Looking ahead to the CPH climate change conference

Posted: November 12th, 2009 | Author: dana | Filed under: Editorials | Tags: , , , , | No Comments »
PM and climate change campaigners
Image by Downing Street via Flickr

In December, Copenhagen will host the most publicized and well attended climate conference since Kyoto.  We’ve gathered some info to prime you for the momentous occasion next month.

The Guardian has a dedicated section on the Copenhagen Summit.  Bravo!  It also recounts the breakdown of the Kyoto treaty, and questions whether CPH can dictate policy on any level:

It would not ban flights, or push nuclear power, or force people to go back to living in mud huts. A Copenhagen treaty would set new targets for overall pollution levels, and again rely on governments to meet them …

The world has changed since Kyoto and climate change threatens rich and poor countries alike. To reduce global emissions China, the US and their kin must take action: global climate change needs global attention. Copenhagen offers a chance to forge a new agreement with all the major players.

Next up, New Scientist has a three-minute briefing section to answer the what, why, how of the summit.  According to NS, here are some of the potential deal breakers:

  • The US may not be able to make credible promises if Congress has not passed a climate change bill in time.
  • If China and India think the US is not serious, they will hold back on pledges to green their own economic development.
  • Others might wield a veto, too. Some newly industrialised countries – Malaysia and South Korea for instance – now have emissions higher than many European countries. They may protest if asked to sign up to firm targets.
  • Malaysia’s emissions are four times what they were in 1990 and, per head of population, equal to the UK’s.
  • Saudi Arabia’s emissions have doubled and, per head, now beat all European countries except Luxembourg.
  • Qatar’s per-capita emissions are four times those of the US.
  • Gulf states tried to torpedo Kyoto because they felt it threatened oil exports. Copenhagen could threaten their internal industrialisation plans.

The Economist continues its regular programming of environmental coverage, is cautious on its outlook of the conference.  It points out the following potential stumbling blocks:

One of the two big practical questions is: by how much does the world need to cut emissions? Japan and the EU have set eye-catching headline goals. America has not—though cap-and-trade legislation seemed to advance this week (see article). The rich world wants concrete promises from poor countries. Hu Jintao, the president of China, now the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to cut the carbon-intensity of the country’s economy but he has not said by how much. India says that it will accept only a limit on emissions per person that matches rich countries. That is so easily satisfied that it is no condition at all.

The second big question, less discussed in Bangkok, is what rich countries will pay poor ones both to adapt to climate change and shrink their use of carbon. China has said that rich countries should pay 1% of their GDP a year—which would be $400 billion. Gordon Brown has suggested $100 billion a year. Despite some clever ideas about using small investment guarantees to unlock bigger flows of private capital, the gap remains large.

Spiegel Online presents the German perspective. In a crafty move, Merkel the consummate politician, has seemingly ceded much of the responsibility of pending discussion to the Americans and Chinese.

On the first day of the EU summit meeting, with bloc leaders gathered in Brussels, Merkel adopted a stance which enraged environmentalists. The EU, Merkel was quoted as saying, should not be overly hasty in offering financial aid to developing countries for climate-related projects and should wait on China and the US. Concrete pledges should not be made, she said.

The following mainstream and blog publications also have ongoing coverage of the environment, as well as environmental economics, which will no doubt be swamped with Copenhagen Summit coverage news and commentaries in the coming weeks.

Telegraph’s Earth Pulse

BBC’s Science and the Environment

Times Online’s Environment

NYT’s Dot Earth Blog

Environmental Valuation

Inhabitat

Environmental Economics

Globalisation and Economics

Green Economics

Common Trageties

Economic Dreams

Greenomics

Do you know any other good coverage of the Copenhagen Summit, or any other economic blogs we have missed?  Please share with us in the comments section.

Viewsflow will also be ramping up its coverage of the Summit in the coming weeks.  If you have yet to try the alpha version of our service, please sign up here, or Tweet us for an invitation.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]