The UN climate change summit is proving a challenge as countries attempt to establish global emission targets
By Tricia Holly Davis
If there’s one word that describes the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it’s division. The world is divided between rich nations and the developing world over how much each side should commit to cutting their emissions and how much money the west should give to poorer countries so they can grow their economies in a sustainable way.
“Developing nations want the developed world to commit to higher targets and pay for low carbon technologies, but they have yet to set firm targets or commit to how much they will pay [to stop climate change],” says Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN climate change summit.
There is further division over how a future climate pact will look. Developing nations favor a continuation of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty on climate change, which expires in 2012. The agreement caps the environmental pollution of industrialized nations, but excludes countries in emerging economies. Rich nations want a new agreement that would include some of the key principles of Kyoto, but commit developing nations to strict reduction targets.
Western businesses worry that they could be put at a competitive disadvantage if rich nations have strict carbon reduction targets, while developing countries are allowed to grow their economies without limits. Business Europe, an industry lobby group, has urged the European Union against raising its target to cut greenhouse gas emissions from 20 to 30 percent unless rival economies in developing nations like China commit to similar targets. The group also wants America to commit to firm targets before European industry is forced to further limit its pollution.
“Too little thought has been given to measures that harness the strength of free trade and the market economy,” says Business Europe.
For instance, it observed that the US Congress proposal to reduce US emissions 17 percent by 2020 only represents a three percent annual reduction from 1990 greenhouse gas levels. “Therefore, it cannot be considered an ‘equivalent’ effort justifying an EU move to a 30 percent reduction.
“In the absence of a global agreement, the EU must not increase in any way its current carbon reduction requirement,” the group says.
The emissions debate
The Confederation of British Industry has expressed similar concerns. Richard Lambert, the group’s Director General, notes that countries such as China are “now moving aggressively” to profit from the low-carbon goods and services market, the potential value of which is measured in trillions of dollars.
“Once we have looked at the details of an agreement at the end of the Copenhagen talks, then it may be right to move to a 30 percent emissions cut by 2020,” says the CBI. “The challenge is bringing other countries to match that level of ambition without the UK getting too far ahead so that the pollution is simply exported.”
Oxfam, the charity, has dismissed arguments from European business that they will be competitively disadvantaged if the EU raises its reduction targets. “I remain to be convinced that there is a serious disadvantage for European industry,” says Robert Bailey, the group’s Senior Policy Adviser.
Anthony Hobley, Head of Climate Change and Carbon Finance for law firm Norton Rose says raising emissions reduction targets has become easier because of the recession. “If EU industry is to move towards low carbon solutions it needs a clear and long term price signal,” says Hobley. “A 30 percent target is more likely to help secure both a global deal in Copenhagen and send the market signal required by business to make long term and effective investments in clean technology."
Research firm Ecofys calculates that the cost to European industry of achieving the 30 percent reduction target is now estimated to be €104bn cheaper than the costs of reaching the 20 percent target thanks to the recession. It says the EU could achieve its targets simply by replacing old, power-hungry equipment with new energy efficient technologies. Any larger-scale projects, such as plugging new low carbon energy sources into the grid, would be a bonus.
There is also disagreement on what level of temperature rise is acceptable. Rich nations want to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. Scientists say exceeding two degrees would wreak irreversible havoc on the environment and permanently wipe out a significant portion of global wealth. Developing countries, which are the most at risk to the threat of climate change, want temperature rises capped at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
A challenging process
At press time, the negotiations between rich countries and developing ones were deadlocked. A proposal to cut global emissions roughly in half by 2050 emerged during the first week of the negotiations, but it failed to outline exactly how much rich nations would give to poorer countries to help them prepare for climate change.
The G77 group of 130 developing nations has accused rich countries of trying to hijack the negotiations and protect their own interests. The negotiations were temporarily suspended at the beginning of the final week of the fortnight meeting when the African Group walked out of the summit, objecting to industrialized countries’ reluctance to raise their emissions targets.
“The substance of our negotiations is being overtaken by a process that’s undemocratic,” stated Bernaditas Muller, the co-coordinator for the G77 and China group of countries, who was unexpectedly dropped from the Philippine delegation. “At every level of the negotiations, the developed countries are blocking the developing nations,” she said.
China’s lead negotiator, Su Wei, has criticized the EU, arguing that even a 30 percent reduction would amount to just shy of a two percent annual decline in emissions. Climate change scientists have suggested countries aim for a four percent annual reduction to avoid dangerous temperature rises.
Greenpeace says the original proposal by industrialized nations to cut emissions between 30-45 percent by 2020 has now been watered down by umbrella group countries, most specifically Canada. “[Canada] is opposed to a science-based top down approach and wants to simply add up countries’ current pledges, present them as the total, and hope they solve the problem,” says Greenpeace.
Moving forward
It’s now up to the global heads of states, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President Barack Obama, who are arriving for the latter half of the summit, to iron out the differences and close a deal. Reduction targets and finance will top their list of priorities.
European leaders have so far agreed to give emerging economies $10.5 billion over the next three years to help them fight climate change. Other nations, including the US, are so far holding out on naming a specific figure.
Todd Stern, Head of the United States delegation, says America is strongly in favor of “significant financing” to help developing nations adapt to climate change, but thinks poorer nations should bear their fair share of the costs. America wants the establishment of a new global climate fund that includes an equal 50-50 contribution from the developed and developing countries.
“This is probably one of the biggest and most complicated of any negotiation, ever,” says Stern. “But having said that, it is really important that countries focus on getting this done.”