Copenhagen: Far from the End

A quick search online for information about the climate change debate yields endless opinionated blogs and articles listing political predictions. Everyone seems to have her own laments and interpretations about the outcomes of the rather complicated diplomatic waltz that was Copenhagen.

Although many are blaming China for hindering progress in the talks, China did champion the primary objection of many smaller developing nations: it seems unfair that wealthier, already industrialized nations that have long abused their own natural environment can impose standards on smaller countries struggling to grow and wishing to catch up economically.

It's a standpoint I've heard before, from Southeast Asian students when I spent last summer in Borneo. They worked for environmental NGOs or were in grad school studying ecology, coming from the most environmentally enlightened of their respective nations. And yet while they agreed that the best overall solution is to cut emissions, they bristle at the kind of self-righteousness nations such as the United States, which has consumed more than its fair share of natural resources in the process of industrializing itself, show by trying to impose carbon restrictions on smaller countries. Simply providing financial aid for the damages of climate change without helping developing nations establish long-lasting systems further belittles them.

Yet China seemingly ruined its own stance with its attitude. It used strategies like walk-outs, interruptions, and sending low-level ministers to talk with President Obama. Most damaging to its own image, however, is China's self-designation as a supposed "developing nation."¹ It's one thing to stand up for developing nations, another to attempt to gain advantages by attempting to portray itself as a victim. Clearly this same "developing nation" is already very industrialized, as China now has the world's largest foreign exchange reserve² and its GDP is catching up quickly. Only after some pressuring from US and UK politicians did China concede that it would not get "priority" on funds for developing nations.³

Overall, what seems to have happened is that the politics of the conference simply detracted the world's attention from real solutions to climate change. The 2°C goal, a promise to keep global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C, is a wonderfully ambitious one but also rather unrealistic according to various climate change scientists.⁴ Furthermore, standards set by Copenhagen are going to be hard to enforce — the treaty assumes international peer pressure alone is enough to keep nations on task.

The long-term outcomes of the conference may end up disillusioning those who hoped this conference to be the be-all and end-all of the international climate change problem. There will inevitably be more climate conferences to come and more political posturing. The only feasible way to get the entire world to decrease carbon emissions is to provide viable alternative economic solutions (such as the carbon-credit system) for developing nations — don't just throw money at them.

So how do carbon emissions break down for different regions of the world? Check out these awesome interactive infographics here and here. A great summary of the final climate accord can be found here.

Here you can find the official Copenhagen Climate Change Conference site. And this is a useful site for (a LOT) more on the economics of climate change.

References:

1. Anqi, Liu. "China says communication with other developing countries at Copenhagen." Xinhua. December 21, 2009.
2. Hamlin, Kevin & Yanping, Li. "China's foreign-exchange reserves surge, exceeding $2 trillion." Bloomberg. July 15, 2009.
3. "China says poor nations need ‘priority' on climate funds." My Sinchew. December 15, 2009.
4. Victor, D. G. Global warning: why the 2˚C goal is a political delusion. Nature 450, 909 (2009).