House of Commons - Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate

Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate - International Development Committee Contents

6 The Copenhagen conference

139. The Parties to the UNFCCC will gather in Copenhagen from 7-18 December to discuss and, hopefully, agree the framework for a new climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. The working groups have already begun negotiations, starting in Bonn in March with four further sessions planned before December. In addition, President Obama has called for a new summit to be held alongside the G8 meeting in July to discuss climate change.[178]

140. The Copenhagen conference is seen as an important opportunity to secure an agreement on climate change which includes all the major emitters as well as the poorest countries before the world collectively reaches what are considered to be dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions. However talks in December 2008 in Poznan, Poland, intended as the stepping stone towards the Copenhagen conference, were viewed as largely disappointing in terms of outcomes, although progress was achieved towards making the Adaptation Fund operational.[179] Much is therefore at stake at the Copenhagen conference.

The UK Government's objectives

141. The Government's five key sustainable development objectives for the Copenhagen conference are to agree:

A long-term goal with credible near-term targets that keeps any temperature rise to below 2°C;
A way of sharing greenhouse gas emissions that is fair and equitable;
Support for developing countries to build their resilience and adapt to climate change;
Support for technology development and transfer that benefits developing countries based on their needs and circumstances;
A reformed carbon market that expands the reach and impact of carbon finance.[180]

142. Lord Stern told us he thought that it would be possible to get an agreement in Copenhagen. He said that three things had happened since his 2006 report which made a deal more likely:

there was scientific evidence to suggest the problem was more severe than originally thought;
technical progress made finding solutions easier; and,
there is a stronger international commitment to finding solutions.[181]

He said the global economic downturn made progress more imperative but also offered an opportunity to "accelerate towards the low carbon growth path that we as a world are going to have to follow."[182]

143. At the G20 Summit in London in March 2009 progress on securing economic stimulus packages which included "green" measures was disappointing. This was despite many asserting in advance of the summit that "green growth" and "green jobs" were the way out of the recession, particularly in the US. The G20 communiqué gave a "commitment to use fiscal stimuli for low carbon investment, to identify and work together on policies for green growth and to reach a new climate change agreement at Copenhagen."[183] However no specific sums of money were pledged for this objective and no indication was given of what this would mean in practical terms for developed or developing countries.

144. DFID has said that one of its priorities is to play a leadership role in international climate change negotiations and to ensure that any new global agreement is "development friendly"[184] At the very least this should mean setting rigorous emissions targets for industrial countries to reduce the impact of climate change on developing countries as well as sufficient financial assistance to developing countries to help them adapt to changes already taking place and those anticipated.

SETTING EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS

145. The Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, argued that the future price of failure to act quickly on climate change would far outweigh the costs involved in taking strong early action to mitigate emissions now. Tackling climate change head-on was viewed as the most effective way to stop it affecting economic growth:

185

146. The Review estimated that spending just 1% of global income every year would stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) at between 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm) CO₂by 2050. It was estimated that at this level the average global temperature rise would be about 2°C which is considered by some scientists to be a safe level. However, if nothing was done, under a "business as usual" scenario, the stock of GHG could more than treble by the end of the century and this would give a 50% risk that global temperature increases would exceed 5°C during the following decades.[186]

147. More recently, in June 2008, Lord Stern revised his estimate of the costs of mitigation because climate change was advancing faster than predicted. He said it was now necessary to double spending to 2% of global income to keep the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere at an acceptable level and avert a climate disaster.[187] This translates into a peaking of global emissions by 2020 and a reduction in emissions by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.[188] Lord Stern has cautioned that if leaders fail to take urgently needed actions this year, "climate change impacts will likely cost over 20% of global output—more than the Great Depression and both World Wars combined, in addition to the human deaths and species extinctions."[189]

148. We have already discussed the UK's commitment to a 34% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The UK has also committed to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.[190] The EU has agreed to cut its overall emissions by 20% by 2020 and to increase this to 30% subject to commitments from other developed countries in an international agreement.[191] However, this is seen as falling short of what is required. China, a significant emitter, has recently announced that it will consider agreeing to a target for emissions reductions. This would be an important step which could help pave the way for agreement in December.[192] It is vital that rich countries set very rigorous targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. These countries bear primary responsibility for current levels of gases in the atmosphere. Emerging economies and industrialising countries will also need to take actions but these should be proportionate to their historic level of emissions. The principles of reducing global emissions and sharing common but differentiated responsibility should provide the over-arching framework for the UK's negotiating stance in Copenhagen.[193]

