By any standards, and despite the protestations of western politicians, the climate change summit in Copenhagen failed those most in need of solemn commitments to reduce emissions- developing nations. The Danish text, a pre-organised accord between the wealthiest participants, left developing nations seemingly voiceless before proceedings even began. The Bolivian delegation described negotiations as ‘anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable.’
These allegations are, at least in part, ratified by the outcome. At the close, the deal was brokered between the wealthy and powerful- India, South Africa, the U.S., Brazil and China. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord is non-binding and not only fails to hold the world temperature rise at 1.5C but also omits the original aim to cut world emissions by 80% by 2050. These original aims are not arbitrary numbers-they are widely agreed to be the minimum required to avoid climate disaster for developing nations and the world. Funding for developing nations to adapt to climate change was set at $100 billion per year by 2020. However, as both the source and legal status of this funding are vague, a little scepticism about it actually materialising is justified.
Lumumba Di-Aping chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries described the accord thus:
"[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It's a solution based on values that funneled six million people in Europe into furnaces."
To describe the G77 group as dissatisfied would not, it seems, cut the mustard.
The blame game which has been so prevalent in the western media is a futile one. However, a comment from Barak Obama is particularly striking. On the failure to reach a wider agreement he said that to wait for a binding accord would have resulted in no progress being made at all. Such a statement of resignation from the “Yes we can!” President of the United States is deeply troubling and is evidence of a lack of resolve and commitment from the most powerful nation in the world. If the U.S. is unable, or unwilling, to act how are third world nations to make progress?
Dan Smith, secretary general of International Alert, has formulated a strategy to push the multi-lateral climate change agreement forward. He asserts that a major problem with the current style of climate discussions is that those states who choose to hold out in order to obtain more nationally favorable agreements are allowed to win by default. To combat this attitude among the most developed nations, there must be a change in the tone of discussions from factional adversary to problem solving and from self-sacrifice to the idea that climate change accords can be mutually beneficial. He suggests that those nations who have shown promise at past climate change talks such as South Korea, Japan, Mexico and Australia, should agree to a solution based around creating a strong green economy and then sell it to the hold-outs- China, India and the U.S. Progress by bypassing those who block it.
There is also a lot to be said to grass roots projects and individual action in the wake of international failure. Improved cook stove projects, now widespread in India and Africa, seek to protect both the environment from deforestation and in turn the livelihoods of people who use them. Grassroots groups working in the Amazon aim to protect the forest by demonstrating the economic benefits of leaving the environment intact. In the UK too, the benefits of having an energy efficient home and creating less food waste have been widely publicized.
However, in these straitened times ideas such as these appear to me as drops in the ocean, like trying to put out a fire one ice cube at a time. I must admit to a personal sense of cynicism and demoralization. Without international accord, we can only delay the inevitable. Suggestions on a postcard please.
Any legally binding global accord would limit the Majority World's scope for development. They can have a jungle-friendly stove, but sorry chums, you can't have cars and mobile phones. There's not enough energy. You're going to over-heat the planet. This whole business strikes me as a complete nonsense; we should be celebrating failure at Copenhagen.
ReplyDeleteThe weather has always changed. Man walked to Australia once upon a time. We know it's going to change by two degrees over time: it's inevitable. The world's attention should be focused not on trying to 'avert' this change (aka King Canute), but on getting ready for it. Building flood defences, strengthening tidal barriers. Migrating people from low-level areas.
On top of this, our resources should be focused on renewable fuels. We should definitely replace oil (oil is a retarded way of getting energy) with the sun, the wind, the sea - free energy. This world can sustain 9bn people; it could sustain 30bn, all living the standard of living I enjoy (a high one).
Copenhagen was an attempt by the West to say to the Majority World - 'No. Fraid not chaps, no fridges, no televisions, no phones for you. Nothing that reasonable members of society demand as their rights. Have a jungle stove instead.' It was a complete joke. Until we can provide an alternative to fossil fuels (which is just round the corner) it is monstrously corrupt to say to the global poor, stop developing, because it's getting too hot.
Human development should never go backwards. Evolution is a forward-facing process. I'd rather not go back to being a monkey, so I'm looking for ways to adapt and survive. If we enforce cuts on human development we're taking a razor to the wrist of humanity.
Also, two years ago we wouldn't have called Brazil or India wealthy and powerful. Brazil is one of the greenest countries on earth, and its president one of the most progressive, enlightened politicians there is. Their model of ethanol production is an inspiration to the world.
So failure at Copenhagen is not the end of the world. We need to focus on developing the Majority World, and on helping them adapt to inevitable climate change. But we should really stop wasting time, money, brain power, gatherings of global leaders, and other resources on trying to change the weather. It's massively self-indulgent, when the reality is that there are people out there with no shoes, no schools, no food and failing monsoons. We need to start working out how we're going to adapt. We've missed all the deadlines. The weather's changing. Let's stop talking about 'cuts' until there's a viable alternative.
And let's all work towards making that alternative a reality. Bring on fusion!
Whaddya think Vickers?