Euston Quah & Qiyan Ong, For The Straits Times 29 Dec 09;
Among its successes, the Copenhagen Accord recognises the need to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
WHAT was achieved at the Copenhagen summit?
Plenty. Just getting 193 nations and 130 leaders together for the United Nations climate change summit was no small feat. It not only raised global awareness of climate change to an unprecedented level but also forced world leaders to confront the issue.
That the final outcome of the talks did not satisfy everyone is not surprising, given the differences in priorities between developed and developing nations. For the latter, bread and butter issues come first. But countries facing immediate danger from the effects of climate change, such as small islands and those with low-lying areas near the coast, would of course make demands quite different from those of nations not at similar risk.
Still, a lot was achieved at the summit. The Copenhagen Accord recognises the need to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 deg C above pre- industrial levels. Though not a binding target, the accord gave official recognition to the widely held scientific view that the rise in global temperatures should be kept to this level. With this agreement on temperature, it is expected that countries will devise measures to cut carbon emissions accordingly.
In addition, under the accord, countries are asked to review their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. Although no country would be penalised for failing to keep to its pledge, the accord would encourage government policies to tackle carbon emissions. This would remove the business-as-usual attitude and the world may witness the beginning of a new social norm. If the countries that have made pledges remain committed to them, other countries would come under peer pressure to follow suit.
Another breakthrough was the pledge by rich nations to jointly mobilise US$30 billion (S$42.2 billion) over the next three years, and US$100 billion a year by 2020, to help poor nations adapt to and mitigate the impact of climate change. This should be great news for developing nations as they have long asked rich nations for such funding.
While how the funds will be disbursed remains an issue, another equally important issue is how rich countries will raise the funds. Will the funds come from increased taxes or from cutting foreign aid for education and infrastructure development? Higher domestic taxes will cause immense unhappiness, and dampen the political will of rich countries to contribute funds. But reducing support for foreign aid will not help poor countries either.
Ideally, the Copenhagen Accord should have included a provision that the rich countries pledge not to cut other areas of foreign aid while creating a global fund for climate change.
Another success of the Copenhagen Accord lies in the recognition of the need for transparency in efforts to curb carbon emissions. The rich countries pledged to be scrutinised through procedures of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Though many are disappointed that developing nations will submit only national reports on their emission pledges, it is important to note that many of these countries are unable to collect and analyse data accurately. Let them report whatever they can until their data collection and analysis capacity is improved.
What should be done before next year's climate change summit in Mexico?
# Countries need to stay committed to whatever has been agreed at Copenhagen. They should also submit meaningful emission targets and hold deeper discussions on how to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
# Estimates of the damage from global warming and climate change need to be better defined and some agreement has to be reached on the methodologies to measure such damage.
# Countries such as China and India that have announced their pledges to cut national emissions should be monitored and encouraged, perhaps through a reward system. This would go a long way to meeting the demands of both economic growth and quality of life.
Euston Quah is Professor of Environmental Economics at Nanyang Technological University. Qiyan Ong is pursuing her PhD at NTU.