149. We are concerned however that only months away from the Copenhagen conference many countries are unwilling to put figures on the table. The Government should take a strong lead in encouraging other high emitters to take the tough decisions necessary. The EU is apparently waiting to see what others do before making a commitment to the stringent targets which are deemed necessary. We understand that this is a negotiating tactic, but consider it to be a high-risk strategy. Too many important decisions are being left until the last minute, with the danger that agreement may not then be secured. A commitment to achieving a successful outcome and a willingness to be flexible must be demonstrated by all parties, including the UK and the EU. The UK should put pressure on its EU partners to make progress on establishing an agreed negotiating position now.

APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

150. The principle of "common but differentiated responsibility " provides the framework for international negotiations on climate change. It refers to the shared responsibility to protect the climate whilst recognising that developed countries bear the larger responsibility due to their past and current levels of emissions and because they have greater financial resources to act.

151. However, this does not mean that developing countries have no responsibilities. WWF told us that many developing countries were already beginning to think about mitigation activities beyond what was required of them: "China, Mexico and South Africa are doing some very ambitious things entirely outside existing obligations because they think it is the right thing to do."[194] China's actions on climate change are crucial. In our report on DFID's programme in China we commended the Department for its "comprehensive approach" to climate change in China and highlighted its importance in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit. We recommended that UK support for climate change work in China should continue with a co-ordinated strategy across all relevant UK Government Departments.[195]

152. We are pleased that industrialising countries such as China are beginning to consider appropriate mitigation actions. The UK Government should encourage such initiatives. As we said in our recent report into DFID and China "the path that China chooses, in terms of carbon emissions, energy use and its sourcing of natural resources, will strongly affect the international community's efforts to address climate change." We recommend that DFID ensure that the new Centre for Climate and Development includes research and policy analysis on climate change in China as one of its focus areas.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

153. Any new agreement reached at Copenhagen needs to recognise that, unless developing countries receive funding for adaptation, there is a very real risk that the gains made in poverty reduction thus far may be eroded. The IIED thought that DFID should be pushing harder on the link between adaptation measures and poverty reduction in international negotiations.[196] Lord Stern told us that both mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries would require "substantial finance". He said climate change had not been taken into account when figures for official development assistance (ODA) had been agreed in 2002 ahead of the Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development nor in 2005 ahead of the Gleneagles G8 Summit.[197] In Chapter 3 we discussed the need for new sources of funding for adaptation and the importance of being able to demonstrate that such funding was additional to existing ODA commitments.

154. Lord Stern has suggested that donor countries should increase their ODA to 1% of GDP to fund adaptation in developing countries.[198] As we have indicated, there are many other estimates of the additional costs which adaptation will place on developing countries. WWF told us:

199

The DFID Minister told us:

200

155. Establishing the principle of additional funding for adaptation is crucial to securing agreement in Copenhagen. We appreciate that it may be too sensitive for developed countries to make firm commitments at this stage, but the UK Government should show moral leadership and confirm that it will indeed be putting new funding on the table in Copenhagen. This would send out an important signal to poor countries that the developed world is prepared to meets its responsibilities towards them. It might also encourage other donors to be equally bold in fulfilling their clear obligations on adaptation costs.

178 "Leaders to meet in summer for special climate change talks", The Independent, 29 March 2009 Back

179 Q 26 Back

180 Ev 77 Back

181 Q 201 Back

182 Q 201 Back

183 G20: top 10 outcomes, www.number10.gov.uk Back

184 Ev 76 Back

185 Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, 2006, Summary Back

186 Ibid. It should be noted that all such projections are based on particular modelling frameworks. Using different climate models or assumptions produces different estimates of GHG emissions levels and temperature rises. Back

187 "Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern", The Guardian, 26 June 2008 Back

188 Ev 78 Back

189 Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, 2006 Back