tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/copenhagen-2009-climate-summit-15860/articlesCopenhagen 2009 climate summit – The Conversation2018-12-03T05:35:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1078622018-12-03T05:35:52Z2018-12-03T05:35:52ZCOP24: what to expect<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248150/original/file-20181130-194941-1vwz3l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">COP24 venue Spodek arena in Katowice, Poland.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/katowice-poland-oct-11-2018-spodek-1206686257?src=bBw2o45yM6xX7_nQgzbvXQ-1-0">Milosz Maslanka/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Representatives of almost all the countries on the planet are gathering in Katowice, Poland, for the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They will set the course for action on climate change by discussing the implementation plan for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/paris-agreement-23382">2015 Paris Agreement</a> which aims to coordinate international effort to halt warming at 1.5°C.</p>
<p>The COPs receive significant media attention and, sometimes, even <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/05/the-leo-effect-when-dicaprio-talked-climate-change-at-the-oscars-people-suddenly-cared/?utm_term=.8ada0167e371">notable public interest</a>. They take place every year as an opportunity for countries to collectively assess progress on dealing with climate change.</p>
<p>In 2018 the negotiations kick off barely two months after a <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">report</a> by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the international community only has a 12-year window to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Clearly, 24 years after the first COP there is a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-warming-gridlock/C3CA34B8CF61FAAB6929ABF98FDF965E">deep disconnect</a> between how urgently the world needs effective climate policy and the pace of discussing global mechanisms on how to abate greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<h2>A history of failure</h2>
<p>The first COP meetings held in the 1990s led to the creation of the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a> in 1997, which set binding emissions targets for developed countries over two “commitment periods” (2008-2012 and 2013-2020). However, the Kyoto agreement failed as the US did not ratify it and because several inconclusive conferences followed its implementation.</p>
<p>COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 also failed to yield any agreement on binding commitments for the second commitment period. A few major countries agreed to a short accord recognising the need to limit global temperature rises to 2°C, but there were no substantial guidelines on how to do so. </p>
<p>Similarly, COP19 in Warsaw four years later did not finalise any binding treaty. It only recognised “a flexible ruling” on differentiated responsibilities and loss and damage. In Warsaw, <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/12/11/the-latest-un-climate-change-conference-in-warsaw-highlighted-the-role-that-smaller-states-can-play-in-negotiations/">the international community failed</a> to take essential steps for the future. Some even think that the 2013 conference <a href="http://climatetracker.org/cop24-katowice-expect-polands-4th-un-climate-summit/">cast some doubt</a> on the capacity of the Polish government to successfully lead COP24 in 2018.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, COP21 in Paris in 2015 appeared to generate the most optimistic outcome in two decades of international climate negotiations. In Paris, the world leaders agreed on a general action plan that legally binds countries to have their progress tracked by technical experts. </p>
<p>The countries who signed up also agreed on a “global stocktake” – a process for reviewing collective progress towards achieving the long-term goals of the agreement. However, lots of details about the Paris Agreement still have to be nailed down. This is precisely what the international community seeks to do this December in Poland.</p>
<h2>The focus of COP24 and the likely outcomes</h2>
<p>The major objective for COP24 is to agree upon the so-called Paris “rulebook” – the details of how nations should implement the Paris Agreement and report their progress. Three major areas of political discussion will receive most attention: finance, emission targets, and the role of “big” states.</p>
<p><strong>Finance</strong></p>
<p>In 2015, richer countries pledged <a href="https://www.wri.org/news/2016/10/statement-developed-countries%25E2%2580%2599-roadmap-shows-path-100-billion-climate-finance-goal">US$100 billion a year by 2020</a> for poorer nations to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the climate funding is still about <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cbce4e2e-ee5b-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0">US$20 billion short</a>. COP24 delegates will need to discuss in more detail on when the rest of the money will be generated before committing to the rulebook. </p>
<p>Perhaps even more importantly, rules for where that money comes from, and particularly whether international loans are acceptable, still have to be agreed on. Because finance is closely linked to issues of justice and fairness in the international system, it is unlikely that this discussion will lead to more generous levels of climate aid – although there is space for improvement, and some past conferences have actually provided <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/12/11/the-latest-un-climate-change-conference-in-warsaw-highlighted-the-role-that-smaller-states-can-play-in-negotiations/">small but significant advances</a> on this front.</p>
<p><strong>Emission targets</strong></p>
<p>COP24 also needs to set some form of flexible yet comparable rules that will govern the Paris Agreement. One groundbreaking feature of the Paris Agreement is that all parties agreed to commit to national contributions to climate action. In other words, the agreement is based on a bottom-up process in which countries largely determine their own contributions, and then act upon them.</p>
<p>This COP may settle on some basic strategies for verifying climate actions, but it is very unlikely that the international community will agree on any mechanisms for delivering sanctions to states that do not meet their targets, because of the high sensitivity towards <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13763">financial costs for non-abatement</a>.</p>
<p><strong>The role of ‘big’ states</strong></p>
<p>Finally, while “small” countries will have an important role to play at the negotiations <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/12/11/the-latest-un-climate-change-conference-in-warsaw-highlighted-the-role-that-smaller-states-can-play-in-negotiations/">as usual</a>, there are several question marks around the large countries that need to bear a lot of the efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>It will not help that President Donald Trump, who intends to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, decided in 2017 to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/02/trump-will-stop-paying-into-the-green-climate-fund-he-has-no-idea-what-it-is/">cancel climate funding for poor nations</a>. The US position at COP24 will also affect China and India, which are likely to continue <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/08/china-wont-back-indian-calls-climate-talks-pressure-rich-countries/">disagreeing</a> with rich countries on some fundamental issues. Additionally, the domestic politics of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals">Russia</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/brazil-foreign-minister-ernesto-araujo-climate-change-marxist-plot">Brazil</a> point to more uncertainty for cooperation.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead from COP24</h2>
