The Climate: Time to Change?
By Natalia Donets
On Friday, November 13, 2009 in Manila, Philippines, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that it would be too optimistic to expect an internationally binding treaty as a result of the UN climate talks set to be held in Copenhagen in mid-December (2009). The statement, coming a mere week after President Obama expressed his determination to strike a deal, leads to confusion, especially considering the superficial position of the US concerning this issue. It is therefore necessary to revisit the issue of climate change and environmental degradation, which, according to a current prognosis of UN scientists, is likely to lead to catastrophic consequences for the entire international community.
Clinton suggested that "(w)e cannot let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of progress." Progress and continuous development have been two objectives the US had striven for in its internal and external affairs while, at the same time, aiming at the politics of removing restraints in its economic activities, and limited responsibility on the international level. The US has been particularly reluctant to get ‘tied down' by an environmental agreement that might involve sanctions for countries reluctant to become ‘greener.' It is necessary to keep in mind the well-known, yet somewhat sad example of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, drafted to limit gas emissions in developed countries. The document was not ratified by the US Congress, leaving observers to ponder the validity of moral arguments deployed by the US to pressure others for action. The US, self-prided on its ‘leadership by example' has been particularly unable to choose sides when it concerns ‘soft policy' areas.
2009 has, apparently, seen little change in the position of the US. The first-ever climate change bill, drafted by US Senator John Kerry, which was set to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses, is unlikely to be publicly discussed in 2009 and the US trails far behind the EU and Japan in environmental awareness.
Returning to Clinton's point about ‘progress;' international economic growth statistics speak volumes. According to Sir Nicolas Stern, if India continues to develop at the same pace as it does now, in the next 20 years its greenhouse gas emissions is likely to reach a point 4 times higher than the country currently produces. Also, it is clear that China, India's biggest competitor among developing countries, and currently the 2nd largest polluter in the world (after the US), will produce even higher levels of gas emissions. In all, the level of greenhouse gas emissions would pass the point-of-no-return, and stalling (or reversing) global warming - keeping it at a maximum of +2°C (Celsius), which many scientists regard as a tolerable temperature increase - would be nearly impossible.
China, while reluctant to formally sign any internationally binding agreement, has demonstrated a willingness to enforce environmental protection laws on local levels. Considering the growing importance of China in international affairs, its (and India's) support of ‘green' initiatives is vital for environmental efforts. India is not as keen on adopting an international effort that may curtail its economic productivities or increase the costs to producers. While these are only two states, their economic potency is negatively impacting on the environment and any environmental policy is likely to fail without China and India being brought into the fold.
On November 11 (2009), a group of vulnerable - to the effects of climate change - states, urged the international community to conclude a binding agreement in Denmark this December. The so-called V-11 (vulnerable 11) consists of: Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, the Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam, a list which is likely to grow. The Maldives for instance, which represent a particular strategic interest for India and China, risk disappearing entirely in the waters of the Indian Ocean over the next century if water levels rise due to global warming.
Figuring the potential results of the up-coming Copenhagen Conference is an exercise in guess-work because, unlike Kyoto, a high degree of uncertainty surrounds the Conference, its exact objectives and the positions of the main participants. A total of 191 world leaders were invited though only around 40 have confirmed their attendance. Obama is said to consider attending, Angela Merkel is keeping the date open, and it is sure that others will consider attending as well; however, for now less than 50% of expected guests will physically be in Copenhagen for the conference. This does not add optimism for the concerned public.
On the other hand, the EU recently pledged to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (compared to 1990 levels of pollution) over the next ten years. Additional efforts for the reduction of greenhouse gasses can only occur if major polluters such as the US and China actively cooperate with the EU, and other concerned political communities. The international community will be waiting eagerly for the results of the Copenhagen Conference as the environment currently sits on top the international relations agenda and further neglect of environmental issues is likely to reverberate throughout the international community.
18 November 2009
