COP15: More on Copenhagen – for all brain sizes
Image source: en.cop15.dk
Would you rather have the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change explained to you buy a source called the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists or one simply called ‘Crikey’? How about ‘The Crikey clarifier (dumb questions for smart people)’? Sound like more your speed? I thought so.
Never fear, you can read both. And to be fair, Australia’s Crikey gives a clear, basic overview of COP15, focusing on the when, where, why and who of the convention, with a realistic – if slightly pessimistic – expectation of the outcome. Crikey definitely doesn’t sugarcoat the coming Copenhagen summit as a panacea for all our climate ills, but rather sees it as an opportunity for nations to define basic goals and policies that deal with or mitigate climate change: ‘The details would be filled in at subsequent meetings, before and then at COP16 in Mexico.’
For the more egg-headish among us there is Jeffrey Frankel’s matter-of-fact ‘The politically possible: how to achieve success in Copenhagen’ in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Frankel is explicit about what he sees as the main challenges and problems facing decent results at COP15. It is the United States vs. the developing world, i.e. China and India. He is not unique in this view, but is almost discouragingly pragmatic:
‘Realistically, no country (rich or poor) will abide by targets in any given period that entail extremely large economic sacrifices relative to the alternative of simply not participating in the system. It’s time to stop making sweeping proposals that assume otherwise, and to pursue instead the narrow thread of the politically possible.’
–Jeffrey Frankel
Frankel also provides downloadable example formulas of what he considers politically possible, resulting in situations where the per capita emissions of the developed world eventually converge with those of the developing world. In other words, the rich countries reduce while the poor countries are allowed to increase until we all have the same per capita greenhouse gas emissions – in under 100 years time.
Rainforest riches (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)
Personally, I would like to see an agreement between rich and poor countries at COP15 that incorporates the theory or practice of ecological debt, at least as an option. That way less developed nations with valuable ecologies can place a fair monetary value on the preservation of rainforests and other natural treasures from which the whole planet benefits. Giant per capita emitters like the U.S. can in turn pay a bit of a tax (dirty word for Americans, I know, but that’s basically what it is) for polluting the rest of the world in order to continue to maintain the levels of comfort and wealth that they are so loathe to give up. This should also encourage – as well as require – big polluters to cut emissions because not only would it be necessary for the health of the environment, but it would also make more economic sense. In a way it is a far wider definition of cap and trade and focuses on a different model of development than the highly polluting mechanisms that got us into this mess with climate change to in the first place. After all, why should one model of industrial development be the only worthwhile game in town?
‘According to data of the United Nations, 20% of the rich population of the world, most of which is in countries of the North, consumes 80% of the planet’s natural resources.’
–ecologicaldebt.org
Source articles:
Crikey – ‘Copenhagen. What’s it all about?’
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – ‘The politically possible: how to achieve success in Copenhagen’
Ecological Debt – ‘What is Ecological Debt?’
By Graham Land
Additional resources:
COP15 website
Tags: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, carbon emissions, climate change, cop15, copenhagen, Crikey, ecological debt
Leave a Reply