One lesson I drew in previous articles from the global economic crisis and international efforts to respond to it, has been that since the G20 has assumed the lead role for coordinating global efforts to address the global economic crisis, the emerging nations that are members of the G20 have been as much serial violators of pledges given to poor countries as the previous rich countries grouping that makes up the G7, which held this responsibility before.
The sobering reality has been that, despite the impending global disaster, the key polluters (past and present), which contribute to climate change and global warming cannot get past the negotiating principle of seeking to maximise benefit for themselves, while yielding the least possible national concessions. This is the worst possible posture to adopt when nations are coming together to solve a global problem.
Power not reason prevailed
This leads to the third vital lesson to be drawn from the summit. The summit clearly revealed that power in its most concentrated forms (economic, political, military, geo-strategic, technology and population), not reason is what matters most in global negotiations. The course of the conference demonstrated unmistakably that the crux of the global contention on climate change and global warming centres on the United States and China. The United States is by far the world’s worst historic polluter and the second largest current polluter. China is the world’s worst current polluter. In so far as I have previously indicated the problem of CO2 emissions is both one of stock (the accumulated levels of CO2 emissions) and flow (additions to the stock) the problematique allows for very wide margins to propagandize national positions and responsibilities to address the problem.
It is clear to me at this stage that if and when China and the United States arrive at a framework agreement between themselves all other countries will fall in line. These include, on the one hand, the European Union (EU) and other rich countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada. And, on the other hand, the multitudes of developing countries as well as emerging economies like Brazil, India and Russia. The best testimony to this is seen in what occurred at the Copenhagen conference. Despite the EU’s vocal lead and numerous pledges to cut emissions and persistent financial blandishments to poor countries for them to cooperate by agreeing to carbon sequestration measures, they did not participate in the last-minute Copenhagen Accord brokered by the USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. As it is now widely known, this accord it is hoped saved the conference from total failure.
