Business

Saturday November 28, 2009

The road to Copenhagen

WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN


TODAY’S column comes from Kahala, Honolulu along Waikiki Beach. Its lagoons house six Atlantic bottle-nose dolphins within a secluded long stretch of clean, sandy beach and tropical gardens, amidst blue skies and lots of sunshine.

With time on my hands, the setting gets me thinking about climate change. All eyes are now on Copenhagen where the forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference will soon take place.

This presents a precious chance to save the planet from rising seas and advancing deserts. So much so it has created a wave of eye-catching demonstrations, such as the globally co-ordinated protest on Oct 24 calling for carbon concentration in the atmosphere to be kept at 350 parts per million.

Inconveniently, there are already signs that sentiment in some high places in the US could well be moving in the other direction.

The dangers

Global warming gases have built-up to record levels that match scientists’ worse case scenarios.

CO2 concentrations, currently hovering at 385 parts per million, are on the way to above 390 next year.

The past million years have never seen 390! If this goes on unchecked, concentrations will hit 450 in 30 years.

This means global temperatures will rise 4.3°-11.5°F by century’s end, on top of the 1°F rise in the past century. This has dire consequences on world climate patterns to the detriment of mankind.

Such warming will cause more extreme weather events, spread drought and floods to new areas, kill off plant and animal species, and make seas rise from heat expansion and the melting of land ice.

Perspective to Copenhagen

For more than 100 years, the US has been the world’s biggest carbon emitter: producing 40% of the global total in 1990, for about 5% of the world’s population.

In 1900, Western Europe emitted 60%. The industrial nations thus carry a huge baggage for the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Admittedly, this liability was recognised in the first global warming meeting in 1992: “nations had common but differentiated responsibilities”.

This line was reflected five years later in the Kyoto Protocol – where the rich nations agreed to do the cutting, while the developing economies were allowed to continue “business as usual”.

An agreement the US unfortunately failed to ratify (bowing I think to the “big carbon” oil lobby). Since then, global CO2 emissions have grown by 25%.

In truth, “Kyoto” had no teeth. With the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th report in 2007, the underlying science is now definitive.

Still, deniers abound. Saving the environment will need unprecedented action and lots of luck.

As I see it, not even the most optimistic feel confident enough in meeting the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and then reducing them by 50% (1990 as baseline) by 2050.

·Targets vs commitments: the Bali roadmap of end-2007 had agreed that (i) those responsible for the accumulated pollution (the developed nations) would face binding targets to reduce total emissions; while (ii) developing economies made commitments (verifiable actions) to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions below a “business as usual” level.

·What we can look forward to: (a) a set of financial arrangements, including support of adaptation and mitigation for the poorest developing nations; (b) a political agreement on deforestation; and (c) practical language to effectively implement real technology (as a public good) transfer.

·Obama’s dilemma: (i) the US House of Representatives approved a yearly tightening cap on national carbon emissions to fall to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, through operating a carbon trading scheme (cap-and-trade); but (ii) the US Senate had since proposed a tighter target of 20%.

What is the President to do? To be sure, the rest of the world will not be forthcoming without a binding US target. The sooner this is made known, the better. US clarity is vital.

Threats of denial and despair

A major enemy of inaction has always been the deniers (especially President Bush since 2001), no matter how compelling the scientific evidence.

The Great Recession made the sceptics an even more powerful pressure point for inaction.

The other threat encourages despair – can’t do everything, so why do anything?

Besides, there are too many free riders who will duck out of commitments.

But I do sense all is not lost. While most are irritated by the US stance, I think it’s more about timing than substance.

Of course, the Europeans have been much more positive – they are bound to show-up US recalcitrance. They now talk of a 30% cut below 1990 level; and up to 95% cut by 2050. For Japan, it’s a 25% cut.

Copenhagen offers an opportunity to fix the problem (of cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases driving climate change) that has derailed successful co-operation so far.

In part, because of different interpretations about what is fair. The overall focus has been on CO2 emissions, and on who should cut them, by how much, and when.

The US focus has been (a) on total emissions, and (b) it regarded China and India as large co-offenders.

Whereas, the China and India focus is on the high US per capita emissions (20 tons), as against 5 for China and 2 for India, making it unfair for them to be asked to cut emissions at all.

Moreover, they are unhappy the US even thinks of trade sanctions to induce such cuts.

The recent Barcelona climate talks pointed to other sore points of contention: (i) on finance; no positive reaction so far on the new climate fund, which requires developed nations to contribute 1% of GNP (US$400bil annually); (ii) on technology transfer: setting-up of the Technology Action Fund to transfer climate-friendly technologies has not been well received; (iii) on adaptation: i.e. raising developing nations’ capacity to cope with the effects of climate change – here again, no real progress; and (iv) on shared vision and long-term goals: clear global goals by 2050, especially for developing countries, remain a big challenge.

A Copenhagen ‘political agreement’?

The early November, the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh had committed to take action “to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen”.

This was reaffirmed at the Singapore Apec Summit in mid-November.

Lately, President Obama stated that instead of a legally binding treaty, world leaders would aim instead for a “political agreement” on substantive issues.

This would set-out 4 main goals: (a) targets for developed economies to make big cuts on emissions by 2020; (b) commitments by developing nations to take measures at curbing future growth of their emissions; (c) financing from rich to poor countries to help them effectively curb their emissions and cope with climate change; and (d) outline of governance structures to monitor and deliver them.

At Copenhagen, up to 192 negotiators are expected to sign such an agreement with no legal force, but would be politically binding.

A fully articulated treaty would be ready for signing possibly by June (in Bonn) or at the next climate change summit in December 2010 in Mexico city.

“One agreement, two steps”

Apec members, which account for two-thirds of global emissions, did reach consensus in mid-November on this “one agreement, two steps” approach as laid out by the Danish PM, Lars Rasmussen.

This compromise makes practical sense in a difficult situation where the US is unable to be on time to commit specific targets (with US Senate unlikely to conclude its work before Copenhagen).

The Europeans are understandably unhappy, since they have set-out a reasonably good package for Copenhagen – promising tight restrictions on emissions.

China and Brazil, as I understand it, have since signalled greater willingness to cut emissions relative to a “business as usual” baseline, with actions that are measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Even India now looks less of an outlier.

Sure, there are real dangers to this approach. There are still too many obstacles to overcome. But, to leave Copenhagen without a global framework for tackling climate change would be morally indefensible.

At Copenhagen, we need to feel that the long-term vision and short-term politics would be mutually reinforcing and actively supportive. Otherwise, we’ll be in big trouble.

Climate change in a hungry world

Climate and food security are two-sides of the same coin. Indeed, the UN Secretary General’s recent warning that failure at Copenhagen will result in a further rise in hunger must be seriously heeded.

Moreover, it is sobering to note that over the past 18 months, food insecurity had led to political instability in more than 30 countries.

As the weather gets more extreme, today’s food crisis is a wake-up call for tomorrow.

The world has more than one billion who are under-nourished, mostly in Africa and South Asia.

The proportion of under-nourished people in the developing world has risen to almost 1 in 5 – the level of 1990.

Three other developments are strikingly noteworthy: (i) by 2050, the world needs to grow 70% more food; (ii) water is fast becoming a scarce commodity; and (iii) child malnutrition will rise 20% by 2050.

The world cannot achieve food security if climate change is not effectively tackled. This reality matters. It’s dispiriting. Surely this must be of global concern.

● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email:
starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

  • E-mail this story
  • Print this story