<p>The urgency to reach key milestones in the Paris Agreement and deal with climate change puts a lot of high expectations on COP24. Unfortunately, many challenges stand ahead of international climate cooperation. </p>
<p>Approaching the negotiations with the right level of reason and determination will be critical to manage expectations and avoid any media “hysteria”, as
media coverage <a href="http://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-362">can hurt</a> the climate talks by shifting attention from the policy issues to unproductive discussions of whether climate change is influenced by humans. </p>
<p>For a credible and valid rulebook, we need frank conversations about energy transition and compensating the “losers” of climate policies, such as <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/interests-norms-and-support-for-the-provision-of-global-public-goods-the-case-of-climate-cooperation/C5A29DE5F7F1181C7567149DC7ACDE9B">people working in high-emission sectors</a>. </p>
<p>There might be the opportunity to do so in Katowice, an industrial hub and coal-mining city. We will see if this COP will highlight the necessary transition from fossil fuel industry to renewable solutions as the negotiations unravel.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107862/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Federica Genovese does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Climate change conferences can be bewildering. Here’s a recap of how we got here, what to look out for at COP24 and what comes next.Federica Genovese, Lecturer in Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/514932015-12-07T04:23:36Z2015-12-07T04:23:36ZChanges since Copenhagen means Paris will deliver more for developing countries<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104280/original/image-20151203-6775-11oqvot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Developing countries can expect much better outcomes from the Paris climate change talks compared with Copenhagen six years ago.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Guillaume Horcajuelo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the key aims at the Paris climate conference is to set the planet on a more desirable greenhouse gas emissions trajectory. The talks in Paris are taking place on a landscape transformed since the failed summit in Copenhagen six years ago. Three crucial changes strongly increase the chances of an agreement, with implications for Africa.</p>
<p>These are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a move away from a top-down to a bottom-up approach to managing climate change, giving individual countries more say in what steps should be taken;</p></li>
<li><p>major developments in clean technology; and</p></li>
<li><p>the development of knowledge and expertise about climate change in developing countries.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>The voluntary approach</h2>
<p>At COP15 in Copenhagen, the negotiations adopted a top-down approach. A global emissions path was set and negotiators sought to determine a country’s responsibilities for achieving this path.</p>
<p>In contrast, a bottom-up approach is being adopted at COP21 in Paris. Individual countries offer what they perceive to be achievable and fair emissions paths for their particular circumstances. </p>
<p>This voluntary approach has greatly increased a country’s willingness to engage, expanding the scope of the agreement. In this new framework, the sum of country offers, formally called <a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php">Intended Nationally Determined Contributions</a>, is the projected global emissions trajectory.</p>
<p>In this new landscape, there is no prospect of all nations agreeing to adhere to a single global policy framework. Rather, countries and regions will set about achieving their nationally determined contributions in their own ways. And the means for achieving these ends will vary enormously. </p>
<p>For example, South Africa recently released a draft carbon tax <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.za/comm_media/press/2015/2015110201%20-%20Media%20Statement%20Carbon%20Tax%20Bill.pdf">bill</a> for public comment. South Africa has also been considering regional <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306261915008119/1-s2.0-S0306261915008119-main.pdf?_tid=84dfa686-8bb5-11e5-9be8-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1447604924_0c3476e951dabc6c92e954458db79858">strategies</a>, particularly related to <a href="https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2014-161.pdf">hydropower</a>.</p>
<h2>Major strides in new technologies</h2>
<p>Extraordinary developments have taken place in renewable energy technologies. Since 2008, the year before COP15 failed to produce a move towards effective global mitigation, the price of solar modules has fallen by <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62558.pdf">75%</a>. </p>
<p>Declines in the cost of wind power have also been rapid, though not as <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63267.pdf">dramatic</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104274/original/image-20151203-16626-1inhxmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">African countries hope this year’s COP21 will be much more successful than COP15 was.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stephane Mahe/Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Investments in energy production have reflected these changes. In 2014, the newly installed capacity of renewable energy systems surpassed that of fossil fuel-based systems on a global basis <a href="http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf">for the first time</a>. </p>
<p>Rapid technical advances in clean energy technologies improve the politics of supporting an energy transition, with generally positive implications for future policies and the future rate of technical advance in clean energy technologies.</p>
<h2>Developing countries join the party</h2>
<p>The developing world confronts climate change issues with a far deeper and more sophisticated knowledge base than in 2009. Although it was clear in Copenhagen that developing countries had a critical role to play in any effective global mitigation regime, there were still no clear understanding about how they were going to be affected by climate change. </p>
<p>For instance, a World Bank <a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCC/Resources/EACC_FinalSynthesisReport0803_2010.pdf">study</a>, which was meant to serve as a critical input to developing countries for COP15, was only published after the Copenhagen meeting.</p>
<p>To say that climate change information has been fully considered and appropriate policies assessed in developing countries is an overstatement. But the process of doing so is much more advanced than it was <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1401-7/fulltext.html">in 2009</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx">157</a> intended national contributions on the UN Climate change website are perhaps the most salient evidence of this improved knowledge base and higher level of engagement.</p>
<p>India and China are cases in point. In 2009, India viewed climate change mitigation as a developed country problem. Today, India has <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf">offered</a> serious attempts to reduce the carbon intensity of GDP. </p>
<p>China has <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/China/1/China's%20INDC%20-%20on%2030%20June%202015.pdf">offered</a> to peak emissions by 2030 with further declines in the decades after. </p>
<p>African nations are also taking part. Kenya has committed to reducing its emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to a baseline scenario. South Africa targets a peak in greenhouse gas emissions between 2020 and 2025 and then a decline after 2030. These offers, along with many others, come from difficult policy discussions and assessments in societies and governments.</p>
<h2>Good news for Africa</h2>
<p>The world stands at the cusp of an era of policy experimentation in driving a clean energy transition. The outcome depends on what transpires in Paris as well as the vigour with which countries pursue agreed contributions. If implemented, the global emissions trajectory that emerges from COP21 would represent a turning point.</p>
<p>A promising path towards a stabilised global climate lies ahead. An important step down this path will be successful negotiation and implementation of CoP21. </p>
<p>From the African perspective, this is very good news. The continent is one of the world’s more vulnerable <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/drafts/fd/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FGDall.pdf">regions</a>. Africa has very good reasons to avoid extreme <a href="http://globalchange.mit.edu/focus-areas/uncertainty/gamble">warming</a> scenarios and thus a strong preference for effective global mitigation policies. The continent also possesses abundant <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306261915003268/1-s2.0-S0306261915003268-main.pdf?_tid=5fd4b3d0-8bbb-11e5-93ff-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1447607438_b28a47f62306c79040f2695979692383">sun</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915010053/pdfft?md5=6f8194660b03d992bc1d92a0ebb266e4&pid=1-s2.0-S0306261915010053-main.pdf">wind</a> and <a href="https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/hybrid-approach-incorporating-climate-change-and-variability-climate-scenario-impact">hydropower</a> resources as well as substantial, and growing, reserves of <a href="http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=3&pid=3&aid=6">natural gas</a>, which is a relatively clean fossil fuel. </p>
<p>Renewable energy sources present clear challenges because of their intermittent nature. But all countries face these challenges. The scale and breadth of Africa’s renewable energy endowments place the continent in a <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306261915014026/1-s2.0-S0306261915014026-main.pdf?_tid=d3342144-95d9-11e5-8ad2-00000aacb362&acdnat=1448720028_1b8e8e2b764165da1ed7c055b819e268">favourable position</a>. </p>
<p>In a world characterised by globally effective emissions constraints, Africa has the potential to exploit a comparative advantage in energy production.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Channing Arndt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>African countries stand a good chance at COP21 of getting their ideas across. There will also be a better opportunity for these countries to access climate finance.Channing Arndt, Senior Research Fellow, United Nations UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/472012015-09-09T03:33:39Z2015-09-09T03:33:39Z‘I fear we will see radicalisation’ if Paris climate talks flop, says chair of 2009 Copenhagen summit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94211/original/image-20150909-26388-15s9f5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C234%2C476%2C371&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Connie Hedegaard says political leaders could stop coming to climate summits unless Paris delivers significant progress.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Christopher Wright</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the world’s last “blockbuster” climate summit, in Copenhagen in 2009, the person in the president’s chair was former EU climate commissioner and Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard. As someone who has led many important international efforts to reduce the risks of climate change but who also presided over what many felt was a frustrating result in Copenhagen, she has a unique perspective on the hype and hopes for December’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/paris-2015-climate-summit">crunch climate summit</a> in Paris.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org">Sydney Democracy Network</a> invited her to a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/event-what-chance-success-in-paris-in-dialogue-with-connie-hedegaard">discussion</a> where she engaged with participants including the new chief executive of the <a href="http://www.igcc.org.au/">Investor Group on Climate Change</a>, Emma Herd, <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/">Clean Energy Finance Corporation</a> chair Jillian Broadbent and <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/">Climate Council</a> chair <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-flannery-11549">Tim Flannery</a>. </p>
<p>The result was some key insights into what to expect when world leaders converge on Paris. You can read the full transcript of the discussion <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-hope-success-at-the-paris-climate-talks-in-conversation-with-connie-hedegaard-46928">here</a>.</p>
<h2>A global deal is not in the bag yet</h2>
<p>The dynamics ahead of the Paris meeting are auspicious – but nothing is certain. Bear in mind that the dynamics before Copenhagen seemed just right too: Al Gore had raised public awareness; heads of state were engaged; reducing emissions was seen as more than a purely environmental problem; and the world had witnessed the effects of Hurricane Katrina, the Australian drought and the 2003 European heatwave. Yet <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">what emerged from Copenhagen</a> was well short of an international treaty or an agreed set of rules committed to by all nations. </p>
<p>If there is one crucial positive difference this time around, it is the new assertive role of the world’s two largest economies, as Hedegaard explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think that there are better chances, and there are also many lessons learned … we have China and the United States now playing ball. It means a lot … though we should not underestimate what will happen if developing countries and low-lying island states really start to question how sure they can be, for instance, that the United States under a new administration will actually deliver on its pledges.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a veteran of these meetings, Hedegaard understands just how difficult reaching multilateral agreements can be: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… we should not underestimate that there are still many unresolved issues at the table. We saw at Copenhagen that you can have a lot of people who have an understanding among themselves, but then the summit opens and all sorts of parties suddenly have all sorts of claims. So let’s just say we aren’t home safe yet with Paris.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94214/original/image-20150909-26379-1k8ttxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rowley and Hedegaard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Christopher Wright</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The outcome needs to be clearly communicated</h2>
<p>Hedegaard stressed that the implications of any new climate agreement need to be rapidly and effectively communicated to the public, including details of the economic and employment benefits.</p>
<p>One thing that is different to the position before Copenhagen is how many people, including US President Barack Obama, are now framing the arguments for effective climate policy around the health and security benefits. Hedegaard said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I understand in the United States, when they really started to calculate the health costs, that changed things.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a real challenge in calibrating public expectations. In retrospect, in 2009 they were so high and momentum apparently so strong that when the Copenhagen meeting achieved less than expected, the overwhelming sense was one of failure. Hedegaard clearly empathises with her French counterparts: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The French are absolutely fearful of having expectations set too high. The only problem is that it doesn’t work the other way round: if expectations are low then you are guaranteed limited success. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a danger that even if Paris achieves significant progress, a lazy media will focus solely on whether the outcome will keep global warming within the vital two-degree threshold, with the result that the summit will be reported as either outright success or unmitigated failure. </p>
