The aftermath of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations in December – the Council of the Parties (COP 15) as it was called – is still exercising the body politic as well as environmental NGOs.
I attended several briefings over the past week including in my capacity as Chairman of the Climate Change Research Group of the Institute of International and European Affairs. In addition, Minister Eamon Ryan spoke to a briefing seminar at Dublin Chamber on the topic.
My sense of where we are at – a bit of post-match analysis – is as follows.
The COP 15 was the first truly geopolitical meeting of the 21st century; that in itself is an important conclusion. The leaders of countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa met to negotiate on world issues for probably the first time. Brice Lalonde, President Sarkosy’s climate change negotiator, described the experience as a ‘re-shaping of the whole world economy’ with the BRICs now in a position to ‘co-manage the planet.’
The Heads of State and Government who arrived at the meeting were never as badly prepared. Undaunted by the failure of Ministers and officials to make progress in preparatory meetings, a group of 28 rolled up their collective sleeves and after a 48 hour period of almost non-stop discussions the Copenhagen Accord was the outcome.
Rather than be critical of the agreement, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of Heads and State have for the first time ever signed up to a package which commits them to keeping greenhouse gas emissions to such a level that global temperatures will not rise by more than 2°C, which is in line with the latest scientific evidence about climate change. In addition, there is a firm commitment by developed countries to inject some $100 billion per annum into the economies of countries in the developing world worst affected by climate change. There is still much speculation that many countries, including the UK, support a tax on financial transactions (a Tobin tax) as one way to raise the necessary finance. A panel of senior financiers is to meet to tease out how precisely a sum of $100 billion can be found in the current economic climate. Conclusions were also reached on the reporting, verifying and monitoring of GHG emissions. Finally, while all parties agreed to make GHG emission reductions pledges by a deadline of 31 January 2010, only 50 have so far done so. The G8 is on record as supporting an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.
There is widespread agreement that by virtue of having reached agreement on the main political issues, work on the more technical issues such a technology transfer and REDD will proceed more productively. There is also a view that work on securing a global agreement on climate change will extend for many more years and will not end at the next COP in Mexico. In fact, many EU Member States are moving to the view that the Copenhagen Accord will replace the Kyoto Protocol and as a consequence there will not be a second commitment period.
China – who played perhaps the most important role – had travelled to Copenhagen anticipating that a deal could not be reached. Only when persuaded by India’s Prime Minister did the Chinese delegation engage with US President Obama (who was kept waiting for almost seven hours). There is a suggestion that both leaders did not want to push for a legally binding deal and were quite happy to secure what some described as a ‘lowest common denominator’. It was obvious that despite bilateral contacts prior to Copenhagen the US and China had not reached a conclusion on the best outcome of the COP 15 talks. China’s role was described by Fiona Harvey, the environment correspondent with the Financial Times, as ‘destructive’ as their proxies (Sudan, Nicaragua etc.) tried everything to block a deal being done. After the event, senior Chinese negotiators described the Copenhagen Accord as ‘meaningless’ and disputed the scientific evidence on climate change. Many vulnerable countries, particularly Bangladesh, most African countries and the island nations, were very critical of China’s negative position.
Lord Anthony Giddens surmised that many countries such as Brazil and India are taking investment decisions not based on the politics of climate change but due to a heightened awareness about energy security. Giddens also believes that many countries are reverting to the ‘politics of long-term planning’.
Russia did not engage in the negotiations and played what amounted to a background role. Their negotiators were cagey; not unrelated to the current arrangement which allows them to sell ‘hot air’ credits. The Russian Government is, however, becoming more aware of the impacts of climate change as the Siberia permafrost is melting with consequent emissions of methane (which is 21 times more harmful than carbon dioxide). The recent law on energy efficiency is seen as a step which aligns their policy on climate change to that of the EU.
As the EU’s position was well known, it did not play a decisive role, although the efforts of France and the UK were central to securing the support of the African countries to the deal which eventually emerged. Commission President Barroso confirmed that at no point did the EU come under pressure to increase its GHG emissions reduction offer from 20% to 30%.
As the dust has now settled, one of the emerging points of contention is the proposition that the EU – or indeed the US and some other developed countries – will try to impose a WTO-compatible border tax adjustment. Essentially, for example, if Argentinean beef is exported to the EU but Argentina is not committed to reducing GHG emissions, their exporters will be forced to buy carbon allowances equivalent to the amount their EU counterparts would have to pay.
Copenhagen exposed the weakness and reputation of the UN system with many ‘middle income’ countries virtually excluded from the core group that did most of the wheeling and dealing. It is impossible to agree anything where a consensus of 180+ nations is required. Where significant global issues need to be addressed a new way will need to be found – water scarcity is next on the agenda. Thus the UNFCCC will need to consider most carefully how policy-makers from groups of affected countries can best be engaged in the COP 16 negotiations, i.e. in the period to the next meeting in Mexico.
Fiona Harvey criticised the majority of the environmental NGOs for fostering divisions among countries and playing what she described as a pernicious role in Copenhagen. Their constant negativism was misplaced given the outcome of the COP 15. She called on the mainstream climate advocates to ‘grow up’. Strong words indeed from a seasoned observer.
She also pointed out that significant businesses in the US, including BP and Conoco, seem to be disengaging from the process as political support for the Administration’s policy on climate change is unravelling.
Over the coming months, Ireland’s focus will be on passing a Climate Change Bill. The work on replacing the out-of date National Climate Change Strategy is being long-fingered.
In contrast, France is moving ahead with a ‘Do It’ approach. They are anticipating a positive outcome of the COP 16 and have decided to start implementing some actions, including a programme on forest carbon credits.
If you are interested in this topic then you may find the following books of interest:
The Politics of Climate Change, Anthony Giddens
Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson
The Vanishing Face of Gaia: a Final Warning, James Lovelock
Peter Brennan
