Representatives from 192 countries have converged on Copenhagen, Denmark, for two weeks of discussions and negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic climate change. We'll have plenty of posts on the meeting itself, the positions of various players, and the pros and cons of some of the proposals under discussion. For now, here's a quick-and-dirty backgrounder on what it's all about:
What exactly is this Copenhagen gathering?
Technically, it is the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (or UNFCCC COP 15 for those who want to sound technical and knowledgeable but don't have all day). The UNFCCC emerged from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro - frequently referred to as the Earth Summit. Under the UNFCCC, governments gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions and national policies, launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected
impacts, and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
What the convention itself does not do is establish limits for greenhouse gas emissions; it is, as its name says, a framework. However, it provides a mechanism by which parties may establish a series of protocols that do establish such limits. The first such protocol was adopted during COP 3, which was held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 - and is thus imaginatively referred to as the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol set binding limits on 37 industrialized nations and the European Community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of five percent against 1990 levels over the period 2008-2012.
If we have an agreement already, why do we need another one?
Several reasons. For one, the rationale behind using a protocol mechanism to set limits is that it can be reactive; each protocol is set to have finite commitment periods, and the first commitment period for Kyoto expires at the end of 2012. Scientific understanding of climate change has improved, and the need to limit carbon dioxide emissions is considered even more urgent than in 1997; the levels agreed to in Kyoto are widely considered altogether inadequate. Besides, Kyoto is viewed more as a first step toward stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions (although it has not succeeded in doing that); what is needed now is a truly global treaty to achieve significant cuts in emissions.
So there'll be a Copenhagen Protocol to succeed the Kyoto Protocol?
Um, actually probably not. Apart from anything else, the United States is absolutely key to any treaty, but won't sign one until the Congress adopts legislation that will likely be based on existing House and Senate bills. (Conversely, many other countries are reluctant to agree to make any cuts unless the U.S. guarantees to do likewise). Besides, there still remain a number of areas of disagreement that will likely take more than two weeks to resolve. Expectation has already been lowered by governments, who have said in advance that Copenhagen will not produce a formal, binding treaty. The most pessimistic predictions are of countries agreeing only to set their own national targets; a more optimistic scenario is that they will commit to reductions, with the details to be worked out later and a treaty signed in 2010, perhaps at the next COP, in Mexico.
What are the disagreements?
When it comes down to it, most things, beginning with whether to cut emissions or merely reduce their increase. Most of the industrialized world is in the former camp, although how much they are prepared to cut is a different matter. The European Union has agreed to cut its emissions by 20 percent against 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30 percent if international agreement is reached. The United States, in contrast, has agreed so far to a 17 percent reduction on 2005 levels, which is roughly five percent below 1990 levels. Emerging economies like China and India are opposed to having to cut their emissions at all, arguing that to do so would stunt their economic growth; instead, they have set targets for reductions in their carbon intensity - i.e. the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of economic growth. Additionally, both countries oppose any mandatory across-the-board reductions target, while the United States and others are skeptical of China's willingness and ability to meet its own targets without some form of international verification.
Then there's the matter of money. Developing nations say they simply cannot afford a transition to a less fossil fuel-dependent economy, and also that they are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; accordingly, they want financial assistance to deal with both adaptation and mitigation. The United Kingdom and France have proposed a fund of $10 billion a year, but a World Bank analysis argues that developing nations will need more like $75 to $100 billion annually from 2010 to 2050. And even if a sum is agreed, there remains the question of how it should be distributed.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has said that any climate treaty would inevitably reduce fossil fuel use and that oil-producing nations should therefore be compensated. While this idea is considered a non-starter, OPEC nations could use it as a means to gum up any discussions.
What is the position of the U.S. Administration?
President Obama supports a treaty and has proposed targets that are similar to those in the House and Senate bills: 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. The president initially planned to attend the Copenhagen meetings on December 9, the day before he goes to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but has since elected to attend on December 18, the end of the conference, along with other world leaders, instead.
comments ( )