The age of cooperation needs a push

Both UN’s Ban Ki-Moon and the EC’s Barroso are making the same noises about the upcoming Copenhagen summit. Sadly, it’s not the noises we’d like to hear.

Governments are unlikely to agree on all the details of a new global climate change deal when they meet in Copenhagen next month

At least they are being honest. Mr Ban proposes there should be agreement on 4 topics:

the level of rich nations’ emissions cuts;

poor nations’ plans to reduce their emissions;

a financial package to help developing countries to adapt; and

a system for managing the process.

The same is being said in Europe.

But Barroso said he believed it was still possible to develop a framework agreement with clear commitments from developed and developing countries.

Such a framework would include firm timetables for lower emissions from richer countries and an agreement on what actions developing countries will take, Barroso said.

Developed countries like the United States and EU members need to put “numbers on the table” for emission cuts and funding to help developing countries,” he said.

So, if the objectives are so clear, what’s keeping them from reaching a deal?

Rich and poor nations are divided over how to share cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and over the amount of money developing countries need to adapt to global warming and how to raise it.

The funding is one issue. The other is who takes the burden in terms of emissions cuts, as China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao, had been saying:

The European Union says it wants to widen Kyoto, which does not bind emerging economies such as China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and would rather craft a new pact than extend and add to Kyoto.

But Wen said Beijing will not agree to a new pact that erases the distinction Kyoto makes between rich countries, which must accept binding emissions caps, and developing ones, which must take action on emissions but do not take on binding targets.

In short, China does not want to be sign up to any specific mitigation targets, even with all the money being thrown at it. It’s going back to the issue of should producers or consumers pay to stop climate change.

Punchline: Polluter-pays-principle is out of fashion. The question these days is between consumer-pays-principle or -producer-pays-principle.