Copenhagen Conundrum 2: Enforcing Commitment

Posted on 10. Dec, 2009 by Ross in Climate Change, Government Policy

In Part 2 of our look at the areas of debate in the Copenhagen Conference, we’re looking at the framework needed to enforce whatever carbon reduction commitments are made by the world’s leaders, and why the Kyoto protocol cherished by poorer nations is now under fire from both ends of the pollution spectrum as not being the right framework for the job.

Kyoto Under Fire

Most of the world’s nations have been content to agree that the Kyoto agreement’s successor at Copenhagen should have a similar structure. The framework laid out in Japan made developed countries accountable for their emissions, and therefore was seen by most of the developing countries as one of the few pieces of international treaty which was truly on their side, hampering the economic growth of the world’s superpowers.

The trouble which that concept is that over the lifetime of the Kyoto agreement there has been only one main superpower, and that country was nearly unique in not signing up to the agreement. Standing firm in the face of international disapproval, the USA resisted external dictats upon its use of resources and economic activities, claiming action to curb carbon dioxide emissions would be too damaging to business interests, as well as questioning the science behind the agreement.

Since then, opinion in the USA has shifted slightly, but not towards the Kyoto protocol itself. It is seen as emblematic of international meddling, and if there’s one thing which America hates more than anything else it is being made accountable to external powers. President Barak Obama may be attending the Copenhagen conference next week, but he comes knowing that signing anything more than a gentle political commitment would be rejected outright by the US Senate. As a result, the US has been attempting to garner support for an agreement based on principles different to those in the Kyoto protocol.

Islanders Break Rank

Such attempts have been strongly resisted by the G77 group of developing nations led by China and India, who have continually called for greater levels of carbon reduction commitment from developed countries and see a Kyoto-based Copenhagen as their best method of holding the West to account.

However, that solidarity was splintered yesterday by the Pacific Islanders and other small island nations, who are aware that anything other than legally-binding agreement much tougher than what is currently being talked about is the only way to save their imperiled states. The new plan tabled by the island nation of Tuvalu, backed by the Association of Small Island Nations (AOSIS) as well as some of the poorest African nations such as Sierra Leone, Senegal and Cape Verde, led to a suspension of talks until the proposals were fully debated.

G77 nations like China and India have the most to lose from Tuvalu’s proposals, since it would demand stronger curbs on their economic expansion. They prefer the Kyoto framework since it gives them more room to expand and grow emissions without repercussions - something the islanders can’t stomach as the waters continue to rise around them. The sad truth is that these nations are likely to disappear regardless of the decisions made in Copenhagen if scientific predictions hold true: the world needs urgent action just to limit global temperature rises to 2