<p>Here the lessons from 2009 are fresh in Hedegaard’s mind. Back then, when forced to respond to the “Climategate” accusations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not even employ a communications team. This time around, it should be different.</p>
<h2>Criticism of Australia will be limited</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s public statements on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/coal-is-good-for-humanity-pm-tony-abbott-says/5810244">coal</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/abbott-wants-to-reduce-wind-farms-wishes-ret-never-implemented/6539164">wind turbines</a>, and his government’s efforts to undo policies designed to encourage low-emissions technologies, have led to predictions that Australia will be a pariah at the talks. But Hedegaard says Australia’s climate ambition is still difficult to assess. </p>
<p>It will be difficult for diplomats to know what to make of Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">commitment</a> to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030, when the policies and political will to deliver these reductions look questionable. But Hedegaard thought Australia would most likely get the benefit of the doubt:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think the French inclination would be to say ‘thank you, Australia for finally doing something’. Because they know that without all developed countries delivering at least something, then there is less a chance of developing countries coming forward with anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The stakes are higher than ever</h2>
<p>There is an enormous amount at stake; another failure wouldn’t simply be a case of going back to the drawing board. If it delivers another underwhelming result, questions will be asked about whether the UN negotiating progress can continue in the same way it has for the past 21 years.</p>
<p>Hedegaard says Paris doesn’t have to deliver some final, ultimate treaty, but: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…it does have to deliver tangible progress. If there is not tangible progress, there will still be lots of climate summits in the future but ministers will stop coming, the top people will not attend, the air will go out of it.</p>
<p>If Paris flopped, then you would see a very different kind of debate globally and in Europe … The risks are real and it’s not the case that if Paris fails then things will just continue with “business as usual” – our response could go backwards.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hedegaard warned that perceived failure could lead to climate politics becoming deeply polarised: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think Paris will probably deliver, but if it doesn’t, I fear that we will see a radicalisation. I see some citizens, young people, are getting impatient. Unless the world community comes up in Paris with a credible narrative about how we are changing track now, also with our economy and our finances, you will see sort of the old debate from the 1970s: anti-growth, anti-capitalism.</p>
<p>What some of us have being trying to do is to say, no, we should work with business, we should work with our societies as they are and try to get this transition done. Because if we don’t we will have an anti-growth dichotomy and then people will stand there screaming in each of their corners and not much will happen. So there is really a lot at stake in Paris.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47201/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Rowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Connie Hedegaard, who chaired the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, says the stakes are high for this year’s crunch talks in Paris, and that without a solid result, the process could begin to fragment.Nick Rowley, Adjunct professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/470172015-09-08T10:12:13Z2015-09-08T10:12:13ZCan the Paris climate talks prevent a planetary strike-out?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93789/original/image-20150903-8791-1ygit8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can negotiators in Paris get a hit? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pmillera4/15109019258/in/photolist-p28F33-ni7XYj-f1rupf-p4LFQx-ptwMV-foN3f4-oZpENc-abCYYH-nnh2m2-o4o2sb-c7LBgs-9BLT7T-9z8ngq-6zczrs-85aH98-epomZH-54Wux9-2RGxjA-6sonSL-a5N1J3-e97mF8-4B8CcZ-8mZ3LR-6ahyao-6UZXGz-cbXq2W-a1BZKH-abguw6-e9d1q9-e97kSa-8mywfS-51Davk-9CNFAR-b5Ptp-4xbiVv-6UCq2v-nLio8-4WEg4e-8AXe72-6UCpZB-6UCq4D-MyZBT-4QHpFs-81fNMr-F1fxw-4x1Hpo-e9d3fj-9MYknE-heRbwd-9UJiLH">Peter Miller/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In global climate change politics, the world’s leaders risk a third strike in December in <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">Paris</a>. </p>
<p>After Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009, negotiators are facing a two-strike count. And the closer we get to Paris without substantial progress, the more likely we will experience a planetary strike-out with devastating <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences/index_en.htm">consequences</a>.</p>
<p>Here’s how we got to this point and why the heat is on.</p>
<h2>Strike one</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">Kyoto Protocol</a> should have been an easy single on a simple fastball across the middle of the plate.</p>
<p>The negotiations built on the 1992 United Nations <a href="http://unfccc.int/2860.php">Framework Convention on Climate Change</a>, which the world’s countries rushed to ratify, leading it to enter into force in 1994. The framework convention outlined several principles to guide the design of commitments under subsequent protocols. They included the <a href="http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html">precautionary principle</a>, the <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155292/">polluter pays principle</a> and the principle of <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151320/">common but differentiated responsibility</a> – the notion that the most economically and technologically advanced countries that have contributed most to the problem have an obligation to act first.</p>
<p>Yet the Kyoto Protocol was fouled off. As a first attempt to move forward after the framework convention, it was a decent treaty given the way the world looked in the mid-1990s and what we knew about climate change through the first two sets of reports by the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC). The initial Kyoto targets were not nearly enough to solve the climate problem, but that was not reasonable to expect at the time.</p>
<p>But the Kyoto Protocol’s potential to move the process forward was largely squandered in subsequent years.</p>
<p>The main problem post-Kyoto was a growing lack of political will to step up. The United States Senate and the George W Bush administration categorically <a href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=bjil">rejected</a> the Kyoto Protocol, and Canada withdrew its earlier ratification in 2011. Also, countries like Australia and Japan started to question the Kyoto approach, with industrialized countries taking the lead to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.</p>
<p>If all industrialized countries had remained faithful to the guiding principles embedded in the framework convention and fulfilled their national obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the mood going into Copenhagen would have been very different. It would have shown that the historically largest polluters accepted responsibility for their significant emissions and contributions to the problem.</p>
