Crunch time in Copenhagen

17 December 2009

With the end of the Copenhagen conference approaching it’s almost impossible to discern the straight talking from the spin. Are the talks flagging and a deal looking increasingly unlikely? Or are politicians simply lowering expectations, as they are practised at doing before elections, in order for the Presidents and Prime Ministers to pull a rabbit triumphantly out of a hat in the early hours of Saturday morning. My hunch is that we’ll see such a rabbit, but we shouldn’t mistake it for the deal the world actually needs.  I am not a bookmaker but if I were I would offer odds something like these:

100-1 - a fully-fledged global treaty containing greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for all countries, plus mechanisms for monitoring progress, trading emissions and channelling funds and technology from developed to emerging economies. This is what we really need – not immediately but soon - to preserve the planet

20-1 - total collapse with no document, no handshake, no photo-call, no Obama moment, nothing.   

5-1 - a weak memorandum type agreement with no numbers or firm commitments, even at global level.

Evens - an outline deal or political declaration with a few high profile numbers – perhaps one that targets keeping the temperature rise 1.5-2C above pre-industrial times, commits developed countries to emissions cuts of 15-40% by 2020 - or more weakly 80% by 2050 - and provides the promise of an initial tranche of funding – maybe $100bn a year by 2020 – from OECD to other countries.

This would be enough to get the ‘summit saved’ headlines leaders want. But it would really be nothing more than governments should have agreed on a year or two ago and the real danger is that such a non-deal is presented as a good deal. If there are some targets or numbers in the paper then the risk is that the pressure is taken off the policy-makers and the public think global warming is beaten. Better in fact would be failure, if that failure produced the outpouring of public pressure that is needed to galvanise political action.

The media, NGOs and scientists must not fall for a partial solution. The IPCC is clear that emissions cuts of 25-40% are needed in developed countries by 2020 – not 17% as the US is offering or 20% as the EU is currently targeting. And 25% cuts still leave a significant risk of a 2.5C temperature rise so we should be looking at the top end of the range - something like the UK’s commitment to 36%. Meanwhile real progress has to be made in China, India and other high growth economies – Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia, Korea and so on. That requires serious attention to funding transfers, intellectual property issues and technology innovation.

$100bn a year by 2020 is too little too late when experts from the International Energy Agency to the World Economic Forum and New Energy Finance agree that around $500bn annually is needed worldwide, starting now, for investment in energy efficiency and green technology if we’re to keep the temperature rise within the 2C target. 

From a business angle, companies need a strong policy framework that incentivises them to bring forward green investment on that kind of scale. A soft deal simply won't deliver the transformation required.

In the coming months and years we’re likely to see new more disturbing science emerging that could mean all targets have to be toughened again. So the most vital outcome at Copenhagen – deal or no deal – should be a commitment to keep talking and to negotiate more intelligently and intensively, not just until a full treaty is signed, but until dangerous global warming is averted.