Tall Tales

If you have been following the COP15 summit at Copenhagen then you might know that things are not looking good.

First, the conference started with the usual way international summits start- 1200 limos, 140 private jets and a huge carbon footprint,never mind that the conference was about sustainability and letting the planet breathe. This contradictory behaviour prompted many to believe that all will be business as usual while the skeptics were convinced that the whole thing was a sham. Conspiracy theories were swirling around thick and fast while science was heavily twisted to fit the agenda of various vested interests.

The summit at Copenhagen started under the shadow of “Climategate“, an incident where the private mails of scientists at East Anglica University’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked on the Internet. While the number of documents leaked numbered in thousands controversy raged around a few mails where words like “temps” and “trick” were used in the same paragraph. To quote a line from a mail by Dr Phil Jones, head of the CRU

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Looks fishy,right? There are more “confessions” that has the numerous climate change skeptics outrightly condemning climate change to be variously, a religion, a left wing conspiracy to lower the living standards in the West, a plot to take away jobs to the third world or a ploy by scientists to gain research funds. Furthermore IPCC’s recommendations about the levels of emissions cuts (from 25% to 40% of 1990′s emissions) are derived from analysis by bodies like CRU. Yet inspite of what meets the eye, there is little evidence of any cover up and overwhelming evidence that the science of climate change is real and backed by solid facts.

Let me digress. a bit Where I am in India, ten years ago it would be impossible to sit writing this post without being swaddled in jackets and warm leggings. Yet, I am pretty comfortable in my normal light summer wear. The water table is steadily falling each year, the wetlands are drying up after every season and the glaciers in the Himalayas and the poles are breaking off and melting at scary rates. The writing on the wall is clear, regardless of whether we read it or not.

Back to Copenhagen. Within a few days of the opening of the conference an informal draft agreement dubbed the Danish text was leaked to the press. This draft suggested that rich countries, who were the only anthropogenic contributors of greenhouse gases for a very long time since the Industrial Revolution (the third world, notably China and India are new entrants to this bloc) would allow for a sidelined role of UN, more influence to the World Bank (and hence the West, the main contributors) and lesser commitments on them for cleaning up the air. Predictably, the rest of the world was outraged. The developing world, notably Africa and small island nations like Tuvalu decried what they saw as attempts by the rich world to continue doing business as usual and forcing the poor countries to suffer the worst effects of climate change like rise in sea levels and 50% lower crop yields.

The main demand of developing nations, specifically the African bloc is to achieve a treaty which restricts global temperature rise by maximum 2 degree Centigrades from pre-Industrial levels. Groupings like G-77, representing 130 countries have repeatedly stalled and have even in one instance walked out on 14th to protest the lack of commitment and weak emission targets proposed by Europe and America

Essentially, everything boils down to money. The developing world is demanding close to $100billion every year as adaptation costs for climate change as well as technology transfer. The developed world is willing to settle for amounts ranging from $1.5 billion to $10 billion for periods ranging from each year to three  years. Britain and other EU countries favour a corpus with funds amounting to $10 billion every year . There are also differences about on the Kyoto protocol- the poorer countries want the protocol to be extended and strengthened while the richer ones want large emitters among developing countries like China and India to be a part of any emission control effort.

Of course, before the conference China, India and the US had made noises about taking steps to voluntarily cut back on emissions, but the Asian economies stressed that there could be no legal obligations. There are even difference of opinions between bigger and smaller developing countries-the smaller ones don’t care if China or India or Brazil’s emissions are controlled along with developed countries while the BASIC(Brazil,South Africa,India,China) group vehemently opposes any such move.

But the main sticking point is the US. It is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the highest per capita emitter. While the rest of the developed world had joined the Kyoto protocol and committed to legal cuts, the US stayed out of it.Even now, the US is perceived as offering too little, a cut in emissions of 17%  by 2020 from 2005 levels which amounts to 4% from 1990 levels. The need is for cuts from 25% to 40%. For many, especially in the developing world, the US is the main villain in the drama. While the US president Obama has said he would try his best he pleads that his hands are tied by the Congress. Legal experts have however asserted that the president can use his Executive authority to ink a legally binding deal. If  the US  steps forward, the summit can perhaps be resurrected.

Look at it this way.Last year the world spent upto $1.3 trillion in total to get the financial system back on rails. The asking investment for climate change is peanuts compared to this, and if done well is likely to be the best investment we can make for our future. Else, we would have a lot of explaining to do to our children and grandchildren.