The Hindu Business Line : Winds of change on the eve of Copenhagen Summit

After an initial bout of pessimism over the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit, the mood has shifted to one where the developing countries, particularly India, might be coaxed into agreeing on a regime of emission cuts. The summit could either turn out to be a damp squib, or one that bares its fangs at the developing world, says N. R. KRISHNAN.

Seldom have nations looked as unprepared for a momentous gathering on a common cause as now. With less than a month to go for the climate talks in Copenhagen (December 7-18), the principal actors seem to have got their scripts all mixed up as is apparent from their pronouncements. Or is it all a ploy to lull developing countries into believing that the real action would be in 2010, with Copenhagen only a curtain raiser?

DECEPTIVE OPTIMISM

A marked feature of climate pronouncements in recent weeks is the mood swings of the dramatis personae. After the official level talks in Bangkok (September 28 - October 9), the Chief of the Climate Secretariat, Mr Yves de Boer, sounded upbeat on the outcome of Copenhagen. The spokesperson for the EU didn’t sound pessimistic either. In a meeting of officials representing the Major Economies in London hosted by the UK on October 17-18, Mr Todd Stern of the US State Department (who is also the Chief Negotiator of the US side in climate negotiations) was optimistic of a “strong, pragmatic and solid agreement” to emerge out of Copenhagen.

The British Secretary of State for energy and climate, Mr Ed Miliband was even more emphatic when he claimed “We’re not really thinking about a Plan B in that sense.” According to The New York Times ( October 21) “officials from the United States and Britain rejected the idea that a deadline set by the world’s countries to negotiate a new climate agreement by December would slip”.

But all that sunshine vanished in just two days. First, the UN Secretary General’s Chief climate adviser, Mr Janos Pasztor, came out with a statement on October 22 that it was unlikely that a legally binding deal could be arrived at in Copenhagen and that the Secretary General was planning for “post-Copenhagen talks”.

He went on to add “Climate change is not going to be resolved in Copenhagen… We always knew that. It’s a long-term problem that will be with us for many years, if not decades, to come. We will do our best and try to have a substantive agreement.” By end-October, the Secretary General accepted that “After (At) Copenhagen we may not expect… to agree on all elements…But we should have a broad agreement.”

At the end of the official level Barcelona talks ( November 2-6), Mr de Boer’s optimism evaporated when he admitted that not much progress had been made to enable conclusion of a treaty in Copenhagen and it could take another year to do so. With the recent preparatory talks in Copenhagen ( November 16-17) having turned out to be a non- event, the odds appear to be heavily against any meaningful outcome in the major meet three weeks hence.

US TIGHTENS THE SCREWS

But like fickle weather, the mood has swung the other way. A joint statement issued at the end of the US President, Mr Barack Obama’s, just-concluded visit to Beijing has set the cat among the pigeons — in other words, developing countries, particularly India. The statement talks of a legally binding political agreement in Copenhagen leaving the details to be worked out next year.

What would the contours of such an agreement be? The answer can be found in a statement of Mr John Kerry, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made on November 4. Mr. Kerry said: “What I am looking for is a binding and real political agreement where the world comes together in Copenhagen with an agreement for fixed reductions that are measurable, verifiable and reportable. Then you set either a June or July date or the Mexico date in December — probably a reference to the next meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change( UNFCCC) — and work on the language in that year.” A strong hint of this had already been dropped in Bangkok by the developed countries with the added proviso that the actions of developing countries would be monitored by outside agencies. Would this position be acceptable to the G-77 and China? It is just another way of imposing targeted emission cuts on the developing countries.

India has all along been arguing that any reference to binding or quantified commitments is against the letter and spirit of the UNFCCC. So does China. Instead, they insist on the US accepting a cut of at least 25 per cent in its emissions compared to the 1990 levels by the year 2020.

Neither the recently passed Waxman-Markey Bill in the US House of Representatives nor the Kerry- Boxer Bill pending before the Senate aims at any such limits. The first seeks to reduce US emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 and the second enhances this by a mere 3 per cent.

The first figure translates to a reduction of just 3 per cent from 1990 levels, far short of even the modest target of 7 per cent set by the Kyoto Protocol for the US, which the US did not join.

The Senate bill is only a slight improvement on the one passed by the House. Its passage promises to be rough if one goes by the experience of the House Bill which got through by a narrow margin of seven votes.

Ever since the Obama administration took office, the ice around climate talks had started to thaw. That advantage might be seeping away, given the US insistence that the developing countries (read China and India) should accept quantified cuts in emissions, however obliquely stated.

To appease its Senate and the American public, the US has been floating the idea of voluntary emission cuts to be announced by everyone, including those governed by the Kyoto Protocol and some outside its pale today like China, India, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. This idea seems to be gaining acceptance among those who would wish to see the Protocol replaced by a new and broad -based one. Australia has tabled a proposal on these lines.

Developing countries, in their turn, are insisting on keeping the Protocol alive as it is, if possible, with tightened targets for the developed. Hence, the deadlock.

FOCUS ON INDIA

The vexed issue of emission reduction targets apart, much work remains to be done on funding and technology transfer. Even at the gathering of G-20 Finance ministers in Scotland on November 8, no indications were available on the possible level of finances that would be forthcoming from developed countries. Therefore, what exactly would be achieved in Copenhagen? A declaration full of sweet nothings, or a loaded one which would bare its fangs as the months roll by? Take your bets.

PS: It is believed that India had agreed, at the recently concluded preparatory talks in Copenhagen ( November 16-17) to reduce the energy intensity of its growth, implying emission reductions as well, by the year 2020 and to submit all its actions towards mitigation, whether by domestic resources or external. This is expected to form “a basis for international consultations”. This apparent turnaround in the Indian stand has created a flutter among climate watchers.

More details have to become available before one can comment on this development. We need to wait for the outcome of the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister to the US.

(The author is a former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)