Copenhagen climate change summit: The issues
-
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 November 2009 19.14 GMT
- Article history
Finding an answer to deforestation is one of the main hopes for the summit. Photograph: Dimas Ardian/Getty Images
The UN meeting is the deadline for thrashing out a successor to the Kyoto protocol, with the aim of preventing dangerous global warming. It will run for two weeks from 7 December and is the latest in a series that trace their origins to the 1992 Earth summit in Rio.
What's the bottom line?
Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.
Who should make the cuts?
That is a crunch issue. The industrialised nations such as the US, UK, Japan and others have emitted by far the most carbon and still emit vast amounts per person, so have a responsibility to make the deep cuts scientists demand. But emissions from emerging economies such as China and India are surging, and any global limit on emissions needs curbs on those nations, too. Yet, per person, those nations have small carbon footprints and millions of people in deep poverty – 400 million Indians live without electricity, for example. So China, India and others can argue they need to be allowed to continue to pollute for a while as they improve their citizens' lives. Balancing the responsibilities for cuts is a key part of the negotiations.
Who is going to pay?
The other crunch issue. There is an argument that, in the long term, a low-carbon economy will be cheaper than a fossil-fuelled one, and represents a fantastic investment. But time is short and there will be costs in the near term. All agree that the poorest nations need urgent help. Citizens in places from Haiti to Sudan to Bangladesh have done virtually nothing to pollute the atmosphere, but are bearing the worst impacts of floods and droughts. Richer nations will need to pay billions from now – some call it reparations for damage to the Earth's climate. It will also cost a lot to build the global clean energy infrastructure essential to staunch the carbon from coal and gas power stations, responsible for a large part of global emissions. For the fast emerging economies, such as India, the ideal is to skip the high-carbon growth phase entirely and go straight to renewables and perhaps nuclear power. Again, rich nations will be expected to pick up the tab. for this -– iIf they don't, there is little incentive to stop building coal-fired plants. Gordon Brown and the EU have suggested $100bn a year from 2020 would cover the global climate change bill. But estimates from development groups reach up to four times that amount. Finding a figure that all nations accept is the second key part of the negotiations.
What about carbon trading?
In theory, buying permits to pollute from those who can cut their emissions most cheaply is attractive – maximum bang per buck and a flow of cash to pay for investments. However, from one perspective, this kind of offsetting simply looks like paying poorer people to clear up the mess left by the rich, who can then continue to pollute. Also, if carbon trading is to cut real emissions, the cap set on the market has to be tight and, to date, political imperatives have overridden those of the planet. Nonetheless, carbon trading will remain at the heart of any treaty sealed in Copenhagen, as it was in the Kyoto treaty.
Is stopping deforestation an easier way to cut emission?
About 40% of all the carbon emitted by human activity has come from razing forests. Stopping deforestation is, in principle, cheap and simple: do not cut them down. But paying people – via carbon credits – not to fell trees soon becomes complex. Who really owns the trees? Were they going to be chopped down anyway? And how do you verify what actually happens? Finding a solution to these issues is one of the strongest hopes for the Copenhagen summit.
What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?
Negotiations held in September in Barcelona were grim: all now acknowledge that no legal deal is possible in Copenhagen. A miracle is needed for a triumph. President Barack Obama is the one who could deliver it, but it is very unlikely. Most likely is a hopeful fudge in which all parties remain on speaking terms and seal the deal in 2010. A total collapse would leave 20 years' of negotiations in tatters and the world unprotected against the ravages of global warming. It is also unlikely, but not as unlikely as a miracle.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit
annotated:
PRECIS:
Copenhagen climate change summit: The issues
The article published by the Guardian Press discusses some of the most interesting questions concerning the Copenhagen conference. The Copenhagen climate change summit is a closing date for beating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, to keep away dangerous global warming from expanding. The conference started December 7th which will continue for two weeks, which originated in 1992 Earth summit in the Rio. The main goals of the conference are stop the growth of green gas emissions, with a large goal of 25-40% which is similar to the 1990 percentages, and an 80-95% cut by 2050. The article uses statistical goals to make it harder to understand for readers that are not familiar with the number of CO2 production. One question that is discussed in the conference is which country will need to cut off the production. The major countries that have been polluting in the previous years are the US, the UK, and Japan. Although China and India have been putting in large amount of CO2, they defend themselves by the argument that around 400million Indians are living in poverty. Concerning the costs being have to paid, India and China argue that, the large number of people living in poor conditions need to raise their health and wealth in order for the country to come to the wealthy status as other countries. In order to get to this point however, the carbon dioxide emission will not be reduced for the next several years to decades. The EU and Gorden Brown, have suggested that 100billion dollars a year would cover the global warming costs. An attractive negotiation is trading carbon bonds, which looks like paying the poorer countries to clear up the muddle made by the richer ones. Cutting deforestation can cut down up to 40% carbon emission, however controlling this process would turn up many difficulties with controlling this. The article ends with the likeliness of a miracle being unlikely, making it an unlikely likely miracle. This confuses the reader towards the end, and proofs that the Guardian Press does not think there will be a happy ending and answer to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment