Around the world, governments, journalists, scientists, NGOs, business, academics, people who are interested in the future of the planet, are analysing what has just happened in Copenhagen. But some of the headline outcomes are already clear.
The governments of the world could and should have done better. There was an ambitious and effective deal to be done. We should have agreed how much more carbon we could afford to release into the atmosphere and how we were going to keep our carbon output within that limit. We should have set ourselves up for a legal agreement on these points. With sufficient will, we could have done it. But some countries were not yet ready. In the end they were a break on the ambition of those that were. We will all live with the consequences of that.
Copenhagen was nevertheless a big step in the right direction.
The basis of discussion at Copenhagen was the robust consensus among scientists. Governments accepted that the world was getting warmer, that people were causing the world to get warmer and that we needed to act quickly if we were to slow down and stop this trend. They acknowledged that allowing temperatures to keep rising would have catastrophic consequences. They acknowledged that a two-degree temperature rise was as much as we could tolerate and that even this carried major risks to our future well-being.
Leaders at Copenhagen agreed that all countries needed to take action on climate change and needed to show each other what they were doing.
Big financial packages were agreed to support action, particularly in developing countries, to limit climate change: as much as $100 billion each year by 2020.
And Britain and Australia worked closely together, as we have throughout the climate negotiations and as we do in so many other areas.
The overall effectiveness of Copenhagen will depend on what happens next. We need all countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord. We need to keep the momentum towards an ambitious and legally binding treaty. We need to establish a framework for financing. Most important, though, is that the major players put national mitigation targets on the table and that these go far enough to stop global warming. We do not have the luxury of time. We need big carbon reductions and we need them quickly. We are working hard within the European Union for a high EU target. We are hoping others, including Australia, will match that effort.
Instead of giving aid handouts to poor countries (to compensate for having come up with the means for them to develop), I wonder how much more bang for our buck we would get if all the the OECD countries put their domestic power reforms on hold, and instead paid for the conversion of most of China’s and India’s power stations to greenhouse friendly ones (i.e. a combination of sustainable, nuclear, and efficient conventional power stations).
Sounds crazy I know. But the cost of labour and materials, as well as transport emissions, is lowest in China and probably India too (I ‘m not sure about India). You can build, what, five power stations in China for the price of one in North America? You can build working prototypes or beta models of innovative solar collectors, and if they don’t work as well as planned, the price is not so devastating, build a better one next door.
After 20 years of setting up China and India with sustainable power infrastructure, first of all half the necessary cuts in emissions would be achieved. The technologies would then be mature, all the beta testing done, making it that much cheaper for OECD countries to convert their own power infrastructures.
Oh and I forgot to say, Western countries would not just provide the cash for it, but do the actual tendering and designing and testing, and the companies winning the tenders would own the designs and the power stations and be able to charge commercial rates for the power.
JamesMc – what a good suggestion, concise, lateral, logical and effective. Well done, gold star & a koala/panda stamp.
Lateral thinking maybe but what’s wrong with OECD countries developing these “greenhouse friendly” power stations and converting the OECD’s dirty systems right now? Keep in mind that China and India (and the rest) are still going to build dozens of brand new coal-fired power stations over the next fifty years. If there really is an “efficient” ‘clean coal’ power station we should be able to make one in Australia (say, in the Latrobe Valley) – we don’t need to build it in China. China and India already know how to build nuclear. So really, why should OECD countries find nonsensical reasons to put their domestic power reforms “on hold”? We have the money, we have the opportunity, we have the desire (don’t we?), all we need is the motivation. Let’s get on with the innovation and development and when we have a stunning greenhouse friendly result we can share it with the world.
Hugh, “all we need is the motivation” – that’s where being cost effective helps. You and I may vote but that doesn’t make us the ones controlling the purse strings.