The real failure of the climate deal. (news)

armchair_warrior

A journey of a thousand miles...
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - Corrado Clini, the head of the International Department at the Italian Ministry of Environment and the engine of the Italian team in climate negotiations, is cautiously optimistic about a future agreement after the failure in Copenhagen last December - provided people really understand what happened in the Danish capital and what is at stake.

"A new agreement on climate change would entail a revolution of the present economic and political order and a massive reform of present global institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, et cetera, because a 50% decline in emissions by the middle of the century means a massive technological conversion and a dramatic shift in



economic activities, industry, agriculture and services from polluting to non-polluting ones. All of this can't be done overnight; it will take time and effort to have it in place properly," says Clini.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Singapore in November, United States President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao had already cleared the ground: a climate agreement was too complicated to reach, too many aspects were involved and not much could have been realistically achieved in Copenhagen.

After that, explains Clini, Obama didn't manage to get a commitment from the US Congress on US reductions and thus he went to Copenhagen de facto empty-handed. Here, yet, he found a different climate. The European countries were pressing to impose their standards onto everyone and some United Nations bureaucrats were deluding themselves and everybody into believing that a deal could be reached. So the Americans pushed for a showdown with the Chinese, who ultimately had to refuse because they could not commit when the US would not commit.

In sum, Copenhagen was mayhem, with total chaos and confusion in the organization and in the minds of the participants, but it underscored a few principles that are important to consider in reaching a future treaty. It is America and China that can make or scuttle any deal, any other country is ultimately an accessory. The Group of Two (China and the US) exists and works, for good or bad. Also, real negotiations are bound to be long and complex if they are to be binding.

The real strategy for addressing climate change is to slash energy consumption in developing countries. Projections prove that energy consumption in developed countries will increase only marginally and in some cases it will decrease in future decades. But in the same time span, energy consumption in developing countries will go sky-high. It is impossible to think that, as some Europeans pretend, developing countries will simply import and apply European environmental standards. "How can say India, where only 25% of the population has access to electricity, do that? No way!" says Clini. This would stem development in many countries and rather than do that these countries would just go for the environmental explosion of the planet.

Smarter Europeans know that this tactic, trying to force high standards onto developing countries, is just a ruse to build consensus on a carbon tax, ultimately a protectionist measure against growing aggressive economies from the former Third World.

Then to really cut consumption, one has to plan and implement real technology transfer from developed to developing countries. These technologies would cut consumption, which in turn would cut emissions and also help to keep down energy prices. These transfers could also help to rekindle the global economy, as they would mean growth of new industries in developed countries.

Yet, in practical terms, how can this complex process be started and move forward?

Clini, both idealistic and pragmatic, believes this could happen through what he calls incremental "sectors' agreements".

"Agreements have and can be reached sector by sector," he says. "For instance, all agree that car emissions have to be cut by so much in 10 to 15 years. Then cars exceeding those emissions will be phased out and new engine technologies will have to be sold to developing countries."

Checks will also need to be established, Clini agrees, and this raises the thorny issue of sovereignty. As checks on emissions have dramatic economic, social and thus political consequences, it is also crucial to agree on the mechanism of control of those agreements.

If there is mutual distrust about enforcement, then progress will be very cumbersome. Who will be overseeing the national authorities checking on India, Brazil and China, as well as the US and the European Union for emission cuts - and also technology transfer and use? There is also the possibility of leaving every country to create voluntary measures of reduction, but this would not create a necessary mechanism for technology transfer and thus it could stall cuts in emissions.

It is necessary to build an international political consensus on these checks, and it could be achieved starting from "small" sectors - say that of light fixtures, where technology is not so sensitive - and then moving up the ladder. This is very complicated, but it can be done because ultimately it is only the US and China that have to agree with one another. If they do, an environmental agreement will be achieved and a new world order will stem from it.

In all of this, the interest of Europe is to be pragmatic and favor the grand agreement - not to try to impose unrealistic standards and timetables that would disrupt an already difficult process.

Francesco Sisci is the Asia Editor of La Stampa.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LD08Ad01.html