Editorial: Accord a fig leaf to cover the shame
Relevant offers
Comment
OPINION: One hundred and ninety-three countries, 119 leaders, thousands of delegates and even more observers. Negotiating a legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was always going to be difficult, but the scale of the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference is surprising.
Getting 193 countries to agree to anything is not easy. Persuading rich nations to compensate poor countries for forgoing development opportunities and poor countries to give up the chance to emulate their wealthy neighbours is the political equivalent of herding cats. Not only were the world's leaders not able to agree on measures to reduce greenhouse emissions, they were not even able to agree on a resolution recognising the desirability of reducing emissions. Instead, because of the objections of Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and a handful of others, the convention's final act was to "note" a form of words hammered out by the United States, China, South Africa, Brazil and India.
It appears the convention's main output was hot air – 40,000 metric tonnes by one estimate. That's the volume of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to the conference and to delegates flying to the Danish capital. Coincidentally it's also the sum total of the greenhouse gas produced by the Pacific island country of Kiribati.
In the wake of the conference, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described it as a "vital first step", US officials as a "meaningful agreement" and United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer as "not a disaster".
All skirted about the gaping hole in the accord. An agreement acknowledging the desirability of limiting global temperature increases is not an agreement to do anything. It is simply a fig leaf to conceal participants' lack of success.
One of the few positives to emerge from the convention was the formation of a global research alliance, a New Zealand initiative, to investigate means of reducing the agricultural emissions responsible for almost half of New Zealand's total emissions. Linking researchers in 20 countries including Australia, France, the US, Vietnam and India, is a concrete and positive step. But much more is required to reduce the risks associated with global warming.
Negotiators will meet again in Germany in June and in Mexico at the end of next year but, barring a change in attitude, the prospects of a meaningful agreement do not look any brighter there. Leaders have to start talking to each other rather than past each other. All have domestic constituencies worried about the impact of emissions reductions on jobs and incomes, but all also have constituencies that will be dramatically affected by rising temperatures and sea levels and extreme weather conditions.
If the climate change scientists are right, the longer the world takes to act, the greater the risk of a catastrophe – a catastrophe that will ignore national borders and political differences.
The risks are too grave to run. National differences should be set aside for the common good.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I've noticed the frequency of claims that the climate is cooling.
This is absolutely incorrect, and there's no need for any curly software or computer simulator to prove it.
The average global temperature has been charted as climbing by the combined records of hundreds of universities for well over 100 years.
Many have noticed that we're experiencing very low 'summer' temperatures in New Zealand this year.
This is a LOCAL issue, and there are other parts of the world experiencing very high temperatures too - if you have any concerns, check out the extent of Arctic sea ice (which has been rapidly shrinking year by year).
In the end, it's a very simple kind of logic, even if people disagree on the details.
We've drastically changed about 3/4s of the Earth's land, cut down more than half it's forest, operate billions of cars and factories, and intensive farming.
It's all going to have SOME effect on the climate right?
When the former Executive Chairman of BP states that 'we have a problem, and need to do something about it now', I'm pretty much convinced, because these are the guys who benefit financially from keeping mum...
The premise that mankind is reponsible for globsl warming is totally ridiculous, particularly as the earth is actually cooling,...and that's the only fact in the whole abysmal saga. Now, what the focus should be on is cleaning up the toxic air pollution afflicting most industralised countries, plus cleaning up polluted waterways. This focus will outlast all the climate change hysteria and lies coming from a lobby that wants to profit from government stupidity.
Well, at least they could agree on one thing. Which countries should get the fossil award for obstructing the talks. Come on John, show us your fossil award.
Hundreds of unfit teachers in class
Prison staff caught using work internet to view porn
State of economy top of Kiwis' concerns
Transmission Gully ruling waits upon five wise heads
Volunteers fight fires in a truck that won't stop
Prison officers 'turned into mules'
Phoenix lose game and second place to Roar
Wellington woman found safe in motel
Chinese New Year celebrated in Wellington
Glass crashes down from Terrace building
Hundreds of unfit teachers in class
Kiwi jailed in Australia wins appeal
Search scaled down for Huntly boy
Volunteers fight fires in a truck that won't stop
Logging truck crash closes SH2
NZ sharemarket: Mixed earnings season expected
Herbert baffled as yellow cards fly for Phoenix
Last-gasp goals cost Kiwis huge upset in US
Piri Weepu stakes his claim for No 10
Kiwis land big Aussie contract
Ryan Nelsen debuts in Tottenham win
Should bicycle helmets be mandatory?
It's just basic common sense that there needs to be some action taken collectively.
However the problem with emissions cut targets is that nations start from a different position. Some countries receive "immigrants" and should make cuts based on a per head of population basis. Other nations had a high level of renewal energy in 1990 so cannot match the savings of other nations who switch to renewables from carbon based production. These nations should simply focus on energy efficiency (commit to not bringing in extra production from carbon based forms) while other nations catch up rather than be punished (with the same level of cuts) for being more sustainable in the first place.
Action needs to be taken in common and in way which is more neutral, such as bringing a carbon tariff into international trade. At the moment nations transfer production to a nation outside the Kyoto Accord and claim to have met their 1990 cut target while actual pollution increases as the non Kyoto nation uses less clean energy. This makes a farce of the whole process. A carbon tariff neatly avoids this poor incentive tool failing by bringing the pollution cost into the trade system as all nations would have to identify the carbon footprint of the traded good equally.
A carbon tariff finances Green R and D from agriculture emissions to clean energy production, maintenance of forests in the undeveloped and developing world and also transfer of renewable energy capital plant.
This would leave some latitude for a Tobin tax on financial transactions to raise money to guarantee the commitment of .7% GDP in foreign aid to the undeveloped world and otherwise funding for the World Bank, the IMF and possibly some form of banking insurance.