Copenhagen Conundrum 1: National Carbon Emissions Targets and the Danish Text

Posted on 09. Dec, 2009 by Ross in Climate Change, Government Policy

As part of a series of posts surrounding the diplomatic shenanigans currently occuring in Copenhagen this month, Energy-Saving News focuses on a selection of the key areas of debate standing between the world’s countries and a meaningful global accord against the looming prospect of climate change.

In the first of these posts, we’re talking targets - carbon reduction targets, to be precise.

Carbon Targets: The Big One

In the lead-up to the conference, you could be forgiven for thinking that carbon reduction targets were the only thing which Copenhagen was concerned with. To a certain extent you would be right: the principle cause of climate change is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and no effort to combat climate change would be effective without reducing emissions on a global scale.

Nations were expected to come to the talks having already established what level of carbon reduction their leaders could bring to the negotiating table, and most of the attendees from the developed world have already had their carbon reduction offerings sanctioned by their national parliments.

There are, of course, some notable exceptions, chief amongst which is the USA. American politicians have bickered and stalled over cap-and-trade legislation proposals, despite getting the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed in the House of Congress earlier in the year. President Barak Obama claims to be bringing a 17% cut to the table, despite it not having been approved, but even this is barely close to ambitious: it is set against a 2005 baseline, whereas it corresponds to just a 4% cut against the 1990 levels used by the Kyoto Treaty as the baseline.

Some other countries have dragged their heels as well over carbon reduction targets. An especially bitter political battle in Australia has left them in climate no-man’s land, whilst Russia continues to promise massive cuts whilst ignoring the fact that it already has, due to the collapse of Soviet heavy industry in the ex-Communist block. Any target from South Korea would be almost meaningless: it would need to cut emissions by nearly 60% to get them back to 1990 levels!

Carbon U-turns

The European Union had agreed to offer 30% reductions, but withdrew that offer today based on inadequate offering from other nations and will instead offer only 20%. Japan, which offered only a 2% improvement on its’ agreed Kyoto commitments until the Government was ousted by the much greener Democratic Party, is likely to withdraw its’ 25% target for similar reasons should negotiations continue to run their current course.

Many eyes are on China and India, the two largest developing nations which are quickly becoming the most polluting. China has made sizeable promises, but they are carbon intensity targets rather than absolute carbon targets: they have promised to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced relative to national gross domestic product by 40-45%. This means commendably higher efficiency, but an increase in overall carbon emissions nonetheless. India hasn’t even gone that far, simply committing to higher energy efficiency whilst refusing to set any form of target. One of India’s top negotiators has already quit this week, upset by his country’s constantly shifting position and intentions on climate change.

The Danish Text

Western climate negotiators, however, are aware that targets for some countries and none for others does nothing to ensure that global targets are met, and have been trying to build a consensus around what levels of emissions per capita are acceptable all around. The draft agreement, referred to as the ‘Danish Text’, has caused furore amongst poor countries since it specifices different target emissions per capita for rich and poor nations: 2.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) per rich country citizen, but only 1.4 tCO2 per poor national by 2050.

The initial objection is that by setting different limits for different people across the world, it represents a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. Of course, what had been being discussed up until now was much the same: one target for rich nations, and no target for poor ones. The difference is that suddenly developed nations are insisting that all countries, not just rich ones should have long-term carbon reduction targets.

What has been lost in the controversy is that the proposed cuts in developed countries’ carbon emissions are truly drastic, and will have profound implications for Western lifestyles. 2.7 tonnes represents no flights to other countries, virtually no car transport, minimal domestic energy use and a meat-free diet! Whilst most of the cuts will rely on technological improvements, massive cultural shifts will be required on top of that in order to achieve such goals.

The targets in the Danish Text are based on what scientists predict is required in order to stabilise carbon dioxide levels at a point which would only produce a 2°C global temperature rise. Whether developing countries like it or not, carbon targets suddenly seem back on the agenda for all concerned.

Image of the WWF’s melting ice polar bear at Copenhagen by america.gov @ Flickr