Minds, eyes and attention of experts, researchers, politicians and public opinion are focused on the Cop15. For months the world has been looking at Copenhagen as a new Kyoto where a new and improved protocol would have been signed. Today, it seems that no new effective agreement will be signed in the Danish capital, but the conference is still considered as a crucial step on the way toward a new global climate agreement.
One simple question and answers by experts in differnt disciplines:
What does Copenhagen mean to you and what do you pragmatically expect to come out from the Cop15?
The answer by
Warwick McKibbin, Executive Director at CAMA (Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis) – ANU College of Business and Economics
“I doubt very much will emerge from the Copenhagen Conference in terms of a firm commitment to policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The problem with the Copenhagen meeting is the same as the problem with the Kyoto Protocol. That is the focus on common emission reduction targets rather than a focus on comparable effort across countries. Comparable effort is best measured by incurring similar economic costs which is accomplished by a common global price of carbon. The best way to achieve this commonality of effort is an agreement on concentration targets together with a carbon price collar (a maximum and minimum price) within each economy generated by whatever policy approach a country prefers. Until countries move away from pre-committing annual emission targets and timetables without a balancing of economic costs and benefits, the best that a meeting like Copenhagen will deliver is an expression of grand goals but no effective reduction in actual emissions”.
The answer by
Anil Markandya, Scientific Director at BC3 – Basque Centre for Climate Change
“I would not consider the Copenhagen meeting a failure if no treaty is signed. The process of preparing the meeting was just as important and we have made progress in getting some key players engaged in a more constructive way than at Kyoto. The leading one of course is the United States, but recent statements from China also indicate that it is willing to consider some further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
My hope is that at Copenhagen we set clear steps that have to be achieved in the next two years, so that there is a plan for the post-Kyoto phase (which ends in 2012). Perhaps it will not take the form of binding targets for all parties. But other instruments are possible and could work to put us on a track to meet the 450 ppmv stabilization target. One thing is clear: we need to bring the major developing countries on board in a more substantial way than in the Kyoto Treaty, and that in my opinion will be the major stumbling block. The key issue is the allocation of emissions rights and we have to find a way to solve that. Any allocation that the big developing countries like India and China consider acceptable would entail major transfers from the developed countries to these developing countries, which would be unacceptable to the developed world. That is essence is the stumbling block”
My hope is that at Copenhagen we set clear steps that have to be achieved in the next two years, so that there is a plan for the post-Kyoto phase (which ends in 2012). Perhaps it will not take the form of binding targets for all parties. But other instruments are possible and could work to put us on a track to meet the 450 ppmv stabilization target. One thing is clear: we need to bring the major developing countries on board in a more substantial way than in the Kyoto Treaty, and that in my opinion will be the major stumbling block. The key issue is the allocation of emissions rights and we have to find a way to solve that. Any allocation that the big developing countries like India and China consider acceptable would entail major transfers from the developed countries to these developing countries, which would be unacceptable to the developed world. That is essence is the stumbling block”
The answer by
Alton Byers, Director of Research and Conservation at Mountain Institute
“Copenhagen means to me is the opportunity to start mobilizing funds and resources, to start implementing projects that are very important to climate change, to both mitigating the impacts of climate changing and helping people, specially mountain people, to adapt to climate change. I think we had years and years and billion dollars on international workshops talking about climate change, now it is the time we have to start to look for solutions and working together with local people to find solutions.
I’m not an expert in global negotiation, I’m much more fluent in surveying and studying glaciers, mountain and lakes; hopefully there will be other people at Copenhagen saying that we need to start working more with local people to make them adapt to climate change, we need to start promoting better mountains conservation because 75% of fresh water of the planet comes from mountains. So even if the glaciers melt and we protect our micro-systems we will have water in perpetuity, for ever; that’s what I mean when I say that Copenhagen is the opportunity to implement important projects: what we need is that Copenhagen will realize them and make them funded, now”.
I’m not an expert in global negotiation, I’m much more fluent in surveying and studying glaciers, mountain and lakes; hopefully there will be other people at Copenhagen saying that we need to start working more with local people to make them adapt to climate change, we need to start promoting better mountains conservation because 75% of fresh water of the planet comes from mountains. So even if the glaciers melt and we protect our micro-systems we will have water in perpetuity, for ever; that’s what I mean when I say that Copenhagen is the opportunity to implement important projects: what we need is that Copenhagen will realize them and make them funded, now”.
The answer by
Amy Wildermuth, Professor of Law at The University of Utah
“The most important thing that can happen at Copenhagen is for Americans and the world to realize that we can no longer act in small gestures when it comes to what many have now begun to call “climate disruption.” Just as the time for asking for more research and science to prove that climate change exists has come to a close, the time of trying-our-best and the not-so-binding agreements has also expired. We have a crisis on our hands and it is time for us to act like it. This means that we must think in big terms: what large-scale steps must be taken to reduce emissions and implement those steps on an accelerated timescale. As a starting point, we need to fully support and encourage the shift to alternative energies in order to replace the dirty ones, which will include rethinking energy infrastructure; we need to require more efficient cars and scrap old ones; we need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from industrial sources; and we need to rethink how we inhabit the landscape.
This kind of change does not come without a cost; it will, as most changes of this sort do, produce some discomfort. But we can no longer waste time delaying or ignoring or questioning the scale and scope of the problem. The choice, at least to me, is clear: We either decide to dramatically change our approach for the sake of our future or the planet will dramatically change, as has already begun, with frightening consequences”.
This kind of change does not come without a cost; it will, as most changes of this sort do, produce some discomfort. But we can no longer waste time delaying or ignoring or questioning the scale and scope of the problem. The choice, at least to me, is clear: We either decide to dramatically change our approach for the sake of our future or the planet will dramatically change, as has already begun, with frightening consequences”.
