Fri May 18, 2012
Fabio Stevanato
From “Hopenhagen” to Bonn
By Fabio Stevanato, Brussels – March 2010
It has been two months since the Copenhagen Summit but the aftershock from its failure is still reverberating. “Hopenhagen,” as dubbed by a host of environmental groups, was to have been the summit that provided an international consensus for action to meet the challenges of global warming.
But it was not to be. According to Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Centre, Copenhagen was a disaster hampered largely by the Danish Presidency of the Conference and Western political leaders who hijacked the legitimate democratic process. The result – a hollow “Copenhagen Accord” which is nothing more than a three page document that was adopted by some 26 leaders mainly from developed countries in secret on the very last day of the negotiations.
This document does not envisage clear figures of emission reductions that industrialized countries would have to meet after 2012. It merely recognizes the broad scientific view that global temperature increase should be limited to two degrees and that developed countries would commit $30 billion over three years (until 2013) and then $100 billion a year beginning in 2020 to help vulnerable affected nations. On the surface this sounds like good news, however, there are many crucial questions surrounding this promise that have gone unanswered.
Because there was a lack of clear solutions to address climate change many from the least developed nations rejected the Copenhagen Accord. And, while Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (who recently resigned) believes that Copenhagen laid the foundation for a global response, the reality is much more complicated and far less optimistic.
With less than one year to the start of the Cancun COP 16 – which many believe will deliver a legally binding agreement – the international community is no closer to addressing the challenges posed by global warming. Worse, countries are playing the blame game for the summit’s failure – with the UK accusing China of being the main obstacle to defining an action plan and China accusing the US and other major world economies for the impasse.
A big part of the problem lies with American oil companies that have lobbied the US congress, concerned that any approach to global warming will significantly hinder business and impact their profits.[1] Another hindrance lies with American media permeating misinformation that suggests there’s no clear incontrovertible scientific proof that climate change exists.
While many in the US are now pressing to return to nuclear energy as a viable solution, it will come down to President Obama’s political strength to lead the country and the world on a path to a greener future.
China, currently the biggest polluter in the world, is focusing on economic growth leaving little room for environmental and human concerns. Nevertheless the Chinese government is investing a huge amount of money in green technologies and infrastructures which, they say, will deliver a 40% drop in CO2 emissions by 2020 by increasing energy efficiency in the country. Even so, it is unlikely that China will commit to a legally binding agreement since it still considers itself a “developing” country with a right to development at any cost.
Lastly, without US and Canadian support, the European Union, which is known as the major proactive actor on environmental issues was ineffective in directing strategies for major emerging economies such as China, Brazil and India. Furthermore, several states such as Poland, Italy and other Eastern European states were very reluctant to take on serious and strict commitments that would lead the negotiations during the next round of talks in Bonn (in April and June 2010). While important strides were made – the charismatic Maldives’ president, Mohamed Nasheed, underlined how the Maldives will be carbon free in ten years time – other developing countries blamed developed nations for their inability to initiate a similar carbon neutral path even though they have the financial and technological means to do so themselves.
On the other hand, other European countries – Denmark and Sweden – are undertaking concrete actions in order to reduce their emissions. In particular different communities in Denmark are living carbon free thanks to investments in renewable energies and eco-housing which provide a more eco-friendly way of living.
It’s clear that unless the wealthiest fifth of the world’s population – which accounts for nearly 80% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions – takes constructive and responsible actions these small steps will have little to no impact on global warming. The global community must learn that a high quality lifestyle needn’t rely on high carbon consumption[2]. This is the real challenge. Whether we will be able to succeed in this regard or not will define the future of the planet as well as the future for mankind .
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/16/barack-obama-climate-change-laws?&CMP=EMCENVEML699
[2] http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17077IIED&n=4&l=283&c=climate
Leave a Reply
world headlines
U.S. headlines
editorial headlines