<h2>Strike two</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf">Bali</a> in 2007, countries launched a process to negotiate a follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, with the goal of adopting it in Copenhagen in 2009.</p>
<p>In Copenhagen, negotiators did not even take an honest swing, as if flummoxed by a crafty curveball. Instead of a forceful political response as the scientific case for urgent actions grew stronger, the voluntary <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">Copenhagen Accord</a>, signed amid escalating political tensions, was even weaker than the Kyoto Protocol.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93669/original/image-20150902-14087-128e32i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Let’s make a deal: negotiators in Bonn preparing for Paris.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/21062936941/in/dateposted/">unfccc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the mounting rejection of collectively negotiated commitments, and with more industrialized countries refusing to lead, it was impossible to adopt <a href="http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12459e.pdf">a meaningful treaty</a>. Negotiations were also deeply affected by the inability to agree on a constructive approach for dealing with the fact that China had become the world’s largest emitter of GHGs.</p>
<p>At the same time, many smaller and vulnerable developing countries were growing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMq4Xlc-7fw">increasingly desperate</a> due to a lack of responsibility and action by the major economies and polluters.</p>
<p>The plethora of highly different national commitments for 2020 that were submitted in the wake of the very weak Copenhagen Accord was, again, nowhere near what is needed to avoid exceeding <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-brief-to-the-paris-un-climate-talks-how-we-got-here-and-what-to-watch-for-45919">the two degrees Celsius target</a> for global average temperature increases – a threshold scientists say is necessary to prevent <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/little-chance-to-restrain-global-warming-to-2-degrees-critic-argues/">dangerous consequences from climate change</a>.</p>
<h2>Strike three?</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php">2011</a>, countries, still shell-shocked after the public breakdown in Copenhagen, agreed to restart negotiations with an eye toward an agreement in 2015 that would outline commitments for all participating countries for the period up to 2030. Related national pledges will be largely voluntary.</p>
<p>And that’s where we find outselves: the world desperately needs a hit in Paris in December. Another strike or even a foul ball is likely to have catastrophic consequences. </p>
<p>This fear is supported by a string of recent bad news, from <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/july-2015-global-climate-report">new temperature records</a> to severe droughts <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/full">made worse</a> by climate change, <a href="http://www.space.com/30379-nasa-sea-level-rise-model-video.html">continuing sea level rise</a> and intensifying <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-hurricane-katrina-what-have-we-learned-46297">severe weather patterns</a>. Indicators of climate change <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/">keep getting worse</a>.</p>
<p>Global environmental treaty-making is a time-consuming process, in which too many agenda items cannot be left unresolved until the very last meeting when a new agreement is scheduled to be finalized. In that case, there is a very high risk that the meeting will crumble under the weight of its own expectations and entrenched political disagreements – as seen in Copenhagen in 2009.</p>
<p>To get even a single, negotiators will need as much information as possible beforehand about what kind of pitch they will see and where it will come, and be ready to swing. For that, they need to make more detailed progress over the next two-and-a-half months than they have been able to make since 2011 – a daunting task.</p>
<p>This is why the lack of negotiating progress on substantial issues over the past nine months since the last major yearly gathering in Lima in December 2014 is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/20/paris-climate-talks-seriously-lagging-eu-calls-urgency">very worrying</a>. Recent meetings intended to pave the way for a Paris agreement have not done nearly enough to produce a workable draft treaty text. Critical issues about the legal character of the agreement, how implementation of national pledges and other obligations will be monitored, and how financial and other forms of support for developing countries will be structured all remain <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-brief-to-the-paris-un-climate-talks-how-we-got-here-and-what-to-watch-for-45919">unresolved</a>.</p>
<p>Before national delegates organized in complex <a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/08/31/434599379/how-are-u-n-climate-talks-like-a-middle-school-cliques-rule?">groups</a> arrive in Paris, at least 90% of all negotiation issues should be settled, to be on the safe side. Final meetings are not about addressing lots of unresolved matters. They are about finding high-level political compromises on a small set of key issues. This typically involves intense and focused bargaining in the form of “if you give me A and B, I will give you C and D.”</p>
<h2>Can we get to home plate?</h2>
<p>Even if the Paris conference meets the stated goal of reaching some form of an agreement with all major countries promising actions on GHGs with targets focused on 2030, it will at best take us only to first base – not even into scoring position when the total impact of all national pledges is considered and compared to what is ultimately needed. And if we get to first base, it remains uncertain if countries post-Paris can eventually get across home plate to score.</p>
<p>Because the Paris agreement will rely heavily on countries taking on voluntary commitments to reduce GHGs and expand renewable energy, it is critical that there is a robust system for measuring and reviewing domestic progress and <a href="http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/ACT_Elements_Ideas_FullPaper_FINAL.PDF">working to strengthen targets</a>, informed by the latest science. But this is politically sensitive for many countries that are protective of their national sovereignty.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93796/original/image-20150903-8791-1pf7y73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A chance to score in Paris?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5579253305/in/photolist-9v28Cv-aAZ6uB-4zDMPc-n7mtY-cKpcFs-46KFL-aAZ6ve-6fSMDJ-9W6oa6-a7SJ1m-4SYLfe-eGiHGP-6fSNKq-6fNCyF-6fSXcE-6fNCrV-6ZvQJN-6ZvRKE-6fNDGX-6fSNBA-6fSSyE-6fNEpF-6fNEPP-6fSNzy-6fSWMq-6fNFPt-6fNEGM-pRF62S-qNASFL-6fSHaY-6fNE8x-fTXu7e-aRygD2-9TCzHs-2N4uy-6XRY3v-9W6o8Z-9YeS36-6XVZhA-9YhLTq-aeuyWW-aerKP4-9YhLSd-agsV9t-9W9da7-a7PPjP-9W9d5m-eGiKyD-a5K9Wg-agvFJj">Boston Public Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The energy and transportation systems that run the global economy need to be basically carbon-free by mid-century if we are to stay below the two degrees Celsius target. More and more observers argue we have already <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-ditch-the-2-c-warming-goal-1.16018">lost the chance to meet it</a> and that we should look for other ways to set benchmarks and measure progress. But the more GHGs we emit into the atmosphere, the greater the risks to both current and future generations.</p>
<p>At the end of the baseball season, there is a single winner, and a bunch of teams and players hoping to do better next year. If the Paris negotiations fail after decades of continuing attempts, there is very little comfort in saying “We’ll always have next meeting.”</p>
