With world hopes pinned on a glowing outcome, Copenhagen’s climate change talks are depicted in the west as an abject failure… and as a crowning success in Asia. So what’s the truth? Where to next?
Copenhagen’s climate change summit, according to western media, was an utter failure - a Munich of climate change. But BASIC bloc media trumpets it as a success. Were they all at the same conference?
Copenhagen was like a mix between a world conference, a trade show, and a university societies’ fair. But what really happened there? Amid all the mixed messages, what were the outcomes?
There are two principal outcomes: shifts in the balance of world power; and the Copenhagen Accord. A non-binding agreement, the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by Presidents Obama, da Silva and Zuma with Premiers Wen and Singh, and negotiated, sometimes robustly “with the richest, the poorest, the biggest, the smallest” nations on the evening of 18 December 2009. Announced by Obama at his 10.30pm press conference just before he flew home, the Accord was reached outside the usual UN framework but was noted by UNFCCC and is open for signature up to 31 January 2010. To quote UNFCCC:
“Three key things that Copenhagen produced are: 1) It raised climate change to the highest level of government; 2) The Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change; 3) The negotiations brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid climate action near to completion.”
In a broader context of balance of power, Copenhagen was a showdown between the developed world, unlikely to meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and emerging economies reliant on the right to pollute to maintain high rates of economic and social development. The most vulnerable and least developed were not entirely left out and a political – but not a legal – commitment was made to limit temperature increases to 2% and provide economic assistance. How effectively politicians can or will influence nature remains to be seen.
Copenhagen established once and for all that the issue is not merely climate change but global change.
For the developed world, climate talks are about mitigating and adapting to climate change at the least cost to themselves. For the developing world, the talks are about the right to survive and the right to develop to the high levels of the west. So the bottom line is that climate change talks are about economics, how the world economy is managed, and the balance of power.
Implicit in the developed world’s view was the transfer of social and economic costs of climate change mitigation to the developing world with implicit adverse social and economic consequences for future development in the developing world. Unacceptable to the developing world, the BASIC bloc gave it a resounding “No” at Copenhagen. This unexpected use of power by newly wealthy developing nations is cause for pause and reflection on the future shape of talks and the balance of world power.
Developing world governments focus on economic and social development, environmental challenges, and attaining, almost regardless of environmental cost, the high living standards of the developed world.
Copenhagen’s starkest revelation is the fact that we live in a tripolar world, divided between three groups of nations with competing agendas of how to ensure their route to survival and prosperity. Broadly divided between the developed world and the developing world, with the developing world divided between rapidly emerging BASIC bloc economies, other Asian and Latin tigers, and other developing nations of the Group of 77. To add complexity, BASIC members belong to both the Group of 77 and the G20.
For BASIC, Copenhagen was a success. BASIC preserved their right to develop without substantive international commitments on carbon emissions, though this may change. This caused outrage among some Group of 77 nations. BASIC pollution may cause adverse environmental consequences which some Group of 77 nations fear threatens their survival. As President Nasheed of the Maldives reportedly exclaimed at one point in negotiations on 18 December 2009 “Do you want to exterminate us?”. Although he later moderated his stance, his outburst reflects fear among some of the least developed nations and island countries. In this context, note that at their 24 January 2010 Delhi Meeting, BASIC Ministers said they will announce voluntary emissions cuts by the Accord’s 31 January 2010 deadline.
Some Group of 77 nations feel betrayed by both the developed world and by BASIC developing world economies. Environments and social developments are, some say, held to ransom by the developed world and BASIC. Some Group of 77 nations have weak governments, weak civil society and corruption. One result is that some developing nations’ natural resources, proxy voices at negotiations, and UN votes are vied for by the developed world and the BASIC bloc. Their peoples are among the most vulnerable to economic, social or environmental catastrophe but in some cases are likely destinations for future investment and development.
At one level, Copenhagen was a developed world’s attempt to impose environmental controls on the developing world and this met with forceful rejection. It was the first time the developing world flexed its new political might so publicly. But it is likely that one way or another, environmental controls will come into force. Their imminent occurrence gives rise to new investment opportunities. Whether new environmental measures are sufficient or too little too late remains to be seen.
The intricate dance by the developed and developing world is creating a new world economic order, one that causes shifts in the balance of power as newly rich developing countries flex their political clout and as investment opportunities, mechanisms and technologies are developed and mature to mitigate and adapt to climate and other global changes.
The world economy depends on carbon based energy which inevitably causes carbon emissions. Having outsourced much of its manufacturing to the developing world, the developed world is at a point where it can afford clean or at least cleaner energy and is in many cases reliant on less energy intensive businesses such as the financial sector or service industries for the bulk of its GDP. By contrast, the developing world is developing by means of foreign investment and relocation of developed world manufacturing which takes advantage of cheap labour, and lower environmental and emissions controls.
