Blog

Bali's Expectations – Copenhagen's Failure – Cancun's Collapse

Climate change talks in Bali in (December 2007) produced the “Bali Roadmap’. It was a vague document short on substance. It represented a set of compromises seeking to obtain a US (under the Bush administration) commitment to the negotiation process at any cost.

The ‘Bali Roadmap’ sets out a framework covering a two-year negotiation process. The aim was to replace the Kyoto targets at Copenhagen in 2009 with new targets. Because the Kyoto targets were voluntary and non-binding, they lacked substance. At Bali, the EU suggested reductions of 25-40% by 2020. The US, Canada and Japan opposed them. The developing nations tried to find loopholes to not commit to these reductions.

Without substantial investment commitments from participating governments (or clear policy commitments to affect corporate investments) talk of renewable energy amounted to hyperbole. So Bali laid the framework for an "adaptation fund" set up along with a ‘strategic program’. Both focused on top-down market-led solutions favouring business Interests. Unsurprisingly, both were to be run by the World Bank.

The World Bank was supposed to finance renewable energy in principle. However, a large part of this investment went into hydropower with negative socio-economic effects. Additionally, large amounts of money were invested into the fossil fuel industry. According to the World Wildlife Federation, since 1997, the World Bank has financed more than 26 giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions – around 45 times the current annual carbon dioxide emissions of the UK.

Overly optimistic expectations held that a binding treaty could be signed with 191 nations of the world at Copenhagen. Only 73 countries signed the non-binding Copenhagen accord. US, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the EU brokered the text. Targets called for no higher than 2 degree rise (approximately pre-industrial levels) but presented no logical proposals as how to achieve this. Moreover these targets are only voluntary. Critics suggest that the current measures would witness a rise of at least 4 degrees. The most vulnerable countries (Africa and SIS) completely lost out as their suggestion of a cap at 1.5 degrees was dropped altogether.

The US proposed available funding from developed nations if CO2 mitigation efforts from developing countries are evident. Copenhagen ended with commitments to establish a $30 billion fund from developed countries by 2012 for mitigation. Some observers have speculated the funding may be used as a bargaining chip as the US and other developed countries set prerequisites such as measuring, recording and verifying emission reduction projects. Sceptics point out that much of the funding was previously committed as development aid and is now merely being repackaged as ‘green aid’. Irregardless, the fund developed at the Copenhagen accord quickly fell into dispute as negotiators couldn’t decide how to allocate the start-up fund.

Squabbling between the US and China negotiating teams came to dominate proceedings at Copenhagen. The US wanted China and other developing countries to commit to mandatory, rather than voluntary emission targets as prerequisite to making commitments of its own. China accused the US and other rich countries of failing to make cuts that match their historical contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. China said financial support provided by developed countries to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation should be seen as payback for historical pollution. China considers itself a developing country even though it is the second largest economy in the world and the planet's single biggest polluter of carbon emissions. China argues that its per capita CO2 output is lower than the US and that its current emission trajectories should continue as part of its right to industrial development.

It is certain that these entrenched positions will dominate climate change talks in Cancun later this month. Sadly, Cancun may become a theatre for hashing out US-China differences on unrelated issues that could emotionalize proceedings. Ironically, at outset, the Obama administration had hoped for US-China talks on climate change cooperation to lead over other areas where dialogue had stagnated. assuming this to be one issue in the basket of problems that China might not deem too sensitive to talk about. Given the current atmosphere of deteriorating US-China dialogue on a host of issues, it is predictable that differing US-China positions on climate change may become intractable, rendering talks useless to everyone. Certainly, the two nations that pollute the most must lead on this issue for any progress to occur. Neither show the leadership necessary. Climate change talks have become a charade for the two biggest CO2 emitters to do nothing while pretending to engage in talks to do something. An entirely new framework is necessary that will focus on reduction of absolute emissions and not only on funding.