<p>And there will be no joy in <a href="http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/casey-bat">Mudville</a>, as planet Earth and humanity will have struck out in the old climate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0bQ1ZHS78s">game</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47017/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrik Selin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UN climate talks in Bonn last week left many key issues unresolved, creating big challenges for forging a global deal in Paris later this year that would avert the worst effects of climate change.Henrik Selin, Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459192015-08-13T05:54:58Z2015-08-13T05:54:58ZYour brief to the Paris UN climate talks: how we got here and what to watch for<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91341/original/image-20150810-11062-1dh3ydx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bonn in June: just a few steps away from the big show in Paris later this year. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/18451724915/in/dateposted/">unfccc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the preparations for the global climate change conference in <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">Paris</a> in December heat up in parallel with the planet, negotiators in the United Nations climate talks recently released a proposed skeleton <a href="http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008595">agreement</a>. The draft includes the key pieces of a legal agreement that are meant to be finalized by nearly 200 countries in Paris. </p>
<p>The text is very much an early draft, littered with alternative wordings and unsettled provisions, but it provides the clearest illustration to date of what kind of agreement countries are heading toward. </p>
<p>The documents also bring to light the many politically sensitive issues negotiators will need to grapple with in Paris. </p>
<h2>Why Paris is different</h2>
<p>Typically, global environmental treaties, including earlier ones on climate change from <a href="http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php">1992</a> and <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">1997</a>, set out comprehensive legal commitments – a cornerstone of international law. But the ill-fated <a href="http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/">Copenhagen meeting in 2009</a> showed in spectacular fashion that this approach is no longer possible on climate change. There, the United States, China, India and other leading countries outside the European Union sharply rejected the idea that each country in the United Nations process should take on negotiated, legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Instead, the hastily scrambled together <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">Copenhagen Accord</a> ended up a political document, merely encouraging countries to submit voluntary, and widely varying, greenhouse gas targets for 2020. Since then, the leaders of China, the United States and other countries have voiced support for more concerted action, but many still prefer to keep any national targets voluntary. In typically awkward UN-speak, these are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (<a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php">INDCs</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Copenhagen talks of 2009 marked a dramatic shift away from trying to establish legally binding treaties signed by all countries in the UN climate change process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4197460651/in/photolist-7oV5Pe-7oYYmm-7oV7bB-7oZbTG-7oYXsJ-7iweVL-7oXA5s-7oNgPw-77FocT-77Kh1Q-749BnV-77KkVQ-5ubEco-aZkP3Z-aTxroz-7oDrVn-31aBcw-7oDrTn-7oYrpn-5u6M9P-bV2BvC-cPfS3o-7oFpd3-7oFoYs-7oBwVi-7oBwqR-7oBw9R-7oHjvC-7oDrNx-7oDrQn-74c2rB-74c2v8-7ogK8c-9578vj-8rZ3hf-fS1U7e-aCbevn-4rY8Sz-gAgjHG-7pD881-gAgAXY-gAgCon-hiznUt-swhesJ-gyvkeX-7mbFdw-fS2LeS-75zJ7v-8h2zNJ-75754e">The White House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consequently, countries in Paris will seek to develop a new hybrid approach. The intent is to establish a universal legal agreement that lays out basic provisions, but each countries’ INDCs are submitted separately, and implementation issues are intended to be addressed in political decisions adopted separately at the Paris meeting.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035430">Defenders</a> of international law often prefer treaties because binding commitments are legally strong. Countries sometimes violate legal obligations, but most countries follow most international law most of the time. Countries also often think twice before violating their legal obligations, because international law creates stability and predictability. And countries that renege on legal commitments risk losing one of the most priced commodities in international relations – other countries’ trust that may be needed in future cooperation.</p>
<p>But not <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/in-climate-talks-soft-is-the-new-hard-and-thats-a-good-thing/?_r=0">all analysts</a> believe that legal obligations are always superior to more political approaches. Because countries tend to respect international law, they may simply elect to not sign up to rules they cannot (or do not want to) abide to. In that case, the choice is between a legal treaty with only a few members, and a legally weaker agreement with more members. With the top 10 emitting countries responsible for <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/infographic-what-do-your-countrys-emissions-look">two-thirds of global emissions</a>, leaving any of these countries standing on the sidelines would be highly problematic to any multinational climate agreement.</p>
<p>Since Copenhagen, the international political scales on climate change have tipped away from the traditional treaty system to one that embraces a higher degree of voluntarism. This has paid some dividends in the form of greater participation. Among those that have already <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx">submitted their INDCs</a> for 2030 are China, the United States, the European Union and Japan. </p>
<h2>How solid is US commitment?</h2>
<p>But despite this political buy-in from leading emitters, there are several potential pitfalls ahead.</p>
<p>International legal agreements depend on countries’ willingness to incorporate them into national law and to implement and enforce their obligations through domestic institutions. Once international commitments are enshrined in domestic law, there is a significant hurdle for political leaders to backtrack, which would have both national and international implications.</p>
<p>Yet in some instances, countries may more actively follow through on voluntary promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions by, for example, expanding renewable energy generation and improving energy efficiency. This is in large part because what countries set out to do in their INDC is often already national policy and/or measures they are confident will be adopted later. In other words, countries are prone to only submit INDCs that are clearly within reach. </p>
<p>But all of this is dependent on one critical aspect: that future national political leaders honor political promises made by today’s leaders in Paris. This is true for all countries, but uncertainties about the future path of the United States, in particular, stand out.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Green Climate Fund is designed to fund climate change mitigation and adaptation steps in developing countries, but rich countries have yet to deliver on the commitments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbdodane/15385190414/in/photolist-prx86G-q77oRt-5XgyjA-qomh9F-6nei6Q-6pNMZ1-5XcgNV-5Xgusu-5Xgu6Q-5XgubA-5XgwxY-dJBUvu-tJXKy-6naaax-p6vQv5-rvnfz5-9DiNku-qQW2Ps-rMQPZc-rMVS96-rtBgpx-rKD2wm-rvtw4D-ojjYdU-rvtuC2-rvnevS-rMQSRe-rMQQ6V-rtBfUp-rMQRTT-rvneYW-rKD5qC-qQW1bs-rMQNN4-rtBkdV-qQW4B5-rvnfa7-rvnfoJ-qQW2ZN-rKD1YY-rMPhNC-rKD189-rMQRk8-qR93bp-qQW3x1-rvm2RQ-rMPh5o-rMPfBd-6oZUdL-CZzFQ">jbdodane/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Obama administration favors voluntary INDCs partly because the US contribution was formulated within the executive branch and so does not require congressional approval. The Obama administration this month released the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a> that sets limits on carbon emissions from power plants. That mandate along with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and other measures are the primary methods for meeting the US emissions reductions pledge. </p>
