Global climate negotiations face multiple challenges. As regards the LCDS/MOU six challenges stand out above all others. Indeed they constitute such serious separations, cleavages, and conflicts in the process of negotiations that they might well be classed as ‘basic contradictions.’ At every stage of the negotiations one or more of these contradictions erupt, undermining and disrupting the process, which is why I believe the Copenhagen summit ultimately failed.
Rich v poor countries
The first of these contradictions is the rich countries versus poor countries divide in the negotiations. This is based on several intractable considerations. To begin with poor countries as a rule, especially the LDCs and SIDS, contribute trivial quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2, to the atmosphere. Yet problems of climate change and global warming (for example, sea level rise, desertification, and other catastrophic events) disproportionately pose the greatest dangers to poor nations. At the same time, these countries lack the resources/institutional/scientific and technological capacity to devise on their own, efficient low-carbon development paths and appropriate adaptation and mitigation actions.
Affecting this situation is the further consideration that the grouping of poor countries has become much differentiated since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps, the main differentiation has been the rise of what are now termed as the ‘large emerging economies’ such as Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. These large emerging economies are at present among the largest current polluters of the atmosphere. Readers would recall that I had hinted at the obsolete nature of the traditional distinction in the Kyoto Protocol between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. There the former is confined to the rich industrialized countries and the former socialist bloc. And, the latter refers to all other nations, including the major current polluters in the emerging economies mentioned above, as well as poor developing countries.
Historic v current polluters
The second basic contradiction is based on the divide between historic and current polluters. This distinction raises fundamental issues of fairness, justice, and burden-sharing in addressing the global climate problem. As I have pointed out before in this series, the problem of greenhouse gases is one of both stock and flow. The overwhelming source of the threat to the world’s climate comes from the historically accumulated stock of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. While current flows are very critical they do not constitute the fundamental source of the problem.
Importantly, while burden-sharing remains a key consideration, the current major polluters are equally concerned that nothing is done to impede their rapid economic growth. They have strictly resisted what they see as “the risk of rich countries efforts to impose targets and standards on all countries, only after they have already mercilessly polluted Planet Earth for the benefit of their own peoples.” This has led to stout resistance on their part, to globally imposed monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of individual countries’ commitments and pledges to attain targets of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As readers are aware, this was a central point of difference between the United States and China at the Copenhagen summit.
Technology and cost
The third basic contradiction is that all participants in the negotiation process have tended to downplay the tremendous technological challenges and huge up-front economic costs involved in a worldwide shift to a low carbon development path. To my mind it is unquestionably true that at present and for the foreseeable future, overall carbon-based energy is technologically the cheapest source of energy available. This holds true for both rich and poor countries. Switching to a low carbon development path involves humongous economic costs and financial outlays at the outset.
While it might be conceded that it is possible for some rich countries to summon up the political will to undertake this switch, I believe as a rule that if all rich countries do not agree to act together simultaneously, none of them will follow through on unilateral pledges. The poor countries are so locked in to a carbon energy-dependent path as the fastest, cheapest and most technically feasible path for their continued economic growth, and the domestic pressures of poverty they face are so intense, that I cannot foresee a switch on their part, except as we shall see, in circumstances like the LCDS, where rich countries pay them to offset their own continued greenhouse gas emissions. As we shall see next week this raises a range of issues, including ethical ones. For the time being we consider issues of cost as they recur in two further basic contradictions.
US climate change pessismism
Fourth, the current global economic environment works against efforts to deal with the global climate problem. While there are some early signs of recovery from the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, all global economies still remain vulnerable. Government stimulus packages, although essential to avert economic disaster are now coming under intense criticism from opposition parties in almost all the rich nations even as employment growth has not kept pace with the early signs of recovery. In this atmosphere, governments taking a lead on climate change challenges have become less likely. Indeed in the United States, which remains key to a replacement agreement for the Kyoto Protocol President Obama will open a deluge of further criticism if this matter comes up for governmental action any time soon.
The fifth contradiction is that while globally it may be fair to claim that overwhelmingly the anthropogenic threat of climate change and global warming is considered as urgent and real, in the USA there is deep scepticism. There are very strong populist political challenges to claims of global warming and that this has been due to man-made causes. To the extent that this position continues to hold, no US President will be able to take a lead within the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change. Proof of this is seen in President Osama’s State of the Union address where he posed climate issues solely in terms of US competitiveness in an increasingly green global environment. Absolutely no reference was made to the scientific basis of the global climate crisis.
