Climate after Copenhagen

The reason for the failure in Copenhagen is clear - rather than discuss coordinated efforts, countries lobbied for their particular interests. Everything now depends on individual states and their respective blocs.

Even before participants to the United Nations Global Climate Change Conference began arriving in Copenhagen earlier this month, everyone knew that the talks would end in failure. It is unrealistic to expect results from a summit if the document that is to be signed has not been prepared or given approval at least several weeks or months in advance. The most that can be hoped to be achieved over the course of such a summit is to clear up minor disagreements — not to prepare a policy statement from scratch in just a few days, especially if the parties involved have tried unsuccessfully for years to reach an agreement.

Russians continue to debate whether global warming actually exists. When asked about climate change during his year-end interview Thursday with the general directors of the country’s top three television networks, President Dmitry Medvedev said: “There are many different points of view on this issue. But more important than the question of whether the climate is cooling or heating up is how we react to it.” 

Most tempting of all is to try to console ourselves by imagining that there is no problem, even though industrial gas emissions are a serious cause for concern regardless of their effect on the climate. And the rising level of the world’s oceans and other negative consequences of climate change are obvious challenges that must be resolved through action — either by building dams, adopting new agricultural technologies or relocating millions of people.

The real multibillion-dollar question is who is going to pay for all of this?

After Copenhagen, it is clear that no coordinated international measures will be forthcoming, no matter how eloquently leaders spoke to allay public concerns. The reason for the failure is clear. Rather than discuss coordinated efforts, countries lobbied for their particular interests. Some nations even attempted to profit from the climate crisis at the expense of others.

The United States could not reach agreement with Europe. Eastern Europe found no accord with Western Europe. China held its ground simultaneously against the West and other former Third World states, and both newer and older industrial powers argued over who should pay more to implement changes.

At the same time, the methods for coping with the problem prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 were unworkable from the start. In place of ensuring that concrete measures would be adopted to limit harmful emissions, the agreement created a market mechanism for trading quotas that has had the same effect on the ecology as the trading of shares has had on the economy.

Although it is obvious that the Kyoto Protocol is not working, it is unclear what should replace it. The states that are responsible for the failure of the global economic policy have no intention of admitting their mistakes or of rejecting principles that have proven ineffective. The same thing that happened with the economic crisis is now happening with the climate crisis. It is already clear that taking a purely market-based approach will not produce the desired results.

Different approaches are necessary as well as action directed at achieving concrete results rather than generating profits. Governments may need to intervene to convince industries to convert to the use of cleaner processes and technologies. Long-term investment is also needed — without demanding short-term profits — in new technologies, waste treatment plants, pollution control facilities, reforestation, irrigation programs and scientific research. All of that cannot be supported if a strict focus on markets and profits is maintained.

After the failure in Copenhagen, everything now depends on individual states and their respective blocs. Whatever government leaders might say, the only option left for the European Union is to institute ecological protectionist measures — additional tariffs on the import of manufactured goods from countries that do not share the financial responsibility for resolving climate problems. Income from those duties could help finance ecological programs and such a policy would force newly industrialized countries to get serious about the environment. What’s more, this approach would produce results more quickly than many people might imagine. The problem is that, as always, the poor people living in the poorest countries will be forced to foot the bill.

Originally published by The Moscow Times © Copyright.


About the authors

Boris Kagarlitsky

Boris Kagarlitsky is a well-known international commentator on Russian politics and society. Boris was a deputy to the Moscow City Soviet between 1990-93, during which time he was a member of the executive of the Socialist Party of Russia, co-founder of the Party of Labour, and advisor to the Chairperson of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia.  Previously, he was a student of art criticism and was imprisoned for two years for 'anti-Soviet' activities.

Boris' books include Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System (Pluto Press, February 2008, Russia Under Yeltsin And Putin: Neo-Liberal Autocracy (TNI/Pluto 2002) and New Realism, New Barbarism: The Crisis of Capitalism (Pluto 1999).

Recent publications from Environmental Justice

Anglo American’s dirty energy lobby and its false climate solutions

Climate talks in Lima will be subject to intense lobbying by some of the biggest industrial polluters. They not only cause serious social and environmental conflicts where they extract fossil fuels, their capture of decision-making also prevents a real solution to the climate crisis.

Corporate Conquistadors

An examination of the destructive environmental record of Repsol, Glencore Xstrata and Enel-Endesa in Latin America and worldwide is clear evidence that transnational corporations should have no place in decision-making around the climate.

Venezuela: terminal crisis of the rentier petro-state?

Venezuela's failure to develop an effective strategy to reduce its economy's dependence on gas and oil threatens the social successes and future viability of the Bolivarian project.

The Emerging Economies and Climate Change

The BASIC bloc of countries in UN negotiations have too often ended up collaborating and colluding with the inaction of industrialised countries, undermining the future of the poor in their own countries and throughout the South.