Countdown to Copenhagen: The shape of the deal
Bureaucrats clash on shape of climate deal
The devil is in the detail ahead of next month's summit, as representatives of 192 countries struggle to reconcile their often conflicting priorities. Michael McCarthy reports
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Bureaucratic detail should be the last thing that prevents an agreement to save the planet from climate change. After all, the outline of the issue is simple: every government in the world now accepts that the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted from human sources will lead to a disastrous overheating of the atmosphere, if it is not checked.
But argument over bureaucratic detail may yet prevent a new global climate deal being struck in Copenhagen next month: the nature of the agreement itself is still subject to sharply variant views among the 192 countries who are coming together to negotiate it.
For even if the imperative is clear, and recognised by all, national self-interest guides a different response to it in different nations, and the great trick to pull off in the Danish capital will be for all countries to put aside just enough self-interest to agree.
The problem they face – in bureaucratic terms – is how exactly a new climate treaty should be structured, and the issue in everyone's minds, so far unresolved, is how it should relate to the present treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, and due to run out (if it is not renewed) on 31 December 2012.
Kyoto has great strengths and great weaknesses. Its strengths are that it commits the rich industrialised countries to quantified cuts in their carbon emissions by a given date, and that it is legally binding in international terms.
Its weaknesses are that these cuts are nowhere near big enough to get a hold on the expected warming, that the developing countries, led by China and India, are not required under Kyoto to cut their own now-burgeoning emissions, and that the United States, the world's leading carbon emitter until China recently overtook it, is no longer part of the protocol. George Bush withdrew the US from Kyoto in 2001, because his administration considered it gave an unfair advantage to China and other US economic competitors.
These weaknesses are enough to ensure that Kyoto now represents an inadequate response to the heightened climate threat which was made clear in the fourth report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in the spring of 2007.
The IPCC report said that warming of the atmosphere was now "unequivocal" and that there was a better than nine of out 10 chance that human actions were causing it; if it continued, the report said, the global average temperature could rise by as much as 4C (or even in the extreme case, 6C) by 2100, which would, in effect, make human life on Earth impossible.
The response to this warning was hugely significant. First, it was accepted by the Americans; even the Bush administration, for so long climate sceptics supreme, felt unable to deny the science any longer, and formally endorsed the report (at Valencia, in November 2007). Second, the world community as a whole realised that a new beginning had to be made, and this was done in the subsequent UN climate conference held in December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia.
The Bali conference agreed to negotiate a renewal of the Kyoto Protocol when it ran out, providing a "second commitment period" for member states to undertake emissions cuts, from 2013. But also, in response to Kyoto's obvious weaknesses, it agreed to work towards a wholly new climate treaty, which would a) involve the US; b) oblige China, India and the other developing countries to cut their own emissions; c) compensate the developing countries for doing this; and d) set a very ambitious level of new medium-term targets for the rich countries, in an attempt to hold the warming to below the danger threshold of C above the pre-industrial level.
The IPCC told the conference that the medium-term targets should be cuts in CO2 of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and although this was not written into the Bali declaration, it is generally accepted as the "ballpark" figure of the cuts that the rich countries need to make.
For the past two years, these two aims – a renewed version of the Kyoto Protocol, and a wholly new agreement involving the US, developing country cuts, developing country compensation and tough new targets – have been negotiated, side by side, in separate but parallel streams of talks, with the work for the new treaty generally known as the Bali Action Plan, or the Bali Road Map.
The issue is, what happens now? What is next month's Copenhagen agreement to consist of? A new version of Kyoto, plus something else? The dropping of Kyoto, but the incorporation of its best features into a new, Bali-road-map climate treaty? Or a new climate treaty without any reference to Kyoto whatsoever?
Mind-numbingly abstract as these three choices might seem to any of us going about our daily lives, the argument over them is very real, and its resolution is key to the success of a Copenhagen climate deal. The developing countries, collectively known as the G77+China, are insistent that the Kyoto Protocol be renewed, and its rich country member states sign up for new emissions cuts from 2013 onwards.
They like it because it is legally-binding internationally, with compliance mechanisms which mean errant states can be forced back in line, and with internationally agreed ways of counting carbon (for example, how much carbon is in an acre of forest?). They feel it will stop rich countries backsliding from their commitments.
The EU states, including Britain, want to move on from Kyoto to a new treaty based on the Bali action plan, which would keep Kyoto's essence, that is, it would be legally binding internationally, with a compliance mechanism and international rules for carbon accounting.
The USA wants nothing to do with Kyoto or its architecture. It has put forward a wholly new model for a climate deal in which countries would set out what they are going to do without being bound by international compliance regimes, or international carbon accounting. The US was never going to come back into Kyoto after President Bush withdrew from it – such a move would not be accepted by the US Congress – but it is now clear it wants nothing even vaguely resembling the protocol. The US, we may remember, has always had an aversion to subjecting itself to international law.
So what is the Copenhagen deal to consist of? Who is to give way? When the last session of negotiations before the Danish summit closed on Friday evening in Barcelona, and the last delegate had eaten his last tapas and drunk his last glass of rioja, the question remained unresolved.
There are a number of other potential deal-breakers looming for the meeting which begins on 7 December. As we indicated last week, the gap on financial help for climate change, between what the developing world wants and the rich world is prepared to give, is enormous. And President Obama's willingness to commit the US to an ambitious mid-term target for CO2 is crucial.