<p>However, this means that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-builds-legacy-on-climate-change-with-epa-clean-power-plan-45641">next White House occupant</a> is free to decide US international climate change policy. Here, the very large differences between presidential candidates on climate change can have substantial national and foreign policy ramifications, as countries and trading partners will expect the US to fulfill earlier promises.</p>
<h2>Follow the money (or lack thereof)</h2>
<p>Another central issue that the skeleton agreement draws attention to is financial support for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. </p>
<p>These are, in many instances, both among the first ones to feel the negative impact of, for example, temperature increases and changes in precipitation and weather patterns, and those that struggle the most to deal with growing adaptation needs. They have also contributed very little to the problem, having historically low emissions.</p>
<p>The UN-organized <a href="http://news.gcfund.org">Green Climate Fund</a> is intended to generate $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020, but we have so far seen little of that. Connected to a much larger and longstanding debate about funding for sustainable development, developing countries insist that financial contributions from donor countries should be mandatory, but industrialized countries prefer voluntary mechanisms.</p>
<p>These fundamental financial disagreements also tie in with related debates around how to best to prepare developing countries and transfer technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. </p>
<p>These discussions are further complicated by the lack of consensus on how to design the basic mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and verifying countries’ measures for emissions reductions.</p>
<p>At the same time, developing countries are increasingly forced to quickly figure out how to best limit negative consequences of climate change and how to design working strategies to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance resilience. Here, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=225&v=8NxX-oCIijM">the rich can start learning from the poor</a>, who are the ones doing much of the on-the-ground experimentation and innovation.</p>
<h2>Two degree Celsius target slipping away</h2>
<p>Critically, we will likely not be able to keep average global temperature increases under two degrees Celsius, an important benchmark climate scientists have recommended to avoid more dramatic disruptions. </p>
<p>The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">IPCC</a>) calculated that total, cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions need to stay below 1,000 gigatons of carbon in order to not exceed the two-degree threshold. By 2011, countries had already emitted over half of this <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UmY-FJTF1pe">budget</a>, and if current emission trends continue, we will exceed the budget before 2050.</p>
<p>The Paris pledges and other mitigation efforts so far are not ambitious enough to keep us below the 2 degrees Celsius <a href="http://www.climateactiontracker.org">target</a>, according to independent research initiative Climate Tracker. And even after emissions are drastically reduced, the climate changes that occur will be with us for the next thousand <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled">years</a>. Thus, the Paris negotiations and our actions in the next three decades will determine the future of the climate for the next millennium.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrik Selin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s pledge season: countries are beginning to submit carbon reduction commitments for the Paris climate talks later this year. What’s the US doing and can it meet its targets?Henrik Selin, Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460262015-08-13T05:50:43Z2015-08-13T05:50:43ZNew UN rules put the spotlight on climate laggards to lift their game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91718/original/image-20150813-21398-1tm6yav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1078%2C814%2C3748%2C2599&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop at the last year's Lima climate talks, where nations agreed new transparency rules over climate targets.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/photos/Pages/DisplayAlbum.aspx?MinisterID=4&Album=UNFCCC%20Conference%2C%20Lima%2C%20Peru%2C%20December%202014">DFAT</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the lead-up to the major United Nations climate <a href="https://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php">summit</a> in Paris later this year, Australia has <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/australias-2030-emission-reduction-target">announced</a> plans to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution by 26-28% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.</p>
<p>According to a variety of <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-post-2020-climate-target-not-enough-to-stop-2c-warming-experts-45879">experts</a>, the target range puts Australia towards the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">back</a> of the pack based on our wealth and emissions per person. By 2030 we’ll still have the highest emissions per person among comparable economies. Australia’s announcement has already attracted <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/11082015/australia-weak-climate-pledge-draws-derision-tony-abbott">international criticism</a>.</p>
<p>Analysts have long <a href="http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/int-flexibility-06-14.pdf">argued</a> that making upfront, transparent pledges can limit the temptation for countries to free ride on the back of other nations’ efforts. </p>
<p>Most countries announced their climate pledges for 2020 in the months after the 2009 Copenhagen summit. This time around, the UN has called on countries to announce their <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-2015-climate-summit-countries-targets-beyond-2020-38427">post-2020 pledges</a> (called “intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs) before the Paris summit.</p>
<p>Calling on countries to put their cards on the table seems like a good way of encouraging fair play in Paris. But will the promise of greater transparency have the desired outcome, particularly if the UN lacks the legal clout to coerce laggard countries to lift their game?</p>
<h2>Transparency and talks</h2>
<p>Back in 2009, countries had considerable leeway in how they framed their 2020 pledges. This was a departure from the more uniform rules that wealthy countries adopted for the previous round of 2008-2012 targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The freer brief was the price the world paid for bringing a much larger and more diverse group of developing economies, such as China and India, into the tent. </p>
<p>When Australia submitted its <a href="https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/australiacphaccord_app1.pdf">2020 pledge</a> to the UN’s overarching climate body (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), it consisted of a one-line undertaking with a six-line footnote.</p>
<p>Australia pledged to cut emissions by 5% relative to 2000 levels, rising to 15% or 25% if the world agreed to a more ambitious global deal. The statement didn’t give any details of why this should be considered a fair pledge, nor was Australia formally required to.</p>
