In theory, the Copenhagen Climate Summit was expected to lay down a political framework for a common agreement on climate change abatement and adaptation post-Kyoto Protocol. The legally-binding Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and applies only to industrialized countries besides the USA, the world’s second-highest greenhouse gas emitter. This summit was expected to reach an agreement on tougher emission cuts in industrialized countries. Also, the rich nations were expected to reach an agreement on the right amount of financial flows to be made to the least developed and climatically-vulnerable states that are on the verge of a complete collapse.
Hence, a second binding treaty involving the US as well as developing countries like China and India was necessary in order to minimize the severity of climate change impacts. However, the outcome is still remote from expectations. A weak consensus based on voluntary emissions reduction were heard from the heads of developing countries while there is no plan or instructions to reach a legally-binding deal with the negotiations taking place next year. Similarly, the need for large-scale financing of up to $100 billion a year though short of the minimum requirement of $140 billion was agreed upon, there was no explanation provided on where that money will come from or how it will be managed.
I believe that it is urgent for the rich and developing nations to ultimately reduce the gap between politics and science for the sake of the planet.
Thus, the summit has undoubtedly underscored the illusions of “green capitalism” on which the least developed countries (LDCs) were resting their hopes on. Over the years, the environment has been a big business for rich countries to mint money while the environmental crisis has continued to escalate. The Copenhagen Summit reiterated the fact that green capitalism cannot actually challenge the power of those who actually produce most greenhouse gases. Only the rate of emissions in the industrialized nations is slowed down delaying the inevitable by simply offering more money to the vulnerable states without affecting the coffers of the rich. Eventually, in green capitalism, the poor and climatically-vulnerable states will be excluded from consumption, pushed to the margins, while the wealthy and industrialized nations will get to ‘offset’ their continued environmentally-destructive behavior. Thus, I believe that ‘capitalism’ and environment cannot move alongside as a ‘’win-win’’ scenario. Soon enough, I believe that the industrialized nations should make a choice between capitalism and the environment.
The Copenhagen meet was also evident in emphasizing the importance that rich nations place on energy security over better ecology. The economic growth across the industrialized nations haven been primarily based on increasing fossil fuel consumption. Coal still remains and will remain for a foreseeable future a cheap but environmentally-costly dominant fossil fuel across these countries. Unless a radical breakthrough on carbon capture and storage technology takes place, the damage from coal use cannot be contained and mitigated. On the other hand, it is not guaranteed that such clean coal technology will have an affordable price tag attached to it, so that even LDCs can afford it.
Hence, a rational fuel use with greater need on energy efficiency and energy savings with an accelerated fuel switching towards alternative energy sources is the only solution ahead. It is impossible to meet any progressive emissions reduction target with a heavy reliance on coal. Similarly, without enough climate funds to share by the rich, alternative energy development just becomes a secondary priority to LDCs. Hence, I find it urgent that nations rethink on their energy policy with a separate climate policy in place. The outcome shall be sub-optimal if nations were to try to achieve the climate objectives via energy policy. A rational and sustainable energy policy is indeed a pre-requisite for a strong climate policy. But, climate objectives cannot be realized in the absence of a climate policy based on more science and less politics.
The summit also did not provide any answer on the management and use of climate fund in LDCs. It is needless to stress that the LDCs are getting poorer not only due to climate hazards but also due to extreme corruption and ineffective institutions. Most of the LDCs like Nepal are regarded as highly-corrupt states as per the records of Transparency International while these states also remain politically unstable and volatile. On the other hand, the lack of experts on climate and environmental issues can in overall retard the process in adapting to climate change hazards. Thus, under these circumstances, I find it necessary that the rich nations have an added obligation to ensure that the climate fund is effectively used and monitored in the worst-affected regions.
US President Barack Obama was politically correct to conclude the Copenhagen Summit stating: “Today did not mark the end of our work but the beginning.” However, without real actions, no beginning can come to an end while not realizing an end cannot provide a new beginning. I believe that it is urgent for the rich and developing nations to ultimately reduce the gap between politics and science for the sake of the planet.
rabindra.nepal@ou.edu
Related story
Nepathya performs in Copenhagen
