Anthony Painter

Whatever comes out of Copenhagen today- if anything at all- it is already clear that the entire process has been a shambles. Strategically a legally binding agreement signed by almost every nation on earth is an exhausting and seemingly fruitless process. Even if carbon reduction targets are agreed today, the monitoring, legal framework, resource and technology transfer could be tied in negotiations for years. The degree of mistrust between the developed, rapidly developing, and barely developing world is enormous.

According to Reuters, the leaders haven’t even decided what to call whatever may or may not be signed today. So what chance that it contain something meaningful? The words may there but the mechanisms to make it happen won’t be. Almost, no-one has shifted in two weeks of negotiations (with the exception of the US-proposed $100billion fund from 2020.) I suspect that a second futile and frustrating visit to Copenhagen for President Obama would be his last.

Could it have been different? Well, when looking at successful proactive institution building in the past, the deep and committed model seems to be a better one. The European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 and then the European Economic Community in 1957 both had the same six original members bound by a deep commitment to peace and prosperity with a supranational executive and judicial enforcement. Now the European Union, as it has become, has 27 members states and covers one twelfth of the world’s population.

OK, it’s taken 50 plus years to get there but the approach is instructive. Get a small committed band together then expand rapidly. To be credible, the initial band would have to include the US, EU, Brazil, China and, preferably, India and Russia though there may have to be flexibility on these final two. Without China, the US is unlikely to go along with anything. The fact that the G77 Group of developing nations as part of these negotiations is ridiculous (I am currently looking at a picture of President Ahmadinejad giving a speech in front of the COP15 logo. Why?) A phenomenal amount of time has been wasted that could have been devoted to robust institution building. Other nations could be drawn in over time. Why would they? There would be disincentives to not doing so, trade, aid, etc and incentives like technology transfer and investment. Just like the EU in fact.

So I could be proved wrong and an agreement could be plucked from the Summit by some Obama magic. I doubt it will be particularly strong if it is- though something is better than nothing contrary to Naomi Klein’s outlook.

STOP PRESS: As I write, a draft agreement has been leaked to the New Scientist. As I say, it is something. But it is nowhere near enough- it is a stuttering start rather than conclusion of a process.

Some details:

- $100billion transfer from rich countries to developing world from 2020 to mitigate climate impacts.

- Cuts of ‘x’ and ‘y’% to the emissions of rich countries (elsewhere the US has committed to a cut of 4% on 1990 levels by 2020; the EU 20% by 2020.) No date as yet it would seem.

- China makes no international commitment and largely keeps control of monitoring (NB remember the judicial element to the EU and how important that is.)

- No reference to what the impact of these measures will be.