Christmas Cheer from Copenhagen?

The Friend's environment editor, Laurie Michaelis, looks at the progress so far at the Copenhagen climate change sumit.

Climate change is a complex, messy and huge problem. At the time of the Friend going to press, the antidote being brewed in Copenhagen seems complex, messy and inadequate. Negotiators are working on two main documents. Both are full of the square brackets used to indicate alternative possible wording and figures.  One document aims to update and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol. It would set specific emission reduction targets for industrialised countries beyond the first ‘commitment period’ of 2008-2012. But there are major problems with the Kyoto Protocol, not least that the United States is unlikely ever to ratify it.

The second document sets out a framework for ‘long term cooperative action’ under the UN climate convention. At the moment everything in that draft text is up in the air: will governments try and limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C? Will they reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by fifty per cent or ninety-five per cent by 2050? Will rich countries reduce their national emissions from 1990 levels by ‘twenty-five to forty per cent’ or ‘forty-five per cent’ in 2020?

The United States has offered only a four per cent reduction from 1990 levels in 2020. The European Union has committed twenty per cent, rising to thirty per cent in the context of similar commitments by other rich countries. But analysis released last week suggests that because of loopholes, the real commitment from industrialised countries amounts to an emission reduction in 2020 of less than four per cent. There are ambiguities in accounting for agriculture and forestry; international shipping and aviation are not included in national targets; rich countries can meet their commitments by investing in reductions in the developing world.

Most governments seem to believe steep emission cuts would harm their interests and damage their national economies. Only the states most vulnerable to sea level rise are arguing for much more urgent action. But it is increasingly clear from the climate science that such action would serve everybody’s interests.If the news from Copenhagen seems discouraging, take heart. Government negotiations will not decide our future. They are more a bellwether of a process of global awakening to the challenge we face, and to the response required of us. There are green shoots in Copenhagen – not least in the huge civic society presence both inside and outside the negotiation venue. Whatever the outcome of the talks, it is we who must act.

See A view from Copenhagen for scenes of that civic presence and watch for a Copenhagen overview from Mary Gilbert of Quaker Earthcare Witness in our 1st Jan issue.

You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.