THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE SUMMIT: WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD DEAL AND HOW CAN EUROPE CONTRIBUTE TO IT?

Written by Fiona Hall on Tue 1st Dec 2009

Since the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its 4th Assessment Report in 2007, important new observations of the accelerating and worsening impacts of climate change have reinforced the urgency of a successful post-Kyoto international climate agreement in Copenhagen.

New scientific findings by the UK's Hadley Centre and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies suggest that the attempt to limit global warming to two degree Celsius is not ambitious enough to avoid the risk of dangerous climate change. A new target of no more than 1.7 degrees Celsius for the increase of average temperature is now thought necessary to avoid the melting of massive land ice sheets.

There has also been growing insight into how human-made emissions and global warming interact with feedback mechanisms in the Earth's global ecosystem. The dramatic melting of summer ice in the Arctic is only one example of a knock-on effect that has the power to accelerate climate change irreversibly. Other worrying reports show that the Siberian tundra is releasing record levels of methane previously trapped underneath the frozen earth. These feedback mechanisms account for much faster changes in the global climate than anticipated by the ICPP only in 2007.

Worryingly, all these new scientific studies indicate that we are already close to the danger zone of tipping points in the Earth's climate. The sudden collapse of major ecosystems in the world would be likely to have a devastating social and ecological impact on hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

There is thus mounting pressure on world leaders to agree to a post-2012 climate deal at the Copenhagen Climate Summit 7th to19th of December. However, the pressure to agree a deal, any deal, means that come the small hours of the morning on Saturday, 19th December, many people will be saying that what has been decided is a great triumph.

So before we get caught up in the excitement of the moment, it is a good idea to step back and ask ourselves the cold hard question: What really is a good deal? And linked to that: What can the European Union (EU) do to help deliver a successful deal?

I believe a genuinely good deal can be summed up in five words:

Effective - Upgradable - Comprehensive - Financed - Honest

EFFECTIVE

First, and most importantly, the deal must prevent climate chaos. It has got to be effective at avoiding climate tipping points - a task previously thought to be manageable if global warming does not increase beyond two degrees Celsius.

Governments will have to commit to strict and ambitious national targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there must also be a control mechanism put in place to ensure that countries will actually implement these reduction targets. The Kyoto agreement was a negative example of how ineffective any deal on climate change is without binding and strictly enforced CO2 emission limits.

For even a 50% chance of stopping global warming going beyond two degrees Celsius, global emissions must be down 50% from 1990 levels by 2050. In the case of developed countries this means that near zero-carbon-economies must be achieved by 2050, with greenhouse gas emissions required to be down by 80-100%. And by 2020, developed country emissions must already be cut by 25-40%, according to the IPPC.

For the EU, this means that a 20% by 2020 cut in emissions agreed last year won't be effective on its own. A greenhouse gas reduction of at least 30% on the European side will be necessary if global warming is to be stopped at two degrees Celsius. If the new scientific findings of a maximum allowable rise in average temperatures of 1.7 degrees Celsius are taken on board, then the EU will have to commit to even higher emission cuts.

Copenhagen is therefore only going to achieve a genuinely good deal if the agreement reached is upgradeable.

UPGRADABLE

Given that scientists and NGOs are already providing proof that climate change is happening faster and more severely than predicted, we need to be looking at cuts in developed countries, the Annex 1 countries, of at least 40% by 2020.

Thus it is not good enough having an agreement that says 30% emission cuts - full stop. Within the EU, legislators - MEPs and ministers from European member states - have to give a clear political signal that we accept the possibility of going beyond a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and of having to pass at European level a second round of climate change legislation in order to achieve that.

There is an urgent need to agree on ambitious targets of emission reductions over the long term. But those targets should not be set in stone. What is needed is a permanent process of taking decisions and revising decisions according to new emerging scientific insights after the Copenhagen negotiations. There is a need for flexibility and quick adaptation to new scientific consensus. The Copenhagen deal needs to be easily upgradable, flexible and to open the door to a dynamic international discussion on how to tackle climate change together.

However, we will not get political agreement in Europe for higher cuts unless all major countries of the world are signed up. That is why the third element of a good deal at Copenhagen is to ensure that the agreement is comprehensive.

