At the conclusion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that there are still significant areas of disagreement, but that “a broader political agreement” would still be possible. So what will come out of Copenhagen? We asked a few Canadian observers what they felt could come from the meeting.
Transformational change?
David Noble, founder and lead, change initiatives, for consulting firm 2degreesC, is frustrated with the lack of commitments by participants.
“What we’ve been seeing seems to be a growing effort to downplay expectations,” says Noble. “Two years ago in Bali, we were talking about a successor to Kyoto in Copenhagen. In Poland, negotiators were saying, ‘wow, there’s an awful lot to do.’ Now, the talk is about hopes for a framework – and maybe something binding in Mexico in 2010.”
But Noble understands why this has happened.
“Even in terms of an agreement in principle, I think there’s still a real gap in terms of where some of the players are — with certain countries being on one end of the spectrum, and others being at the opposite end.”
Asked what he hopes will come from the meeting, he said, “that we all come together and acknowledge and respond with the urgency that our situation demands.”
“Time is running out for business as usual politics,” he stresses. “We finally need to acknowledge that this isn’t going to cut it. We really need to focus on what we have to do together. We need to create an atmosphere in which we find ways to work together collaboratively for change.”
United States: the fulcrum
Paul Manning, a partner with Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP, believes that more will come from a U.S. commitment to greenhouse gas reductions than anything else that might come out of Copenhagen.
“I have the impression that the parties involved in the negotiations are too far apart at this particular point, such that we will see either something that papers over the cracks and turns out to be a weak agreement, or a promise in principle, or we’ll see nothing at all and some form of negotiation that continues into next year,” says Manning.
“We really need to see the United States take a strong leadership role — to have a clear idea of what they can and will do,” he continues. “It needs to be something that will carry China and India with it — that’s the real key.”
Manning likens the situation to the U.S. reaction to oil tanker disasters in past decades.
“When the States decided that it would only allow double-hulled tankers to come through its navigable waters, it changed (world shipping practices) because everyone needs to do business with the U.S. It changed effectively what was standard design for tankers," Manning explains. "Unilateral action by the U.S. on climate change regulation, coupled with a requirement for similar action from trading partners, could be as potent a source of international action as an agreement at Copenhagen would be. Of course, restrictive provisions of this sort, like those contained in the Waxman-Markey bill, may be subject to challenge through the WTO or NAFTA. But even so, the reaction to the inclusion of such a provision in that bill is an indicator of the effect that unilateral action by the U.S. can have on international practice. Whichever way you cut it, the U.S. is the important player.”
The Waxman-Markey bill, which came out of the U.S. House of Representatives, included provisions that would allow the U.S. to effectively tax goods from countries without similar greenhouse gas management practices, such as a cap-and-trade system.
“The US is the only country that has the leverage through trade to influence China and India. Hopefully, the U.S. will get some internal resolution soon that will create some change internationally.”
The full story: It’s not just about emissions targets
Douglas V. Tingey, counsel in the Calgary office of Borden Ladner Gervais, is quick to point out that there is much under discussion at Copenhagen, and the focus has been only on the big ticket item — emission reduction goals. While that is the key element under discussion, the negotiations are making progress in other areas.
“I’d be very surprised if there isn’t significant agreement on, at the very least, components of the negotiations,” says Tingey. “What’s not likely to come is a binding agreement including numbers (targets) from Annex 1 jurisdictions (developed countries) including the U.S.”
Tingey believes that some sort of framework agreement will be established. “People are already talking about COP15-and-a-half,” he notes. “It’s really difficult, without being there, to get the tone, but I would be very surprised if there aren’t agreements reached on key components of what I would refer to as a framework agreement.”
One of the key components to get the U.S. engaged is getting developing countries on board.
“There’s a bit of a catch 22 here,” notes Tingey. “The key developing countries aren’t interested in agreeing to specific actions themselves until they know what the Americans are going to do.”
Tingey also points to examples of real agreement that have been reached, and Yvo de Boer also pointed these out in his recent press statement at the end of talks in Barcelona.
“On technology, a text that includes a possible technology mechanism has been crafted,” de Boer stated. “On capacity building, there has been good progress. On reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, there is increasing agreement that implementation should be in different phases, and countries are also discussing financing options for that, and there has been further convergence towards and architecture on financial governance.”
The Kyoto Protocol: will it stick around?
Another interesting statement de Boer made in Barcelona was regarding the Kyoto Protocol.
“Governments must leave Copenhagen with agreement on how to make all parts of the Bali action plan immediately operational,” de Boer began. “In that context, the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally constituted working model we have of international commitment and cooperation to reduce greenhouse gases, and you don’t saw off the branch you are sitting on, and there is a strong sense the Kyoto Protocol needs to continue.”
Tingey is keen to point this out – that Kyoto isn’t dead come December 31st, 2012.
“There is a perception out there that the Kyoto Protocol is going to expire at the end of 2012,” explains Tingey. “I’ve read the Protocol a couple of times and there isn’t an expiry date. What is coming to an end on December 31st, 2012, is the first compliance period, but the Protocol isn’t ending. So there are three logical ways that (negotiations are) going to go forward.
“One is that there is no agreement and the Kyoto protocol continues and the parties to the protocol amend and extend it, and those Annex 1 countries that wish to proceed do so, and they continue with the existing arrangement amended to make it more effective,” continues Tingey.
The second option, according to Tingey, is that a brand new agreement, a Copenhagen agreement that replaces the Protocol, is created. A third option has another agreement that is styled as a Copenhagen agreement, or KP 2, that combines new provisions that are negotiated and incorporates what people feel to be good about the protocol.
“My sense is that it’s likely to be the third option,” says Tingey. “Again, it depends on the U.S. politics. The Americans don’t like the term Kyoto Protocol — at least many of them don’t — and so it may not work if it is named that. So it’s conceivable that there will be a Copenhagen Agreement finalized next year that brings in the best of the Kyoto Protocol, and one of the important components of that is the Clean Development Mechanism — project-based offsets.”
So, from Tingey’s perspective, it’s likely that a lot of the hard work done by the parties to the Kyoto Protocol will get merged into a future agreement, or that the protocol itself will be amended in significant ways to satisfy the needs of the U.S.
“It’s interesting from Canada’s perspective,” notes Tingey. “If there is no new agreement, and the Kyoto Protocol continues to stand, we are going to be facing the issue of whether we stay in. if it doesn’t expire and we’ve decided that we don’t want to participate, what do we do? Well, we have to withdraw.”
Right now, Prime Minister Harper seems to be banking on creating a political agreement that, however limited in its scope, might be seen as a victory simply because it is accepted by all parties. The question remains whether it will take another full year before proper greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are established. That may hinge on the actions of the U.S. Senate and whether it can pass an effective version of the Kerry-Boxer bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Watch for updates on the Green Business website.
Robert Colman is editor of Green Business.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Comments