The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: Adaptation, Mitigation and Money

By: Getachew Mequanent, Ottawa, Canada, December 23, 2009

The purpose of the 2009 Copenhagen conference was to agree on a climate change accord that would replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Why replace it?  The Protocol actually had good targets for reducing green house gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 levels. The problem was that this Protocol failed to achieve a global consensus necessary to create a momentum for collective action, just as the UN MDGs (millennium development goals) had done to inspire different segments of international society. To start with, the Kyoto Protocol identified two groups of signatory nations. The first group consisted of industrialized nations, which were the major polluters. This group was required to commit to meeting the emission targets set under the Kyoto Protocol. The second group consist of developing nations including emerging economies China, India and Brazil. This group was required only to adhere to “general commitments” of emission reductions, which means a softer application of the Kyoto accord.  As a result, while nearly all of the industrialized nations accepted the Kyoto Protocol, they chose to develop their own individual plans to meet national targets. They did not consider the 2.5% emission reduction target. Moreover, many kept pointing to China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies, which were equally emitting high levels of pollution, yet they got away without being seriously implicated by the Kyoto Protocol.

The 2009 Copenhagen conference was thus expected to produce a document that would achieve a consensus and inspire collective global action for climate change. The main expectations were: 1) an agreement on commonly binding principles that guide the control of pollution levels; 2) persuading China, India, Brazil and other fast growing economies (which are using more and more fossil fuels) to use renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power); and 3) helping poor nations financially to cope with the impacts of climate change.

The final draft document of the Copenhagen conference, yet to be ratified in Mexico in 2010  as legally binding document, outlines the following commitments, among other things: 1) a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C; 2) recognition of the development needs of emerging economies (China, India and others) and developing nations; 3) support for the capacity development of poor nations to adapt and mitigate climate change; 4) promise to provide sufficient and predictable financial support for developing nations ($30 billion over three years [2010-2012] and $100 billion a year by 2020); and 5) an assessment of these strategies by 2015. In this way, the Copenhagen document attempts to satisfy everybody, especially by committing every nation (not just industrialized nations only) to implementing the climate change agreement. The question is, how do we act?

We adapt and mitigate. Actually, both adaptation and mitigation work towards achieving complementary goals. Adaptation simply means that the natural environment of mother earth has changed because of climate change. We must cope with the consequences, such as health problems, sea level rises, floods, drought, loss of vegetation, supply scarcity (oil reserves run out), change in biodiversity and so on. Therefore, measures of adaptation include planting trees, recycling material, health care, building dikes (to prevent flood), human resettlement, emergency responses, developing drought resistant crops, maintaining bio-diversity, switching your electronic devices before you go to bed (to save energy), and so on.

Mitigation means getting to the root problem of atmospheric change that causes global warming. This problem is the excessive and growing consumption of fossil fuels that in the process emits pollutants to the atmosphere. Mitigation measures include formulating regulatory frameworks and incentive structures to reduce energy-intensive production of goods and services. One example of this is manufacturing plants meeting their power needs from wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear generated power to  produce cars, appliances, heaters, coolers, computers, clothes, food and beverages, and so on.

The financial aspects of the discussions and negotiations at Copenhagen must have been tough, at a time of slow economic recovery in donor countries and their democratically elected governments trying to cope with the problems of growing budget deficits (which could cost them politically). As always, some of the African participants in Copenhagen conference appeared somewhat defiant, perhaps thinking that financial aid from wealthy countries was a form of reparation (donors understand it on a compassionate ground). The leaders of wealthy and powerful nations often dominate world stages whereas the leaders of poorer nations get little attention. In fact, according to some news sources, the UN would like to streamline the process for the next climate change negotiation in Mexico to ensure better representation of voices and achievement of consensus. It was therefore important that the methodological Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, head of the African delegation, did some manoeuvrings to help break a deal worth $10 billion a year over three years (2010-2012) and this increasing to $100 billion a year by 2020.  If the African delegation had adopted a tough position on financial issues, the leaders of donor countries, amid frustrating diplomatic haggling, would probably have shrugged them off and differed the discussions for another time.

In sum, we know what the conference was all about and what it aimed to achieve. What we do not know is how or whether the work on climate change adaption and mitigation would be done sooner and faster to protect the earth and her inhabitants from catastrophes. Our experiences with other agreements or initiatives suggest that what was written in papers remains in papers, gathering dust. Recall the plan of the Commission for Africa proposing a $64 billion a year international funding to implement various initiatives in economic growth, health, education, trade and infrastructure sectors? I am not aware of anything significant happening except perhaps the continuation of “increasing aid for Africa” rhetoric. Will we be able to see policies and programs that promote behavioural changes (helping us to go green and use less energy, for example), build renewable sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power plants), support farmers’ adaptation efforts (developing new farming systems), reforestation of degraded landscapes and so on? Will the money end up being wasted during the usual bureaucratic processes or even stolen by corrupted elites? We all should ponder on these and other issues, while remaining optimistic about the future.