In the introduction to the chapter, we discussed the Copenhagen Climate Summit, held in December 2009, which was intended to establish new guidelines for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The summit did not achieve that goal, unfortunately, and this article discusses possible next steps.

The [Copenhagen Accord] agreement cobbled together by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa is merely an expression of aims. It recognises the scientific case for keeping the rise in global temperatures to 2°C. It calls on developed countries to provide $100 [billion] a year in support of poor nations’ efforts by 2020, but without saying who pays what to whom. It appears to commit none of the signatories to anything.

… Climate change requires global cooperation, to be sure, because the global stock of greenhouse gases is the driver. Collective action is essential. The free-rider problem is obvious and has to be addressed. But the maximalist approach to this, a global treaty with binding caps on emissions, is going to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Even if the will were there, enforcing the caps would be a problem, as the Kyoto Protocol amply attests. If the maximalist model can be revived in time for next December’s [2010] scheduled conference in Mexico, well and good: the key thing, though, is that progress should not be held hostage to it. The need is for greater pragmatism and flexibility.

The US and China can take the lead. In Copenhagen, friction between the two was evident, with the US calling for independent verification of emissions reductions, and China resisting infringements of its sovereignty. In fact the two countries are not so far apart: the US Congress is as jealous of national sovereignty, and as wary of international obligations, as China. Both countries should lead by example, with unilateral low-cost carbon abatement policies already announced or under consideration: cap and trade in the US, measures to reduce carbon intensity in China. The international framework need not insist on lock-step agreement. Above all, it should not obstruct policies that push the right way… .

Generous aid to developing countries for greenhouse gas abatement is warranted, but should be negotiated separately. Again, the need is to unpack the problem into manageable pieces. Copenhagen has shown the limits to the current approach. Reviving international co-operation is of paramount importance. This can best be done by asking less of it.

Source: Lex Team, “Dismal outcome at Copenhagen fiasco,” Financial Times, December 20, 2009. From the Financial Times © The Financial Times Limited 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Questions to Consider

After reading Dismal Outcome at Copenhagen Fiasco, consider the question(s) below. Then “submit” your response.

Question

Question

Question