But if the bureaucratic part of it all, the boring old bureaucracy, cannot be resolved, the Copenhagen deal is going nowhere.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Maybe the IPCC conclusion that more CO2 means more warming is just plain wrong. Arrhenius's original research in 1896 only said that more CO2 means more warming WHEN there is more energy available to be absorbed. In the Earth's case, when the air is at equilibrium and the energy in equals the energy out, then there is no more energy available for any added CO2 to absorb in order to cause more warming. It is already ALL being transported out and there is EXCESS CO2 in the air. (See Excess CO2 Scenario at www.scribd.com) The IPCC conclusion is just plain INCORRECT SCIENCE.
What this means is that the amount of energy coming in from outsoide the Earth (ie from Gravity and planetary eccentricity, ) is what causes warming and cyclical cooling, and Mankind has no chance whatsoever of controlling planetary eccentricity or Earthly Climate Change.
Next we have the possible 6 degree calculated warming which would supposedly "make human life on Earth impossible" What idiot came to this conclusion? Try telling the people in Siberia or northern Canada that 6 degrees warmer would make life impossible. Such a conclusion is totally absurd. This is a pure campaign of LIES designed to get rich countries to give money to poor countries an so add to the greed and graft rampant in many of these countries.
Atmospheric data measurements. Yes data not results from unverified models show that between 1970 and 2006 the CO2 annual emissions due to the USA + Europe have only increaded from about 1.8 GT to 2.2 GT i.e. around one percent per annum. Yet total global annual emissions have increased from 4 GT to over 8 GT in the same period. An increase of 11 percent per annum. What is more the global rate of annual emission has gone from 7 to 8 GT per annum between 2002 and 2006 with no increase from the USA + Europe.
So, if cuts are needed, though many scientists now believe they are not, it is the developing world not the USA or EU that needs to take the lions share. But it is they who are balckmailing us to pay them to do so!
Another ridiculous statement is: "The IPCC report said that warming of the atmosphere was now unequivocal." It most certainly IS NOT. There heas been no heating since the el Nino year of 1988 in fact the atmosphere has cooled a little since 2003, so the IPCC's statement is a confounded lie. Yes the models forecast such an unequivocal increase, but it did not materialise. Furthermore, even some IPCC supporters are now saying that cooling will continue for a decade or more before, as if by magic, global warming will return by the vengence. So the Panel cannot even agree amongst themselves.
The IPCC lies as does every politician because too many vested interests and reputations are on the line. To say nothing of the billions being spent trying to uphold the myth. The Kyoto, Bali and Copenhagen conferences are about one thing, the global redistribution of wealth. I other words the Marxist idea.
If it is shown that no agreement can come out of the Copenhagen conference, will the 15,000 bureaucrats, politicians and so called scientists stay at home and reduce their enormous carbon footprint? Will Lord Sachs be converted to Catholicism? I doubt it on both counts!
CO2 does not drive climate, no matter how many Governments believe otherwise [i think the independent has overstated the numbers "ALL governments"] But the refreshing thought is that, looking at the majority of people who disbelieve this '1984' type newsreporting, we can look forward the some of these governments being replaced in the next elections!
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science… I have found examples of a Summary saying
precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”-- Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author
Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris." [THIS is the most important fact of the whole issue] -- Dr. John R. Christy, a UN IPCC lead author; Professor of Atmospheric Science
"Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life...
“.One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a nobrainer.”-- Richard Lindzen, Alfed P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT; also served on IPCC
I'm no scientist. This is a genuine question of interest.
Between 1900 and 1945, temperature rose by 0.5 degC while CO2 rises where trivial (The 'scientific concensus' agrees with this). From 1945 to 1978, as CO2 emissions rose significantly during post-war industrial growth, temperature declined. (The 'convenient' explanation is this is due to aerosols) From 1978 to 1998, temperature rose in correlation with CO2 emissions. Since 1998, as CO2 emissions have continued to rise, no temperature rise.
Thus, the ONLY period when rises in CO2 emissions and temperature corrleate is from 1978 to 1998 - The correlation period is not 100,000s years, its just 20 years!
Also, the great tree-ring proxy studies - 'showing' that temperature rise in 20th century is significant compared to previous 200 years - have a divergence problem from 1980. As temperature rises, the proxy data indicate a fall.
This is how settled the science truly is. You're quite entitled to believe from this that 'the end of the world is nigh', but I don't.
When these people realize that the people and this planet are infinitely more valuable than our economies, we will see that the cost of not fighting to prevent climate change is too great.
The lighting can be zero rated by building Buxton Geothermal Power Stations (BGTGs) which use the heat of the earth at depth by drilling ten kilometre deep holes.
The heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, which can prevent heat leaks, on the walls and ceilings of all premises.
Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use BGTG electricity.
The carbon footprints of long range transport can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed permanently with water using an ultrasonic dibber.
Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of BGTG electricity.
Mental illness costs the UK £100 billion per year, enough for the plan. The Kadir-Buxton Method can cure the ill in thirty seconds for free.
Reducing CO2 Levels Already Created
By creating as much biochar as possible we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans and store it safely in the soil. What we need is central planning, none of this will get done by the market which is obsessed by profits rather than results.