NEARLY TWO years ago, on the Indonesian island of Bali, delegates representing 190 countries adopted an “action plan” that called for 24 months of intensive negotiations leading to the adoption by the end of 2009 of a new treaty aimed at averting the worst impacts of global warming.
Even the United States, then in the grip of climate change sceptic George W. Bush, went along with the consensus after being badgered repeatedly by developing countries, including Papua New Guinea; its ambassador, Kevin Conrad, memorably told the US delegation that if it was “not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us; please, get out of the way”. The enthusiastic applause Conrad received for his bold statement led chief US negotiator Paula Dobriansky to relent, thus setting in train the Bali “road map” that was to take us all the way to Copenhagen.
For the past two years, the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been running a “Countdown to Copenhagen” in days, hours, minutes and seconds – such was the enormous importance it attached to the forthcoming 15th conference of the parties to the convention. “Cop-15” was meant to be crucial in delivering a solid and equitable agreement on how to tackle global warming. Much hope has been invested, particularly by idealistic young people, in what comes out of Copenhagen. But after months of negotiations at official level and with just 19 days left to go to the opening of the two-week conference on December 7th, it now seems certain that all it will produce is a “political agreement” to conclude a deal in 2010 – most probably at Cop-16 in Mexico in the last month of the year.
The Danish government has been canvassing this as a fallback position, to salvage something from the huge gathering it will host next month. Prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen flew to Singapore at the weekend to put it to US president Barack Obama, Chinese president Hu Jintao and other leaders attending an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. Mr Obama was quick to respond, with one of his senior officials saying that there was “a realistic assessment . . . by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally-binding agreement to be negotiated” between now and Copenhagen. After all, as Mr Obama knows well, the US Senate is most unlikely to pass new climate and energy legislation in time to allow his delegation to “put numbers on the table” for US greenhouse emissions cuts in the mid-term, by 2020.
Officially, the European Union is still committed to reaching a “fair, ambitious and comprehensive” agreement in Copenhagen, even though senior officials concede that it could take another six to 12 months to strike a deal. Those with the most to lose from further procrastination include many African countries already suffering the impact of climate change and small, low-lying island states in danger from rising sea levels. Any further delay would be intolerable to them and to the many young people worldwide who will have to live with the potentially disastrous consequences of global warming.