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:
Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy
for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not
cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The
earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.[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) CO2 by 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 outputmore 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:
The issue to make a global agreement at Copenhagen
work is intimately bound up with both finding suitably large sources
of sustainable and predictable finance coming from the rich world
to then be well governed and well spent in developing countries
in terms of helping to secure a lower carbon transition there.[199]
The DFID Minister told us:
We recognise that ODA will not be able to deliver
all of the additional finance that is going to be required to
tackle climate change, but I am wary of taking it much further
[
] because of the nature of the negotiation process that
is going on ahead of Copenhagen. That is the prize that we are
all looking at. We are clear that there has got to be some additionality.[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
190
Q 242 Back
191
Q 242 Back
192
"China considers setting targets for carbon emissions",
The Guardian, 19 April 2009 Back
193
These principles are behind several frameworks, notably Contraction
and Convergence (www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html) and Greenhouse
Development Rights (www.sei-us.org/climate-and-energy/GDR.html) Back
194
Q 170 Back
195
Third Report of Session 2008-09, DFID and China, HC 180-I,
para 84; see also para 136 Back
196
Q 280 Back
197
Q 201 Back
198
Nicholas Stern, The economic crisis and the two great challenges
of the 21st century, a speech delivered at the
DFID Conference on Securing our Common Future, 9 March 2009 Back
199
Q 174 Back
200
Q 262 Back
|