As I wrap up this column for the semester, I realize there is no better time than now to be writing this piece. Yesterday, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which includes the 15th Conference of the Parties, started in Copenhagen, Denmark. It will run until Dec.18, 2009, and most of the action, if indeed there is any, will likely be concentrated in the last few days of the two weeks. The world is galvanized like never before around the issues being discussed—specifically, the future of international climate change policy.
Over the past year, speculations and pontifications were rife with what should, could, and would be done at the conference. However, it has been understood since at least September of this year that nothing substantial is expected to come out the conference. “Substantial” is understood to mean binding and legally enforceable emissions targets from both developed and developing countries, a universally acceptable and accepted technology transfer system, and suitable protocols and infrastructure for measurement, reporting, and verification of countries’ progress toward meeting their targets. Now, however, international hopes and expectations for the outcome of the conference have been lowered considerably. Perhaps the most that can be anticipated from the conference is a “framework” for a future treaty. In development-speak, a “framework” is like that first draft of a research paper you were required to submit a month in advance—lacking in substance and subject to complete change.
Meanwhile, “leaked e-mail correspondence” between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia elicited responses from “flat earth” skeptics the world over, who railed that the entire issue of anthropogenic interference with the climate has been fabricated. They claimed the existence of a data-fudging scandal, a propaganda machine, an evil conspiracy. In reality, the whole scandal revolved around some informal comments on the quality of peer research and questionable academic practices on the part of the particular group of scientists. All the brouhaha and media coverage (this paragraph included) were merely wasted time, space, and energy. However, the international and domestic political fallouts were considerable. Conservative politicians seized the proverbial carrot and threatened to set the world back several years regarding the issue.
And yet there is still reason to be positive about Copenhagen. President Obama announced his revised decision to attend the conference on the final day (he originally intended to make just a quick guest appearance). His presence on that final day does not automatically imply that any real treaty is expected to emerge from the conference, but it is a powerful diplomatic move that will have far-reaching consequences for the prioritization of climate change in the global agenda. Obama’s attendance will signal that, although the process of passing climate legislation domestically is taking its time, America is committed to addressing the climate issue and is conscious of its time sensitivity.
There are other reasons for hope, too. The integration of climate initiatives with existing national agendas through Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions has marked a significant shift in the paradigm of policy creation. By demonstrating that actions on issues of climate change are in accordance with existing concerns like energy security, countries can promote climate legislation within their own borders. This might motivate countries intrinsically to implement and monitor efforts to contain emissions. Just last week, both China and India announced nationwide energy efficiency targets. Although they were not as ambitious as was originally hoped, it is diplomatically—and perhaps, in the long term, environmentally—prudent for them to announce targets that they are confident are attainable rather than setting themselves up to fail to meet loftier goals.
The next two weeks might mark the beginning of the next major phase of international climate legislation architecture. Then again, they probably won’t. Either way, however, the changes that have occurred in global diplomacy, rhetoric, and national action around the issue are historic. A deal or the absence thereof does not need to be the absolute determinant of success—these past few months in the run-up to the conference have produced significant advances in momentum behind climate policy on a global scale.
No, there is no better time to be thinking about how best to solve the challenges of anthropogenic climate change that confront us. In fact, as this column wraps up, I hope it has done its job of convincing you that now is the moment to consider sustainability and development. I hope I’ve given you some environmentally friendly and developmentally progressive food for thought.
Monica Varman is a Columbia College junior majoring in economics-mathematics and concentrating in sustainable development. She is a senior editor of Consilience and works on the Millennium Village Project.Green Piece runs alternate Tuesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.