The collision at Copenhagen between the developed and developing world originated on 11 December 1997 at Kyoto, when the world agreed a climate treaty under which developed nations agreed to cut emissions below 1990 levels by 2012 and the developing world pledged to take voluntary actions to reduce emissions. The different treatment of the developed and developing world arose from recognition that in our carbon based economy, carbon emissions are part and parcel of development and the industrialisation process, so for developing nations to have a chance to develop they needed a limited right to pollute.
New data proves that we pollute the atmosphere and deplete the oxygen we need to breathe at faster rates than previously thought, with obvious potentially adverse consequences to the future of life on earth, and giving rise to an urgent need to change the way in which the world produces energy and does business. Hence the high hopes for Copenhagen and conflict over the extent of the developing world’s right to pollute.
Current western policies push the costs and burdens of climate change mitigation onto the developing world, that’s equivalent to telling developing nations: “You can’t develop to our level, ever.” Unsurprisingly that is not acceptable. But for the first time, developing nations have the economic clout to do something about it, like saying “No”, which is what happened at Copenhagen. Major developing nations not only have economic clout, increasingly, they have military might to back it up, changing the international status quo. The old post-Cold War paradigm is changing to a new paradigm in which voices of newly powerful developing countries must be listened to because like it or not the future of the world rests partly in their hands.
Copenhagen was as much about the world’s future economic shape as about the climate. And via the economy, such talks are about the balance of power. With new economic clout, the developing world has a seat at the table.
How did some of the west’s power slip from its hands? The answer is twofold: by economic and by politico-legal means. Economic transition occurred by relocating manufacturing from developed nations to the developing world, providing an industrial base, and the services and infrastructure required to support industry which, in turn, leads to social, economic and carbon emissions growth. This process is not unique to the 20th or 21st centuries. Japan modernised its economy using this model in the late 19th century. But in the latter 20th and early 21st centuries, many developing countries followed suit; in the case of some nations, notably China, India and Brazil, propelling them into the trillion dollar GDP league, equal to or bigger than the largest European economies. With growing GDPs and large foreign reserves comes global power.
Politico-legal means for transfer of power came via the Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, amazingly, the political leaders of the developed world signed binding legal commitments to cut their carbon emissions without similar binding commitments by the developing world and without a mechanism in place for the automatic transition of a country, or part of a country, from one level of development category to another. Though countries can voluntarily join the developed world Annex I group, as Malta did at Copenhagen. Brazil, China and India remain developing countries, though all are trillion dollar economies and each have areas as developed as those of the developed world.
At Copenhagen, debate focused on how to change the balance of commitments not to pollute. Back in 1997, China’s GDP had only recently overtaken Australia’s. Today China’s GDP is roughly three times the size of Australia’s and Australia’s GDP has more than doubled in the intervening period. Economists worth their salt could have predicted that China, India, Brazil, and other emerging economies would grow dramatically, and the consequences of growth would be increased carbon emissions. China, for example, is the world’s third largest economy; at current growth rates China will exceed Japan’s GDP in the foreseeable future. Although China is a major polluter in absolute terms, in per capita terms China’s pollution is puny compared to the developed world’s. China emits 21.5+% of world pollution. If China polluted at the per capita level of Canada, it would emit around 74% of current world emissions. How should pollution quotas be calculated? Per capita? Or by nation?
China sets its emissions cuts in units of emissions per unit of production. With China’s rapid growth this results in net emissions increases. China’s current target is to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45% by 2020 from a 2005 baseline. In a developed economy this is equivalent to standing still. With China’s likely GDP growth this could translate into a tripling of emissions by 2020, or roughly equivalent to 65% to 75% of the world’s current emissions.
BASIC nations with large national GDPs, have comparatively low per capita GDP. They have areas of modern industry, services and infrastructure, but with larger under-developed areas their patterns of development are uneven.
Developing nations’ right to pollute under Kyoto is one basis of their economic development. Others include foreign investment, relocation of developed world manufacturing, and cheap labour. It is no coincidence that from the second half of 1997 onwards China’s pollution rocketed. This happened in tandem with Kyoto on the back of transfer of manufacturing from developed nations to developing nations. One consequence is wide ranges of products manufactured in the developing world, largely on sub-contract for foreign brands for export to the developed world. Thus a good part of developing world pollution is outsourced from the developed world, so whose pollution is it anyway?
Influxes of investment and manufacturing is transforming the developing world from agriculture based economies to high-tech export oriented manufacturing economies. Large sections of Manila, Beijing, Bangalore, Cape Town, Rio, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur etc. enjoy levels of development and standards of living exceeding much of the west. But transformation comes at a cost. Nations which were food exporters are now net food importers. Developing economies’ reliance on exports exposes them to global economic downturns and sensitivity to impediments to their competitiveness like increasing labour costs, emissions controls, and other overheads.
