It’s all in the detail: time for hardball talks on climate change

The mammoth task facing delegates from 195 countries at the COP21 climate summit in Paris can be measured by wading through a 54-page negotiating text that contains no less than 1,617 instances of square-bracketed words, phrases, terms and even whole paragraphs.

Each square bracket denotes an area of contention, even a flashpoint, more often than not between the developed world and countries that are still developing, with much of the disputation over their “common but differentiated responsibilities” in tackling climate change.

All of these glitches, some of which are monumental, must be ironed out in the hardball negotiations that COP21 president, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius is determined to conclude on Friday, December 11th, with a comprehensive and credible agreement.

The draft text, produced in advance of the summit, acknowledges that climate change “represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries” in finding solutions.

In particular, it calls for their participation in “an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions”, recognising that “deep cuts ... will be required to achieve the ultimate objective”.

But there is no consensus on the extent of these cuts or on a timetable for implementing them. Nor is there any agreement on capping the rise in average global surface temperatures at a particular level, as shown in the text by the following convoluted paragraph:

“Hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 2 °C][below 1.5 °C][well below 2 °C][below 2 °C or 1.5 °C] [below 1.5 °C or 2 °C][as far below 2 °C as possible] above pre-industrial levels by ensuring deep cuts in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions.”

There is also a wide gulf between delegates over how to achieve any of these temperature goals in accordance with the “best available science”, by aiming for a low-carbon trajectory in the long-term and the peaking of emissions by 2030, or even “as soon as possible”.

Reference to “decarbonisation” of the global economy is also in square brackets, even though the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that carbon emissions must be reduced to zero by 2100 if we are to have any chance of limiting global warming.

Instead, bracketed text refers to a number of options -- including reductions ranging from 40 per cent to 70 per cent by 2050, or setting a “global carbon budget based on climate justice”, which is favoured by the most vulnerable countries at the frontline of climate change.

There is even disagreement over references to these low-lying small island states and poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere, with their “urgent and immediate needs” also put in brackets, even though they are the climate equivalents of the proverbial canary in the coalmine.

One measure these countries are insisting must be in the final accord is a “loss and damage” mechanism that would address negative impacts of climate change. This was quite a breakthrough at COP19 in Warsaw two years ago, but it appears in brackets in the Paris text.

Also in brackets is a statement noting that the largest share of historical global emissions has originated in developed countries, while per capita emissions in developing countries “are still relatively low [AND] will grow to meet their social and development needs”.

The cost-effective solution of putting a price on carbon to achieve the cuts in emissions required over the next decade is bracketed too. Indeed, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has conceded that a carbon price is not going to be one of the outcomes of COP21.

Given that pledges made by 180 countries to take action on climate change will still leave a wide “emissions gap” of 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2030, one of the critical issues to be thrashed out in the negotiations is how these can be racheted up over time.

Agreement has yet to be reached over how this “global stocktaking” is to be done and when it might kick in, although “every five years” is mentioned -- but in brackets. So is a reference to developing countries requiring aid from their richer counterparts to take further actions.

Also in brackets is a requirement that developed countries “shall formulate low-emission development strategies with time frames for achieving zero emissions” whereas developing countries are merely “encouraged” to develop low-carbon development strategies.

Another crunch point is a requirement that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources, technology transfer and capacity-building to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing countries in complying with their obligations”.

Brackets also surround the contentious notion that there should be an “enforcement branch” to ensure that developed countries are implementing their commitments and a “facilitative branch” to lightly police and assist compliance by developing countries.

Even more fanciful is the idea (also bracketed) that the Paris deal would establish an International Tribunal of Climate Justice to address non-compliance by developed countries on everything from mitigation and adaptation to finance, technology transfer and capacity-building.

Between one thing and another, COP21 delegates at heavily-guarded conference centre in Le Bourget are facing into long days and nights of talking in contact groups and other negotiating sessions before the brackets can be lifted and agreement reached.