Emissions have been growing, rising 12.5% between 1990 and 2007, according to the UN
G. Panicker, Business Times 3 Nov 09;
THE climate talks may go the way the Doha round on global trade is going.
Poor political will has left the global trade talks in limbo. The benefits from a free flow of goods and services are known and the Doha round can potentially lift global GDP by about US$500 billion. Yet the agreement is a good three years behind schedule.
Similar political dithering seems to paralyse the even more ambitious global attempt to regulate greenhouse gases to save our planet from catastrophe. Current negotiating positions hardly offer hope for a quick conclusion.
Unlike trade, complex climate science impact studies are based on computer models and are not exact, leaving room for some scepticism.
Yet evidence of change piles up, with the latest noting a dramatic shift in the ecosystem under the North Sea. Greenhouse gas reductions have also to contend with the current entrenched high-carbon regime.
So what should have been the end of the negotiating process next month after two years of hectic activity looks like it's spilling over into next year.
The developing world is pitted against the developed nations. Led by the United States, rich nations have a historical responsibility to avert a potential crisis. But the two camps are far apart over on crucial aspects of resolution.
Last month, China and India cut a climate deal between themselves - a strategy some people see as an alternative for poor nations to the treaty. China, emitting 6.8 billion tonnes, and India, 1.4 billion tonnes, jointly account for a quarter of 33 giga tonnes of global emissions. Energy conservation, efficiency, renewable energy and forest management fall under the scope of their memorandum of understanding.
The two oppose any absolute goals for their own emissions cuts and refuse to provide numbers for the long-term. China's President Hu Jintao recently promised to cut carbon intensity in every unit of economic output, again with no numbers.
The developing world is seeking reductions of 40 per cent from rich nations below their 1990 levels by 2020. Norway alone has promised to aim that high. Other rich countries offer a range - between 20 per cent and 30 per cent, leaving a huge gap on targets. Poor nations also ask for easier access to technology and a relaxation of the intellectual property rights regime in this regard. On funding for adaptation and mitigation, they have sought 0.5 per cent to one per cent of rich nations' GDP. Finance is perhaps the most critical aspect of the negotiations.
The United Nations Environmental Programme quotes analysts to say that investments of US$500 billion a year will be needed to help poor nations adapt to climate change and to power low carbon growth. The European Union has concluded that adaptation needs will rise to 100 billion euros (S$206.7 billion) by 2020.
While committing to pay half of that amount, EU has refused to detail how much each member will have to chip in. Europeans are waiting to see what other rich countries and advanced developing nations promise before they show their cards.
US legislation on this issue is stuck in Congress, forestalling the Obama administration from making firm commitments on targets or funding. A lack of US leadership simply escalates uncertainty over the outcome at Copenhagen.
But all efforts to make the rich countries budge will come to naught if the big developing countries are unwilling to yield some ground. The European Union is seeking emission cuts of 15-30 per cent from them in the future. Pressure could also mount from the US Senate for more concessions when it takes up the bill.
Progress on all central issues, including the institutional framework needed for disbursing money, has been scanty. Further, the Bangkok preparatory meeting last month raised doubts about the future of Kyoto Protocol, from which the US has opted out and developing nations are exempt.
Developing countries see the Kyoto Protocol, which has fixed obligations for the top polluters, and want the commitments extended to developing countries after 2012. There is move to make national schedules form the basis for a global agreement but national action will be internationally verifiable. Developing countries resist any attempt to tamper with Kyoto.
It is disappointing that we have no acceptable framework yet. Negotiators must get on the same page but not before they cut through the maze of over 180 pages of proposals. Time is short.
Meanwhile, emissions have been growing, rising 12.5 per cent between 1990 and 2007, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The US emissions have gone up 20 per cent and Turkey's by 118 per cent. Even Denmark, the host of the December summit, clocked a one per cent increase.
Balancing emissions and global economic growth is not going to be smooth or easy. The window for action is narrowing. Earlier this decade, carbon concentrations of 550 parts per million (PPM) in the atmosphere were regarded a level safe. Then the ceiling was lowered to 450 ppm, a goal which has the official seal of approval in a bid to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius from the 19th century. But activists are already campaigning for support to the 350 ppm level.
For a climate deal, the leaders must bridge the gap between rhetoric and proposed action. We will watch a summit of US and Chinese presidents in Beijing and a meeting of the G-20 leaders this month on how the standoff is going to be resolved.
Developing countries must press industrialised countries for ambitious targets. But they must make clear how much they will alter their own upward emissions trajectories. On finance, big developing countries need to be realistic. For instance, funding help to China - even though some say Beijing is doing more than it gets credit for - is being hotly contested in Western opinion polls and by the poor nations of Europe.
The last of the preparatory session is now under way at Barcelona. Much political capital must be invested if it is to provide clarity on issues and targets before the final session next month. We need cool heads, not hot air, to avoid Copenhagen 2.0.
The writer is with BT's foreign desk
