The much-anticipated Copenhagen conference on climate change begins in under three months, with countries signaling initial negotiating positions and intensifying consultation.
Since the election of President Barack Obama, and his redirection of U.S. energy and climate policy, hopes have been high that U.S. participation would enable a thawing of previously deadlocked positions. But climate negotiations are delicate in that they are attempting to address a number of long-term and near-term questions simultaneously, and involve elements with considerable scientific and economic uncertainty.
Climate policy is now recognized as far more than the single issue of emissions targets. Negotiators at Copenhagen will be tackling three interlinked elements:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
While climate policy encompasses more than emissions levels, the topic of emissions is critically important to climate change, and will remain the most contentious element of negotiations at Copenhagen and beyond:
In many ways, debate on emissions has not changed substantially since the mid-1990s, when developing and developed countries formalized their approaches as blocs. At this point, the general agreement was that there exists a common but differentiated responsibility when it comes to addressing emissions, and developed countries should lead in reducing their own emissions before developing countries are called upon to reduce theirs.
Because the precise nature of “differentiated responsibility” inevitably varies according to perspective, areas of reasonable compromise on specific targets and actions have been elusive. As such, negotiators have settled on a two-part approach to emissions.
First, to articulate a common vision for long-term climate policy, which could involve setting a long-term emissions-reduction target (for example, a 50% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050). Such a target would be based appropriately on a collective judgment about what levels of climate change in the future would constitute unacceptable risk.
One likely approach would be to define a specific warming threshold (such as 2 degrees Celsius) and then calculate the total emissions limit that makes exceeding that target unlikely (perhaps 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). From this atmospheric concentration, it is easier to set a 2050 global target that would then be seen as part of a decreasing trajectory of global emissions that would continue beyond 2050.
Then, with some agreement on the long-term goal, and thus the approximate trajectory of global emissions, the question of near-term emissions commitments could be addressed. Such provisions could include future emissions commitments and timetables. Quantitative elements are likely to be introduced, but at this point the question is whether such targets could be absolute or intensity-based.
It is also unclear whether a single approach would be used for all parties. Approaches to reducing emissions include revised or new carbon market mechanisms (emissions trading and the clean development mechanism), energy policy harmonization and reductions of emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Increase Resilience to Climate Change
Physical changes in climate are an important issue for all countries, though some are more vulnerable than others. In this area, negotiators will discuss approaches to enhance capacity in the areas of adaptation planning, and provide additional funding and institutions for adaptation in developing countries.
Stimulate Innovation and Investment in New Technologies
International approaches to innovation might include collaboration on large technological research initiatives, such as next-generation nuclear power or carbon capture and storage along with addressing intellectual property rights questions that might facilitate faster rates of technology transfer.
The Copenhagen conference will involve a large and intense negotiation on multiple dimensions of climate policy. It is likely that this focus will enable some progress on sub-agreements–such as the long-term “common vision,” REDD and new architectures for the clean development mechanism. However, the primary question is whether the United States, India and China can agree on commitments that will be seen as mutually sufficient while also domestically acceptable.
To read an extended version of this article, log on to Oxford Analytica’s Web site.
Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading universities and research institutions around the world. For more information, please visit here.