|
December 3, 2009
The failure of the Australian political process to deliver a very mangled emission trading scheme, and the Australian's consumer's reluctance to pay more for the energy our lifestyles rely on, has shifted into the background. Despite the context of scientists behaving badly, the debate over the threat of climate change is over. What we have is the twisted disconnect between accepted “political reality” and scientific reality.
What lies in the foreground is the need to move forward with an agreement that will curb carbon pollution and move us to a clean energy future. Here we have the process of nation states once again grappling with the need to find a way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that scientists argue drive climate change, and will probably raise the Earth's temperature to higher levels within our lifetimes.
Once again there is the gulf between the enormity of the climate crisis and the
tepid political response to it.
The aim is to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. For this to happen global carbon emissions must start to fall rapidly during the next decade.If countries did not manage to reach agreement, world temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius by the end of the century, making many parts of the world uninhabitable. It is not likely that political efforts to restrict global warming to an additional 2C — the level will succeed.
Since the Kyoto protocol there has been a series of annual UN climate conferences Buenos Aires, Bonn, The Hague, Marrakech, New Delhi, Milan, Montreal, Nairobi, Bali and Poznan. Copenhagen---COP15 ---will host the highest profile, best attended, most widely publicised and closely scrutinised UN climate talks so far.
The path to a low-carbon economy is through a Copenhagen treaty, that would set new targets for overall pollution levels, and again rely on governments to meet them. The first step is a patch-up accord, or political agreement, then a treaty. The four essentials calling for an international agreement in Copenhagen are:
1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed?
These are big issues and big problems that indicate that climate change is the most complicated and complex issue the world has faced. Each nation's plausible choices will depend on what technologies will be available and when.
A lot is at stake for the global commons. The most realistic outcome is an average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints. That means damage limitation.
The BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) are prepared to walk out of the Copenhagen Conference if they are forced to agree to developed nations terms according to the Times of India.
|
On the one hand, we have the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual; on the other hand, we have the developing countries who want money through the offsets.