25% or 45%?
Copenhagen comes down to a numbers game
Michael McCarthy on the battle over emissions cuts that is dividing the world
Saturday 12 December 2009
They call them square brackets – the pieces of text about which negotiators have not yet agreed, and so are bracketed off. And yesterday at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, the most important square brackets in history were revealed.
They showed the upper and lower limits of the world's ambitions to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide which are causing climate change. They are vastly different, and imply enormous differences in the scale of effort involved, yet beginning today, ministers from more than 190 countries have less than a week to choose between them.
For the agreement to fight global warming which the international community hopes to sign next Friday, with 115 world leaders from Barack Obama down smiling and shaking hands on it in the Danish capital, has to have numbers in – but which ones?
Take the medium-term target for cutting CO2 emissions. Should industrialised countries like Britain cut them by at least [25-40] [in the order of 30]   per cent by 1990 levels by 2020?
Or take the long-term target for all countries to scale back CO2. Should parties collectively reduce global emissions by at least    per cent from 1990 levels by 2020? Or if it's just the rich countries by themselves and their long-term targets, should they reduce emissions by [75-85] [at least 80-95] [more than 95] per cent by the same date? Over it all we have the ultimate ambition – the proposal that the increase in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed [2 degrees C] [1.5 degrees C].
Never in history have such momentous choices for all our futures been encapsulated in a few rows of adjacent punctuation marks, which emerged yesterday when the draft text for a potential Copenhagen agreement was published.
Many observers feel that the choice between the upper and lower brackets represents the choice between acting effectively to save the world and not doing so, yet there is no guarantee that in the next six days of intensive horse-trading between ministers and officials from 192 countries, the effective route will be the one that is chosen.
For the greater the ambition to cut carbon, the greater the transformation of society that will be necessary, and the more difficult the options that the politicians have to sell to their voters at home.
With all the targets for emissions cuts, the highest proposals come from the Association of Small Island States, such as Tuvalu in the Pacific, low-lying nations which are in the front-line of climate change as they are imminently threatened by rising waters. Similarly, the target to keep the global temperature rise down, accepted as C, now has a much more radical and demanding alternative – 1.5C – and this too is a small island states proposal.
In general, the text released yesterday, two years after the process of drawing it up was launched at the UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, reflects the scale of what the world needs to do to bring global warming to a halt – at the upper end of the choices. "It's good that it's out there, but a lot remains to be done," said Antonio Hill of Oxfam.
However, even the final form the agreement will take is far from clear. The meeting in Denmark may end with not one accord, but two.
It looks increasingly likely that the present international climate agreement, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, will be continued with a new "commitment period" for the rich industrialised countries, lasting until 2018 or 2020, during which they will make fresh pledges of emissions cuts in the range of 30 to 45 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.
This might run alongside a new "Copenhagen protocol" which would do what Kyoto does not – bring in the US, and commit the developing nations such as China and India to begin carbon reductions of their own, initially in the order of 15-30 per cent away from the present "business as usual" growth rate of their economies, although that figure is, as you might guess, in square brackets.
Britain, the US and other developed nations would prefer a single new agreement which would incorporate the main elements of Kyoto. There has been fierce resistance to this from the developing world, as Kyoto is legally-binding on the rich countries and commits developing nations to nothing. The developing nations are very reluctant to give Kyoto up.
Draft texts have been released in Copenhagen for both alternatives – an extended Kyoto, and a new agreement. The latter would only be politically rather than legally binding in the first instance.
Getting any sort of agreement is not yet a done deal, Britain's Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, currently leading the British negotiating team in Copenhagen, said last night.
"This remains tough," he said. "It's tough in process terms, because you've got a hundred and something leaders all arriving on Thursday, and they need to get to an agreement by the time they leave, and it is very complicated. And it's tough in substance terms because the world is trying to do what it has never done before, which is to peak global emission. This is absolutely not a done deal. It remains in the balance. There is political will, but it is not a done deal."
'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the sun's cycle shows
The most controversial animal kills
Cecil the lion death: Here is how you can actually help lions in the wild
Margaret Atwood on climate change: 'Time is running out for our fragile, Goldilocks planet'
Have you heard 'the hum'? Mystery of Earth's low droning noise could now be solved
- 1 Free porn websites could be shut down within months, says David Cameron
- 2 Stuart Baggs dies: Apprentice star 'The Brand' found dead aged 27
- 3 Whoopi Goldberg tells Cara Delevingne to suck it up: 'She's not famous. I'M famous'
- 4 1000 people played Foo Fighters simultaneously to try and get them to play their city
- 5 Every club should be like Labour – you can’t join as a new member unless you’re already a member
Yvette Cooper: Our choice is years of Tory rule under Jeremy Corbyn – or a return to a Labour government
Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn says 'we can learn a great deal from Karl Marx'
Is Britain really full up? Are migrants taking our jobs? Leading academic answers the most common anti-immigration claims
Public anger after French sunbather beaten up by gang for wearing a bikini in Reims park
Labour leadership: New poll shows party is now even 'less electable' than under Ed Miliband
While we fixate on Calais, the Home Office is quietly deporting dozens of migrants on 'ghost flights'
£14000 - £17000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: The fastest growing travel comp...
£15500 - £17680 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A position has become available...
£60000 - £120000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This conference call startup i...
£25000 - £30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This digital and print design a...