Gloomy outlook for Copenhagen
On 7–18 December 2009, thousands of people will converge on Denmark for the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the meeting in Copenhagen, representatives from 192 countries face a deadline to reach agreement on a global treaty to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The 2009 deadline was set two years ago at the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bali, Indonesia. The Bali Action Plan, which emerged from that conference, initiated a two-year process of negotiations for a ‘long-term global goal for emission reductions’. As Copenhagen draws nearer, diplomats and negotiators are struggling to find a consensus on addressing the threats posed by climate change.
From Bonn to L’Aquila
The new treaty is being negotiated throughout 2009 at five meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, which includes all 192 parties to the UNFCCC. Bonn, home of its secretariat, hosted the first two negotiating sessions, in April and June. The three remaining sessions are scheduled to be held in Bonn in August, Bangkok in October and Barcelona in November. At the June meeting, the chair of the negotiations, Michael Zammit Cutajar of Malta, submitted a draft text that has become the basis for negotiations. However, there are still many disagreements in each of the four chapters.
The structure of the UNFCCC itself makes agreement very difficult. Since its inception, it has been divided in two: the 41 developed countries (termed Annex I parties, see graph), and the developing world. Under a clause of the original treaty creating the UNFCCC, the parties have ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. In practice, this means that Annex I parties are responsible for meeting mandatory emissions limits, while developing countries are not subject to any such limits. The framework is clear that developing countries will act only after those with ‘historical responsibility’ act. However, economic development since the framework was signed in 1992 has changed the picture considerably.
China, for instance, surpassed the United States as the largest total emitter of greenhouse gases this year, yet is not subject to any commitments. Gulf states like Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have far higher greenhouse-gas emissions per capita than any Annex I nation. Due to a designation from almost two decades ago, these countries, as well as Singapore, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are incongruously included in the same category as Mali, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. The 1992 division of countries into those deemed to be ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ has made negotiating an equitable and effective treaty very problematic.
The UNFCCC negotiations are important in closing the current gaps in the discussion text. However, some subjects are too big and difficult for them to address effectively. The main issues – how much to cut emissions, when to require emissions reductions and who will pay for reductions – will not be solved by negotiators in Bonn. These issues will require consultations, discussions and ultimate agreement by heads of government. For that reason, major countries, led by the United States, have embarked on a series of informal, high-level multilateral and bilateral meetings, discussions and forums.
The most recent such discussions took place at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, on 8–10 July. There were two meetings with climate-change policy as a central topic: that of the G8 itself, and of the broader Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF). The MEF was an initiative of the Barack Obama administration (modelled on a George W. Bush administration proposal) to bring together leaders of the world’s 17 largest economies, accounting for approximately 80% of the world’s total emissions. Since the MEF included the largest economies from the developing world, a firm statement from both the G8 and MEF that presented a clear global consensus on the form and vision of a treaty would have made a deal in Copenhagen almost inevitable.
In the event, however, the meetings in L’Aquila disappointed those pushing for a global climate deal. The G8 statement called for an ambitious global reduction of 50% in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, including a cut of 80% by developed countries. However, the leaders were unable to agree on mid-term targets for reductions by 2020. At the MEF meeting, a draft statement proposed by Mexico and the United States, which described the G8 target of a 50% reduction by 2050 as ‘an aspirational goal’, was rejected by India and China as moving too close to a cap on emissions. Instead, the MEF’s statement called only for negotiating a treaty with a goal of ‘substantially reducing global emissions by 2050’ and a non-binding commitment that ‘the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C’ without stating how to achieve these goals.
The two differing statements illustrated the problems that could undermine the prospects for an agreement in Copenhagen. Large, developed countries made bold long-term promises about reducing emissions, but would not commit to short-term sacrifices. The lack of short-term plans allowed developing countries, especially China and India, to say that, under the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, they would not act until the developed world acts.
Entrenched positions
An agreement without China and India – not only the world’s two most populous nations, but respectively the first- and fifth-largest emitters of greenhouse gases – would be futile. Each has been moving to address climate change domestically by investing in low-carbon and renewable-energy technologies. China, which is quickly becoming a global leader in renewable-energy industries, this year passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy, and has announced plans for six new large wind farms, with a capacity of between 10 and 20 gigawatts each. India, though further behind, is also seeking to become a leader in renewable energy: the government plans to invest heavily in solar power, with a goal of installing 20 gigawatts of solar-generation capacity by 2020 – about 14% of the country’s current total generation capacity.