COMPREHENSIVE

The two big problems in terms of public perception are the US and China. Without the US and China in the deal, getting political acceptance of a 30% or 40% cut in European emissions would be a tough call. The United States and China are the world's two biggest emitters, each accounting for roughly 20% of world wide greenhouse gas emissions.

Many commentators on climate change regularly point out that there is no point in Europe bothering with global warming and carbon emission cuts because China is building two new coal-fired power stations a week. The US carbon emission cap and trade legislation is still stuck in the Senate and it remains dubious whether the bill will pass Congress before Copenhagen in December. In any case, even if the bill is passed in time, it commits the US to only very modest cuts in CO2 emissions (17% from 2005 levels in 2020).

I suspect that for the US, the answer will be to take the very European way out of a deadlock, of giving in somewhat in the short term in exchange for a greater commitment later on: Less now, more later. Again, this shows how important it is for the deal in Copenhagen to be upgradable and flexible.

For China, an important offer the EU could make would be to loosen intellectual property restrictions on clean green technology. It makes sense: we need China to decarbonise its economy. And China has shown great interest in investing in renewable energy and green technology. President Hu Jintao has pledged that his country will generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources within a decade.

It is also essential that other major developing countries sign up to the deal. Firstly, to put pressure on the United States and other industrialized nations to commit to serious carbon cuts, and secondly, because even if developed nations were to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to zero immediately, it would still not be enough to avoid serious climate implications. Every country in the world needs to play a part in tackling climate change as its consequences don't stop at borders.

Getting China and major developing countries on board will also require the fourth essential element of any deal: finance.

FINANCED

In order to get developing countries on board there needs to be clarity on financial support both on mitigation and adaptation. It is highly unfair that Africa is likely to be hit by the consequences of climate change faster and more severely than industrialized nations in the northern hemisphere even though the entire continent only accounts for about 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Sub Saharan Africa is already seeing a steep rise in climate-related natural disasters and diseases, and a decline in cereal yields.

Equally important is it to create a financial structure that shifts public and private finance and investment flows towards decoupling economic growth from increasing emissions to a low-carbon and climate-resilient future, particularly in developing countries.

All sorts of sums of money are being bandied about in the discussions about how much finance is needed for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

The World Development Report 2010 suggests mitigation in developing countries could cost $400billion a year over the next 20 years, and adaptation investments could average $75 billion a year between 2010 and 2050.

There is a real risk that climate change effects will undo development progress to date and it is important to note that this money is needed in addition to already pledged development aid.

That is where the fifth essential element comes in. There has to be honesty in this deal.

HONEST

There is a deep level of mistrust between developing and industrialised countries. In order to revitalise climate negotiations and to avoid future conflicts over scarce natural resources, it is essential that the Copenhagen agreement is based on honesty and on the principle of equity.

Whatever the headline sums on the table, the finance offer won't work unless it is genuinely new money, generated by predictable and reliable means.

For developing countries, it simply isn't good enough to take the existing commitment on overseas development assistance, 0.7% of GNP, and offer it up as finance for climate change adaptation. That 0.7% is what is needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals on for example infant and maternal mortality and children in school. Climate change money has to be additional because the effects of climate change are additional.

This additional money needs to come from a reliable and predictable source and what is needed is a new market-based finance mechanism or better still a combination of finance mechanisms, which could include binding earmarking of revenue from emissions trading schemes or a levy on international financial transactions.

Finally, for the deal to be honest it has to avoid double-counting. There is a place for a small part of the EU's emissions reduction to be achieved by off-setting provided that the schemes in developing countries are genuinely additional and meet the gold standard criteria.

What the EU cannot and must not do is count such schemes twice, as both a contribution to cuts in developed countries AND as part of the mitigation effort in developing countries. If we cheat, we will not cap temperature rise at 2 degrees, let alone 1.7 degrees, it is as simple as that.

So, a good climate deal in Copenhagen would be effective, adaptable, comprehensive, financed and honest. It is vital that Copenhagen delivers clarity and commitment on reduction targets of greenhouse gas emissions for both industrialised and developing countries. But Copenhagen also needs to provide clarity and commitment on how to generate and manage financial support for developing countries on mitigation and adaptation. The European Union can serve as a very good example of how sovereign nation states can work together voluntarily on the principles of subsidiarity, decentralization, democracy and free markets. International co-operation along these terms will be crucial in tackling climate change and its causes and consequences.