Hopes & Fears For Copenhagen

New Scientist asked leading scientists, politicians and business people to tell of their hopes and fears for the imminent climate change talks in Copenhagen. The biggest fear for R.K. Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is getting a weak agreement which does not represent any commitment to action.

30 November 2009

New Scientist asked leading scientists, politicians and business people to tell us their hopes and fears for the imminent climate change talks.

R. K. Pachauri

My best hope is that developed countries agree on commitments to reduce emissions by 2020 more or less in keeping with the stated position of the European Union. I also hope that there will be a commitment to fund mitigation and adaptation measures in some of the poorest countries, as well as some arrangement for facilitating access to technology. My expectation is that if these measures are committed to by the developed world at a reasonably early stage, several developing countries will put forward their own national action plans.

My biggest fear is that we get a weak agreement which does not represent any commitment to action. If that happened there would be a great deal of finger-pointing, and gloating on the part of the vested interests who would like to defeat any effort to get a meaningful agreement. I believe such a scenario would represent a major setback.

R.K. Pachauri is chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

John Schellnhuber

We can no longer hope for an ambitious legally binding agreement. The decision-makers have clandestinely sacked the “Bali road map”. This leaves room for better or worse. If leaders really wish to avert the imminent crisis, they can seal a political deal that limits global warming to 2 °C and sets fair principles for burden sharing, as reflected especially in the equal per-capita budget approach where national emissions budgets are set according to population. This outcome may actually be superior to a hasty pact. In the negative scenario, a combination of procrastination and pusillanimity could result in wasting time for nothing.

John Schellnhuber is director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and a scientific adviser to the chancellor, Angela Merkel

Richard Lindzen

I fervently hope that Copenhagen will avoid canonising the absurd notion that climate is determined by any single parameter like CO2. The dubious attempts to link this parameter to every form of catastrophe is producing unwarranted fear. Imposing this notion as a matter of international law will set science back several centuries. The accompanying policies seem designed to do the same for society as a whole. The carbon control movement, like every malicious movement, seeks to cloak itself in an aura of virtue. Sentient citizens should be able to see through this patent ploy.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jeremy Leggett

I most hope for an agreement for mass mobilisation of clean energy technology as though for war. We know we can do this if government, business and people come together in a critical mass. But if we are to do it, the days of rhetoric without action and greenwash without investment must end forever. The majority of governments have sought a treaty with teeth for 20 years now, and time is running out fast. Leaders tempted to present a non-binding framework agreement as a ground-breaking advance must not be allowed to get away with it.

Jeremy Leggett is a renewable energy entrepreneur based in London

Raúl Estrada-Oyuela

Unfortunately, the lack of clear US policy on emissions reduction will prevent the conference from achieving its aims. In fact since 2004, when Copenhagen was arranged, it was clear that the timing was wrong. A US government inaugurated in January 2009 had no possibility of adopting a new climate policy in 10 months, after eight years of denial by the Bush administration. The best possible outcome will be a serious political commitment of all parties, including “mega” developing countries and Russia, to continue negotiations in June 2010.

Raúl Estrada-Oyuela is an Argentinian diplomat. He chaired the 1997 Kyoto protocol negotiations

Richard Folland

The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.

Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs. Parties could, for example, reform and improve the Clean Development Mechanism. This is criticised, sometimes justifiably, but its achievement in incentivising private finance for clean energy projects in developing countries is undeniable. Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment and therefore emissions reductions which are urgently needed.

Richard Folland is climate change and energy adviser to J. P. Morgan

Susan Solomon

I’m very confident that armed with good understanding, society will ultimately make good decisions. In the past few years the world has come a very long way on public understanding of climate change and agreeing on the need to deal with it. Nobody would have expected such an improved level of comprehension five years ago. That is a major advance that I hope will be celebrated no matter what the outcome of the meeting happens to be. My biggest fear is that the science will be misrepresented due to the strong emotions surrounding this meeting. Keeping emotions separate from science is hard, but it’s fundamental to a lasting and durable understanding that is needed for real progress.

