EU failure in COP-15 cop out

19 December 2009

The Copenhagen debacle shows one thing very clearly: the European Union has minimal political clout to influence international climate negotiations, which are really negotiations about global economic, and therefore political, power, writes Stephen Gardner. In the Copenhagen talks, China and the US were the only voices that really mattered. The Copenhagen result is a stand-off between them. There has been no commitment on the US side (ie. by rich countries) to a programme of emission reduction targets; and there has been no real commitment on the Chinese side to moderate the environmental impact of their march towards global economic dominance. The EU went to the Copenhagen summit with a list of aims and demands, but has been sidelined as the real global powers battled it out. Let’s take a look at some of those EU aims and see which were achieved. Binding emission reduction targets for rich countries: failure. Quantified carbon intensity reduction targets for emerging economies: failure. Get rid of the Kyoto Protocol in favour of an all-encompassing treaty: failure. Mid-term targets: failure. Meaningful reform of the Clean Development Mechanism: failure. Integrated OECD cap-and-trade system: failure. Firm targets on reducing deforestation: failure. Measures to control aviation and shipping emissions: failure. Firm financing commitments by rich countries in exchange for sustainable development plans from China and the rest: OK, something small has been done here, with a short-term climate fund, and some vague commitments beyond that. Overall, it’s been embarrassing. All the statements in advance of the summit about the EU leading the negotiations and setting the pace look very foolish now. The consequences for EU domestic politics will be seen in the months ahead. Will there be any appetite among member states for further emission reduction commitments? I doubt it. Will industry welcome the chance to earn further windfall profits from the free carbon allowances they will receive through the emissions trading system, while at the same time demanding further concessions because there is no “level playing field”? You can be sure of it. And what does it all say about Barroso’s big idea for sustainable development through 2020, and even about the new Commission (is Connie Hedegaard still credible as climate commissioner?)? Not much. Since the Copenhagen outcome has demonstrated the EU’s weakness on the global political stage, the logical next step would be to look at better use of its trade power. In another environmental field — the REACH chemicals legislation — the EU has shown that it can force behavioural changes on other economies if they want access to EU markets. Schemes factoring in the carbon cost of imports must surely come next. A version of this article was originally published on EU Observer blogs.

 

< Prev		Next >