The eyes of the world are currently focused on Copenhagen, where representatives from over 100 nations are participating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This event marks the 15th such gathering over the past several years, and the one with unquestionably the most ambitious and far-reaching objectives.
Although the conclusions and agreements are still being negotiated (much was likely completed in the “meetings before the meeting”), the Danish capital is already benefiting from the influx of the more than 15,000 delegates and 5,000 journalists for the 12-day event. Hotels, restaurants, and various modes of transportation are bursting at the seams. The local airport has been so inundated by aircraft that the majority of the visiting planes were required to fly to regional airports across the country, as well as to Sweden, to park.
Two years ago, some 192 countries signed a mandate that made the Denmark meeting the turning point in the campaign to resolve global warming. At that time, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unequivocally convinced that the globe was warming and that human activity was to blame for a vast majority of it.
Since then, numerous nations have considered emission targets. The most notable has been the US, which President Obama touts will incrementally reduce carbon levels so that by 2030 the nation’s emissions will be approximately 32% below the 1990 level. The Environmental Protection Agency is presently announcing significant plans for regulation, a move which could escalate the stakes in the upcoming congressional efforts. While this objective is laudable and reducing various emissions is important, some of the goals of current initiatives are unrealistic in light of known technologies and the practical realities of available fuel supplies and costs.
Recent revelations about possible improper behavior by some scientists and organizations has somewhat reduced the trust and confidence in the data being used to support the goals. Calls for investigations are being heard from various organizations and nations. While these allegations may or may not ultimately impact the validity of prior scientific evidence, they will affect the momentum of the policy process.
The Kyoto Protocol (which the US did not sign) instituted programs designed to prevent climate changes and global warming, but is scheduled to expire in 2012. Most major governments around the world believe there is a need to produce a new protocol intended to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases, as evidenced by the participation of about 110 heads of state in Copenhagen. A quest for something both meaningful and rationally feasible, however, may not be easy to achieve.
Apart from technology limitations, perhaps the foremost consideration is how much reducing carbon emissions will cost and who will pay for it. Poorer nations blame the industrialized countries for most of it, and therefore believe the burden of the expense should be borne by those who have profited the most. Deciding just how much “rich” nations should provide relative to their less fortunate neighbors is certainly going to be a sticky subject.
Perhaps an even more serious matter focuses on China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Ongoing discussions between US and China officials may provide some insight and information that conference delegates can use for guidance in their deliberations.
Of course, the ultimate involvement of the US in whatever decision is reached more than likely hinges on congressional action, particularly the ratification of any major agreement that might surface in 2012. Certainly, most countries will be looking at which way the wind is blowing in the US before deciding on any key policies regarding their own emissions.
Many informed observers and participants do agree that the conference will at least produce an interim statement of intent and that it will be one most nations will willingly climb aboard. One question hovering over the proceedings relates to the amount of impact the controversy brought to light by previously unknown e-mails will make on deliberations. Another question pertains to how seriously world powers will take any accord that might limit their own economic opportunities.
Clearly, some mechanisms to reduce emissions which have been proposed involve substantial economic costs. At a time when nations around the world are just beginning to emerge from severe recessions, the pressure to carefully weigh economic harms will be high. This caution, together with growing doubts as to our true understanding of the nature of climate change given the ongoing scandals over data use, will make any substantive agreement even more difficult.
Whatever the outcome regarding the alleged chicanery, we need to work toward reduced emissions. On the other hand, it is equally imperative that we recognize technological and economic realties and not see binding standards that cannot be achieved without severe disruptions in economic activity. While impressive (but currently expensive) strides have been made in renewable approaches, it remains highly likely that the world’s energy supply will be hydrocarbon-based for quite some time. To the extent the Copenhagen conference leads to fruitful and meaningful dialog within this framework, it will be a notable success. If it leads in a direction of compelling the implementation of untested and uncertain approaches to strive toward unrealistic goals, it will be a setback to a productive solution. This issue will not be resolved this time, but it is likely that the tone and framework of the next round of discussions will be established.