Pollution from developing world economic activity is soaring. The USA, long the world’s largest polluter officially took second place to China in 2005. India’s pollution is fast increasing, and, along with Russia, it emits over 5% of world pollution. Current growth in pollution is unsustainable. Regardless of pollution’s impact on climate change, it impacts food supplies, water sources, affects health and impedes high quality manufacturing. Pollution is increasing. Oxygen supplies are diminishing. The world’s oxygen supply depends on forests, especially broad leaf primary tropical rain forests, which also absorb carbon emissions. Across the world, forests are felled at unsustainable rates causing declines in atmospheric oxygen input and absorption of carbon. Falling oxygen and rising pollution challenges the sustainability of current patterns of economic activity.
Mitigation solutions are available. They are referred to in the Copenhagen Accord and the recent BASIC statement. Mitigation takes two forms, on the one hand nil or low carbon emitting technical developments for power, industry, transport, construction, etc and on the other carbon offsets. Mitigation spawns technologies and mechanisms to reduce carbon footprints. Some esoteric technical clean energy systems are being developed. But renewable power generation by wind turbines, solar electric, solar thermal and hydro-electric have become main stream. ‘Clean coal’ and renewable biomass power, though controversial, are in use. Nuclear power is getting a favourable re-examination, though it is not without its own special issues. Carbon capture and sequestration projects by reforestation and by technical means attracts serious attention. Interestingly, carbon capture and sequestration by technical means reportedly costs USD80.00 per ton of carbon captured and sequestered, while carbon capture and sequestration by reforestation is said to cost USD4.00 per ton. Reforestation of primary broad leaf forests has advantages of providing watershed, oxygen, species diversification, soil retention and creation, benefits technical solutions do not offer and despite its lower cost reforestation is potentially more profitable in the long run.
Mechanisms exist for carbon trading, REDD, REDD-Plus, and other methods of turning forests into assets and encouraging reforestation. Global carbon markets are set to become significant in size and economic importance. Investment in technology, forests/reforestation, and other crucial areas are increasing trends in investment.
What are Copenhagen’s outcomes? Urgent need for action led to muttering about 20% carbon taxes on imports from high polluting economies. Other ideas include a possible world carbon organisation, hinted at by President Obama in his press conference on 18 December 2010. The Copenhagen Accord is a political, not a legal, agreement, agreed outside the UNFCCC framework, though noted by the UN, and using the UNFCCC Secretariat to administer it. Its annexe is to be signed by 31 January 2010 to record voluntary national emissions cuts. It makes 2015 a “review year” to consider whether further actions are required. After initial confusion it provides a basis for the world to move forward to effectively tackle climate and global change issues, evidenced when BASIC ministers announced they will sign the Accord and urged negotiations to continue within the UNFCCC framework prior to COP-16 in December 2010. One interesting outcome is China and India working together in BASIC. At loggerheads over Himalayan water rights, they both suffer increasing water shortages. Joint action by these two could enhance regional co-operation and reduce tensions between them.
Copenhagen saw a shift in the balance of power. The west sees its acceptance of this as a tribute to its commitment to inclusiveness and fair play. The west has the power to impose punitive tariffs on products from what it perceives as high polluting economies. This could be crippling to those economies’ continued growth. That such tariffs aren’t imposed puts the ball in the court of high emissions developing economies to demonstrate their commitment to make substantive net emissions cuts.
The challenges facing us are:
1. How do we reinvigorate the planetary environment on which life depends while ensuring continued growth; and
2. Ensuring every person has fair and equitable access to the wealth and opportunities of the world?
At one point it seemed Copenhagen got nowhere. Now it seems to provide a road map to the future. Whether this results in co-ordinated world action or individual national actions on global challenges remains to be seen. It looks increasingly likely that negotiations will result in a better, fairer world while leading to economic growth and real action on climate change. Whether this is enough also remains to be seen. The risk remains of mutually assured destruction (MAD) by pollution.
END NOTES:
1. BASIC - “Brazil South Africa India China”. Rapidly developing, industrial, high emission economies. Their commonality is maintaining their right to industrialise in the face of pressure from both the developed world and the rest of the developing world
2. Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC, Statement on Copenhagen, 20 January, 2010, http://unfccc.int/2860.php accessed 30 January 2010
3. UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also the Bonn based UN secretariat administering it.
4. UNFCCC ibid
5. Developing world – includes both rapidly developing economies and less developed economies.
6. Group of 77+ China, established by Developing Nations to counterbalance the G7 now the G20.
7. For example, manufacturing forms just 12% of UK GDP.
8. To see the impact of increased pollution and reduced oxygen on life, place a lit candle under an inverted glass.
9. REDD = Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, REDD-Plus takes account of forest communities, indigenous forest dwellers and biodiversity. United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries is active in REDD. |
