The Copenhagen Talks

The Copenhagen Talks

January 04, 2010

Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief

The New Year is ringing in renewed hope. And so it is with the framers of the most recent global climate change accord. And while those advocates for change have fallen short of winning approval to make immediate and deep cuts in carbon emissions, they are vowing to continue their fight into 2010.

With 192 nations having joined the Copenhagen talks, firm obligations were always considered elusive. Most in the global community did express the desire to gradually transform their energy production. But only a core element made the steadfast pledge to notably reduce their carbon emissions. As such, the parties will keep working and striving to reach the air quality standards that they say are necessary.

"I wanted a stronger agreement," says Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the United Kingdom, who spoke publicly. "Events show the difficulty we face. We are dealing with incredibly complex issues and trying to get 192 countries signed up is not an easy task."

United Nations' scientists have argued that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that must now be remedied to avoid catastrophic consequences. And the European Union has become the foremost champion of the cause. Those nations, which may act unilaterally if they are unable to get others on board, have run into strong opposition -- not just from those who say that climate change is part of cyclical weather patterns but also from developing countries that don't want to be bound by a formal agreement.

The non-binding agreement promises to achieve "deep cuts in global emissions" and to hold the rise in temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius this century. At the same time, the developed world will provide "adequate, predictable and sustainable" funds so that the developing world can adopt modern technologies and move forward.

Richer countries have said they would kick in $100 billion a year by 2020: $11 billion from Japan, $10.6 billion from the EU and $3.6 billion from the United States. Corporations, of course, are keeping a close eye as they would be required to invest billions so as to make the economic and environmental transition.

The treaty also calls for transparency and supervision so that the generally agreed upon principles are upheld. But developing countries that have taken meaningful steps to modernize their energy production are opposed to such oversight, arguing that their participation is voluntary and that they would rather cut their overall greenhouse emissions as a percentage of their gross domestic product. Their main priority is to improve the quality of life in their impoverished nations.

"Many will say that it lacks ambition," says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, during the conference. "Nonetheless, you have achieved much."

Inching Forward

The political and economic headwinds occurring have now made it impossible to nail down binding commitments. The aim has thus become to reach a general consensus and to spend part of 2010 negotiating the specifics.

But the architects for change are doing battle on multiple fronts. Just before the Copenhagen summit, the emails of some prominent climate scientists were released that suggested that they withheld information that could mitigate their global warming theories. At the same time, thorny nations such as Venezuela and Iran have been grandstanding, pointing the finger at the West and capitalism as the culprits.

The UK's Milliband says that the "farcical" nature of the meetings has threatened to hijack future proceedings. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the majority of nations support such an accord. That reality has prompted some supporters to suggest that there should be a "coalition of the willing" to set a global example -- an idea has been rejected outright by the UN, which emphasizes the need for all nations to come to the table.

Bridging the gaps between the rich and poor countries was the chief obstacle during the two-week conference. Some proponents of steep carbon cuts are calling the conference a "missed opportunity" or "better than nothing." Others that include China and India, however, are saying the summit is a "positive" while the Europeans are still maintaining that the talks will lead to a meaningful outcome in the near term.

Regardless of any one nation's position, a trend is developing and one that will pilot the adaption of new technologies and a carbon-friendly future. The bigger question is whether that evolution will occur at a rapid pace or whether it will take place over decades while the world deals with other more imminent problems.

Copenhagen's initial purpose, though, had been to forge an immediate and binding agreement. That certainty would have helped some corporate folks develop business strategies while also giving global leaders more ammunition to advance next-g