Susan Solomon is a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and was co-chair of the 2007 IPCC science panel report

Boris Johnson

I want Copenhagen to be remembered not for pontification around targets, but for tangible commitments to drive change. As the source of two-thirds of carbon emissions, cities have a massive opportunity to rise above the hype and show what can be achieved. In London, for example, we are working to utilise the procurement power of large cities across the world to stimulate a global market for electric vehicles. The mass move to this zero-emission technology will have a huge impact on cutting carbon to curb climate change whilst improving air quality and noise levels for our citizens.

Boris Johnson is mayor of London

Stephen Schneider

My worst fear is that Copenhagen continues the tradition, started at the 1992 Earth Summit, of rehearsing the “blame game”: poor countries pointing out large historical inequities in the share of the atmospheric commons used by the rich, and rich countries pointing fingers at overpopulated, badly governed developing countries that lack incentives for innovation. That would just delay the required measures.

My best hope is that President Obama and Chinese leaders announce a last minute “deal” that they invite all others to join on five key points. These are: adaptation strategies for changes that cannot be avoided; mandatory efficiency standards for buildings and machines; partnerships to spur investment and deployment of green technologies; fees for dumping carbon in the atmosphere to be levied on all nations; and enhanced R&D on carbon removal.

Stephen Schneider is Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

Peter Wadhams

My biggest hope is that there is a genuine change of heart among politicians of the advanced industrial countries; that they will begin with genuine enthusiasm a “war on carbon” to remove our dependence on fossil fuels by the use of innovative technology. Only government-scale efforts can achieve this; individual efforts will never amount to more than well-meaning tinkering.

My biggest fear is that the politicians have not changed and are seeking the least that they can get away with. A sign of this will be if they come up with ambitious targets for a long time ahead, say 80 per cent reductions by 2050. In their minds, this means that nothing much has to be done before 2040 so it’s not their problem.

Peter Wadhams is professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge

Aubrey Meyer

I hope the UK government, having adopted the contraction and convergence (C&C) principle as the basis of its climate policies, will now champion its global adoption. C&C was invented by my organisation, the Global Commons Institute, and as a rational proposition it is impossible to beat. It works by contracting global emissions down to a safe level while each country’s share of that total is set according to population. In Kyoto in 1997, the C&C principle was supported by China, India, the Africa Group and the US, while the UK sat on its hands. I fear they will do that again at COP-15.

Aubrey Meyer is director of the Global Commons Institute

J. R. McNeill

The most hopeful prospect is of a rapprochement (to use the diplomats’ language) between China and the US that changes the momentum of negotiations, leading ultimately, if not at Copenhagen, to agreements on real reductions in emissions.

China and the US are the key variables, both for their leading contributions to greenhouse gas concentrations, and for their political clout. Serious commitments on their part would change the momentum and de-legitimise foot-dragging on the part of Australia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others.

The most fearful prospect is of a face-saving accord that has no real effect. Such accords are a frequent outcome of large multilateral negotiations.

This is more worrisome than a breakdown resulting in no accord at all, because it would encourage an illusory belief that Copenhagen yielded a successful approach to the climate change problem. The resulting complacency would be the most dangerous of outcomes.

J.R. McNeill is Professor of Environmental History at Georgetown University in Washington, DC

Richard Alley

Scientists have studied climate change for centuries, and serious climate science is decades old. The scientific community needed that long to provide confident answers to many of the big questions about climate change.

Climate science looks easier than deciding how to use the scientific information to make wise policies. My hope is that the policymakers will accept the outcome of the scientific effort, and focus on their more-difficult and more-important challenges.

Richard Alley is Evan Pugh Professor in the Department of Geosciences and the EMS Environment Institute at the Pennsylvania State University

Sarah Butler-Sloss

I hope it is made clear that it need not be a choice between cutting emissions and alleviating poverty, nor between cutting emissions and economic growth.

There are tremendous sustainable energy technologies ready right now if only the political will and financial support was there. These are technologies that cut emissions whilst improving the lives of the poor, stimulating economies and creating jobs.

I fear that the wealthy nations – those most responsible for filling the atmosphere with dangerous levels of greenhouse gases – will stall negotiations and nothing will be agreed. The consequences will be most painfully felt in the developing world.

Sarah Butler-Sloss is executive chairman of the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy.

Source: www.newscientist.com