The failure of Copenhagen

I was not optimistic that a strong and binding global agreement would be reached at Copenhagen in December, but the so called "Copenhagen Accord" still came as a bitter disappointment.

It is apparent that most of the so called "developed nations" are not willing to curb their indulgent and excessive use of fossil fuels. These nations, including the United States, Europe, Australia and Canada, have produced most of the carbon emissions to date and still have very high per capita carbon emissions, yet they are unwilling to take substantive action to reduce their emissions.

For example, Kevin Rudd was only prepared to commit to a 5% emission reduction target, and he capped the "negotiating range" prior to Copenhagen first at 15% then at 25%. Yet in Bali in 2008, it was agreed based on scientific advice that developed nations should make cuts in the 25% to 40% range.

Australia negotiated at Copenhagen in bad faith. A 5% target is ludicrous and the 25% target was an absolute minimum rather than a maximum.

Many small and developing nations - such as Tuvalu in the Pacific - are feeling severe impacts of climate change through sea levels rises that are engulfing them. Little wonder they were not impressed by rich developed nations ignoring their plight and refusing to put significant emission reduction cuts of 40% or greater on the table.

I believe that the only fair and equitable target is to restrict carbon emissions to 2 tonnes per person per year. This would create a level playing field for all humanity.

The Copenhagen accord is a political agreement that specifies a voluntary target of restricting global temperature increase to 2C. However, current emissions by the world's nations put us on track for a 3.5C rise which scientists tell us would be catastrophic.

It is clear that global and national political and economic systems are failing to address climate change and associated ecosystem collapse, even though we have the technology and opportunity to move to low carbon economies and lifestyles.

It is time for the blame game to end. We must set and achieve goals to ensure a safe climate future such as limiting per capita carbon emissions to 2 tonnes per person, limiting global temperature increases to 1.5C, and reducing atmospheric CO2 to between 300-350ppm.

Links

• Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009, Greenlivingpedia
• Climate code red: A climate con: Analysis of the "Copenhagen Accord", David Spratt

Will Copenhagen yield a safe climate outcome?

The international negotiations at Copenhagen to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions have some significant hurdles to overcome.

The governments of first world countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia wish to continue their high energy use and/or export of fossil fuels and do not seem willing or capable of undertaking structural and economic reforms to move to low carbon economies.

These countries also want the ability to "offset"some of their emissions by "purchasing credits" from developing nations. This is an exercise of smoke and mirrors, as offsets in reality mean no a country can avoid emission reductions.

Developing nations such as China and India wish to continue their growth in use of carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels as their economies and lifestyles grow and change towards the levels of first world countries.

Small and poor nations, many of which are bearing the immediate brunt of climate change - such as many Pacific Island nations and African nations - want immediate significant emission reductions by first world counties and also money from them to improve their economies and living standards.

Given these tensions, it seems unlikely that the Copenhagen negotiations will yield a binding treaty that will move us collectively towards a safe climate future - one where global temperature increases are kept below 1.5C and atmospheric CO2 is below 350ppm.

I think it is likely that the outcome will be:

• a voluntary "non-binding" political agreement
• offsets will be allowed
• emissions trading will be endorsed - even though in most cases it will not reduce emissions
• greenhouse gas measurements and reporting will not be subject to independent reviews

If this is the case we will need to rethink our approach and mechanisms for addressing and tacking climate change - as "politics as usual" will have failed to give us the best chance of a safe climate future.

I have described the commercial, social and political pressures that were are facing in this wiki article: The end of the world as we know it.

I am documenting progress and outcomes at Copenhagen in this wiki article: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009

I think the only fair and equitable policy to adopt is to decide on an appropriate carbon emissions per capita amount that all countries should commit to reduce their emissions too.

This figure would be lower than what China is currently emitting, and much lower than most other developed nations. Perhaps Costa Rica is at the best level already?

Real leadership on emission reductions is required now Mr Rudd.

Kevin Rudd is a hypocrite and a political opportunist who is doing nothing to reduce Australia's emissions with a fatally compromised CPRS (ETS).

Instead he just plays politics by slamming "the opposition" and torpedoing Copenhagen negotiations for his fossil fuel Corporate mates (with his ridiculous 5% emission reduction target).

Developed nations such as Australia, the United States and European countries must demonstrate how to live a low-carbon lifestyle in a sustainable low-carbon economy replete with green jobs.

This would provide a template for developing nations such as China and India to adopt. Unfortunately, our political leaders are intent on providing corporate welfare to polluters to continue on, and are not displaying the leadership we need on this.

We don't need nuclear or more coal exports.

We need:

• real emission reductions each and every year on a trajectory to 40% reductions by 2020 and zero net emissions by 2030
• renewable and zero emissions energy now - wind, solar, wave and geothermal
• improve energy efficiency by 40% or more.

Links

• Rudd blames climate sceptics for global sabotage
• Old king coal
• Climate war gets personal for Rudd
• The climate change lobbying register (PDF)
  
  
  

Rudd's CPRS won't solve climate change

Kevin Rudd's flawed emissions trading scheme with its very weak 5% reduction target and ridiculous 15% upper limit is unlikely to be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Michelle Grattan's conclusion (Age 1/5) that the CPRS in its current form is better than nothing.

The CPRS, in addition to grossly inadequate targets, also gifts billions to the worst polluters. In doing so, it removes incentives for the worst polluting industries to clean up their act. It is also way behind the recommendations of scientists and the Bali convention where emission reduction ranges of 25% to 40% were flagged.

Australia would be laggard at Copenhagen with the CPRS, not a leader. Hopefully all parties in the Australian Parliament will agree on effective measures to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change that the Australian people are demanding. We need to reframe politics from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.