Copenhagen Reprise
In retrospect perhaps we should not have expected, or even hoped that Copenhagen would lead quickly to the rebuilding of society’s infrastructure and the revision of habits and practices we all need to undertake. There are simply too many competing issues and as yet no overwhelming moral consensus that we must act together. In this sense the Copenhagen process cleared the air. It initiated a process of reducing the massive challenge to bite-sized chunks.
While it is beyond doubt that the Kyoto principle that the developed countries should be the first movers in emissions reduction is perfectly logical and equitable, it has nevertheless been found unacceptable by key players, not least the United States, and has been a major impediment to action. The Economist suggests that the signing of the Accord by both developed and developing countries is a crucial step in healing this split. All signatories have agreed they are subject to international monitoring of any emissions cuts they commit to, and this is a crucial condition for the future. A first small step.
We have also to face the facts that the Kyoto Protocol simply did not work, and that Copenhagen did not deliver as promised. Clearly, the battle has been fought on confused ground and new political arrangements are needed to deal with the complexity of global warming. All indications are that immediate progress will come from smaller forums, and movement is more likely when forest conservation can be dealt with by those with forests, ‘blue’ carbon by those with mangrove, sea grass or salt marsh coasts, transport by the countries with high levels of car ownership, and so on. Integration of action globally will emerge from cumulative actions – or not at all.
Perhaps most surprising in Copenhagen was the powerful influence wielded by China in removing all specifics from the Accord except the 2 degree warming limit, including emissions targets and peaking dates – all put to the table by the United States. This was no more than an old-fashioned power play, won on the day by China, but probably insignificant in the long run. All countries suffer under global warming, and the Accord is not a treaty but a process ‘noted’ by the Conference of the Parties. The decision of the US Senate to legislate a cap and trade system will have a larger immediate effect on global emissions than anything else. The lack of compulsion in the Accord may be just what American pride finds acceptable. Clearly the ‘global emergency’ pathway is not yet preferred, however essential it may be. In this moment of pragmatism what works is what we must accept.
Ultimately though, we lack that clear vision of how life will be if and when we achieve a zero carbon economy. Growth will surely be very different, qualitative not quantitative. Money will have to represent real processes, not derivatives of any kind. Just these two recognitions reveal how far we are from accepting, let alone generating a solution. With only a decade in which to peak and turn emissions around the immense social and political challenge remains. It seems perverse that the fundamental agreement to act is still an issue at the level of nations. Our confidence must reside in the conviction that speed and right movement will emerge from commitment. We saw that commitment in the youth and ‘solutions-based’ delegations in Copenhagen. Many a life path was decided there. This work will be to envision, enact and model the options in a way that provides proof of function and provokes sufficient self-interest that society demands the necessary change.
