China's Copenhagen hardball exposes carbon target flaws

The Copenhagen climate summit ended in spectacular confusion, pleasing no particular group and leaving everyone wondering whether the two-week talkfest held in one of the world’s coldest locations was worth the trouble or expense.

The only outcome, due mainly to save face for an 11th hour intervention by US President Barrack Obama, was a nonbinding agreement – described as an accord – that leaves individual countries the choice of whether they will sign up to any greenhouse gas reductions.

The accord was thrashed out by President Obama along with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa – countries that represent the broad group with the largest carbon emissions and ones that also have a priority commitment to lifting their living standards.

Economic and population growth are closely tied with carbon emissions, which binds most politicians to democratically acceptable outcomes rather than unrealistic and costly measures demanded by scientists.

Supported by a range of radical non-government organisations, they have demanded severe cuts in living standards to meet carbon emission reduction targets that were the basis of the Kyoto Protocol.

But that framework has been rejected because the targets are physically impossible with today’s technology and the protocol did not involve all countries – which made a nonsense of reducing Earth’s overall production of greenhouse gases.

The aim of the Copenhagen summit was to bring all countries into a global agreement and this has been achieved with the accord setting a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times – but no agreement on how to achieve it.

(Even the head of the climate change research institute at Victoria University, Prof Martin Manning, admits in his summit summary to the Science Media Centre that this target “is beyond what we know how to achieve.” His comments are in the centre’s roundup of scientific experts’ reaction.)

Money-go-round

The there’s the money-go-round; the main reason why most of the 192 countries turned up, hoping for a handout. These developing nations are the source of most future carbon emissions and will benefit from a $US100 billion a year fund – mainly paid for by the US – to address their needs by 2020.

The accord calls on developed nations, including New Zealand, to provide $US30 billion from 2010 to 2012, which by the standards of UN diplomacy is virtually tomorrow, with the money going to the "most vulnerable" developing nations.

The history of such funds – going back to the Berlin Declaration of 2001 – is that they don’t happen.

What is certain is that the whole business will involve more summits, the next being set for Mexico in November 2010. At least the weather will be better than Denmark in winter.

The latest summit rejected demands for a 1.5-degree cap, legally binding clauses, specific mid-term emission cut targets as well as a peak time for global carbon emissions, all of which were strongly advocated. No wonder groups such as Greenpeace and New Zealand Greens are so upset.

Former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who was among the large Kiwi contingent, says it is a “disgrace” that New Zealand was the first country in a “group of outlaws to accept the travesty and walk away from the post Kyoto UN process.”

The main culprit, of course, was not the US but China, which doesn’t like playing the international politics game unless it can gain a direct benefit. It is also true much of the world’s carbon-emitting production of goods has moved to China and will continue to do so, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Indirect benefits

President Obama thought he was going to do a deal with just China, but he didn’t count on the Chinese bringing in its allies, Brazil, India and South Africa, to avoid being a deal-maker. Nor did President Obama gain any comfort that enticing the developing nations into the post-Kyoto tent will make them any more amenable.

"Developed countries must take the lead in making deep quantified emission cuts and provide financial and technological support to developing countries," Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said.

As a country that is developed but not heavily industrialised – most of our greenhouse gases come from agriculture – New Zealand will indirectly benefit from China’s hardline approach that favours food producers, though still paying a heavy price for having advanced economy.

The scientists and the Greens will fume and the Chinese may appear duplicitous. But for the rest of us, it will be business as usual until the next conference comes round.