Amidst the disappointment of December's summit in Copenhagen, the glass-half-full types held out hope that the meeting at least paved the ground on which the summit nations could build a treaty in 2010. Unfortunately, we're seeing some early signs from heavy hitters that 2010 may be another lean year.
First off, China. The Chinese have been sending ambivalent signals on their agreeableness on the issue of fighting climate change. Though the nation has been staunchly against mandatory emission cutsand is the worlds’ biggest producer of greenhouse gases, China has also been a leader in implementing renewable technology, building things like solar power systems and wind turbines, clean coal, and reducing smog around major cities. And, as far as per capita emissions go, China is doing far better than developed nations.
All that being said, Reuters reports that China’s Special Representative for Climate Change Negotiations announced recently that he doesn’t see the major players in the climate change debate changing their positions anytime soon, making it more difficult to reach a treaty. Here's Yu Qingtai quote:
“ "There may be some adjustments and shifts in the positions and tactics of the various sides, but I personally believe that on some core issues, the positions of the major parties will not undergo any substantive changes. … We can expect that in the coming year, there'll still be a mix of consensus and conflict, of cooperation and struggle, on the stage of climate diplomacy. The progress of the international negotiations faces very many difficulties." ”
Basically, Representative Yu is digging into the trench from which China can claim, as a developing nation, that the burden of fighting climate change should be disproportionally (and I use that word neutrally) given to the developed nations that have been emitting greenhouse gases for over a century. Yu believes that wealthy nations will stand firm in their belief that developing nations are obstructing the ability to create a binding agreement, which Yu calls "shifting blame." He predicts that rich countries “will continue pressuring the developing countries to shoulder unreasonable responsibilities."
There is a vast chasm between these two views, and Yu was not optimistic about a bridge emerging anytime soon. Poor countries will continue to push against mandatory and level cuts, rich ones will insist that developing nations curb their emissions quickly, and neither will be willing to sacrifice an economic slip. Because of this, Representative Yu told Rueters, “China and other developing countries would defend their right to grow their economies without taking on internationally binding emissions targets.” Given that both sides have some merit, it’ll be very difficult to find a way to bridge the gap that will allow for a treaty, if neither side will budge.
Oh, and that other heavy hitter that’s not so optimistic about a treaty? The United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, Yvo de Boer. On Tuesday, Secretary de Boer conceded that coming to a binding agreement in 2010 would be “very difficult.” Adding to the mix, de Boer announced recently that he will end his term on July 1 to go into the private sector. If any treaty is going to be reached, it will most likely—I’d say almost definitely—go through the UN, and if there’s no leader, or even if there’s a transition, that could simply make the process slower.
It seems like 2010 may not be the year, then, that we see a global agreement on climate change, which means that we’re going to have to spend an additional $500 billion to fight climate change down the line. Obviously, and some might say rightly, developing nations are concerned about the financial impacts of the here and now. It’s hard to say to them, “Hey, if you don’t do this, you’re really going to feel it in a few decades.” It's almost equally difficult to convince developed nations in this economic debacle that political (and monetary) capital ought to be spent on global warming.
Still, there’s something to be said about looking down the road and realizing that posturing and taking sides means that everyone is going to end up ultimately in the same place: climate change doesn’t really care about state economics.
Comments
1