<p>To their credit, Australia’s climate diplomats were among those who have since <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/Lists/OSPSubmissionUpload/106_99_130577582547959361-UNFCCC%20Submission%20to%20the%20ADP%20on%20the%202015%20Agreement%20-%20October%202014.pdf">called</a> for a more transparent, structured approach.</p>
<p>Fast-forward to the UN talks in Lima last year, where countries agreed on <a href="https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf">guidelines</a> for their post-2020 contributions.</p>
<p>For the first time, each country is encouraged to explain how its contribution is “fair and ambitious”.</p>
<p>Important <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/climate-plans-lead-paris-where-do-we-stand">gaps</a> remain on what countries need to disclose, including on emissions from land use – an area where existing rules have worked to Australia’s <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0210-x">benefit</a> - and on the use of emissions trading. Countries can still choose a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">base year</a> that makes their target look more impressive. But overall, nations need to set out considerably <a href="http://www.blog-iddri.org/2015/03/26/indcs-a-new-vehicle-for-international-climate-cooperation/">more detail</a> than for their Copenhagen pledges.</p>
<p>In another <a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/the_multilateral_assessment_process_under_the_iar/items/8451.php">innovation</a> introduced in 2014, nations have to publish answers to questions from other countries on their 2020 targets. Earlier this year, Australia faced a <a href="https://unfccc.int/files/focus/mitigation/the_multilateral_assessment_process_under_the_iar/application/pdf/sbi42_australia_full.pdf">grilling</a> from the United States, China and others on its target and the Direct Action policy that has been put in place to deliver it.</p>
<h2>Holding fairness claims up to the light</h2>
<p>Australia has duly submitted to the UNFCCC a three-page <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Australia/1/Australias%20Intended%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution%20to%20a%20new%20Climate%20Change%20Agreement%20-%20August%202015.pdf">outline</a> detailing its intentions, arguing that its target is not just “fair” and “ambitious”, but “serious” and “responsible” to boot.</p>
<p>In the light of the expert analysis mentioned at this article’s outset, we may well <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-special-pleading-on-climate-kyoto-deja-vu-46022">dispute</a> this choice of adjectives. In which case, doesn’t such a process just give countries a licence to issue unfair targets under cover of the rhetoric of fairness?</p>
<p>We shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the process. Even if countries are inclined to see fairness in terms of what suits their national interests, the spotlight is on them to explain <em>why</em> their targets are fair. Of the 26 or so INDCs submitted so far, <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/climate-plans-lead-paris-where-do-we-stand">most</a> have given some explanation.</p>
<p>Once these explanations see the light of day, it is easier to subject them to public scrutiny, debate and analysis. As I argued in a recent <a href="http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/magma/media/upload/ckeditor/files/Top-down%20vs%20bottom-up%20-%20working%20paper%20version%201(1).pdf">working paper</a>, even if countries can’t agree on a single formula for what’s fair, it may be possible to agree on what kinds of arguments don’t hold water.</p>
<p>Why, for example, should Australia’s target be weaker given its “current energy infrastructure” (read: ageing coal-fired plants such as <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-hidden-cost-of-the-hazelwood-coal-power-plant-20150417-1mnmdf.html">Hazelwood</a>)? After all, we’ve had plenty of time – not to mention <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-10/solar-coverage-fact-check-is-australia-sunniest-continent/6659316">sunshine</a> – to shift to renewable energy sources and could still do so now at a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/10/coalitions-secret-emissions-modelling-shows-large-cuts-wont-impact-economy">low cost</a> to the nation’s wealthy economy.</p>
<h2>Can transparency make a difference?</h2>
<p>Even with these transparency measures in place, the government has supplied <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/13/why-tony-abbotts-climate-strategy-wont-neutralise-the-environmental-argument?CMP=ema_632">scant detail</a> on what steps it will take at home to meet its current targets.</p>
<p>But without international scrutiny, would Australia have aimed even lower? Given changes in the global economy since Copenhagen, it’s hard to say. Still, most countries, including Australia, have picked up the <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/climate-plans-lead-paris-where-do-we-stand">pace</a> of their emissions reductions for the post-2020 period, even if they still <a href="http://climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html">fall well short</a> of what’s needed to avoid dangerous temperature rise.</p>
<p>The UN could still do much more to boost transparency, not least by a robust <a href="http://www.mapsprogramme.org/wp-content/uploads/Paper_Operationalising-ERF.pdf">assessment</a> of countries’ targets against widely cited criteria of fairness such as wealth and emissions per person, and by closing down reporting <a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-climate-target-is-a-smokescreen-and-full-of-loopholes-42167">loopholes</a>.</p>
<p>But crucially, upfront pledging and greater clarity may step up international pressure on countries that are seen to be dragging the chain. Not only is the inadequacy of Australia’s target now in the global spotlight, but it’s also abundantly clear to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/20/australia-direct-action-climate-policy-challenged-us-china-brazil">other countries</a> that the existing domestic policies underpinning that target <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/03/biggest-polluters-able-to-increase-emissions-under-direct-action-study">aren’t up to the task</a>.</p>
<p>Assuming that the government sticks with its current level of effort between now and the Paris meeting, Australia’s target will remain a fig leaf that gives it just enough modesty to stay at the negotiating table.</p>
<p>But that much exposure comes at a growing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-11/marshall-islands-slams-australias-carbon-emissions-targets/6688974">reputational</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/tony-abbotts-hubris-is-staggering-uks-climate-adviser-on-emissions-target">cost</a>. Australia’s fig leaf is increasingly likely to wilt once rolling UN <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-climate-expert-warns-australias-emissions-target-should-not-be-final-offer-20150812-gixa98.html?stb=twt">reviews</a> of contributions kick in.</p>
<p>Ultimately, Prime Minister Tony Abbott may not care that much about how the world views Australia on climate change. But some of his cabinet colleagues, including potential leadership contenders, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-green-groups-fear-tony-abbotts-post2020-carbon-cuts-will-fall-short-20150810-givldt.html">clearly do</a>. So does a majority of the Australian <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/climate-of-the-nation-2015.html">public</a>.</p>
<p>Transparency isn’t a failsafe recipe for unblocking progress on climate change. But it can strengthen the hand of those whose views are backed by scientific evidence and by reasons that can withstand the harsh light of day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46026/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Pickering has consulted for the Australian Government and Australian environment non-government organisations on climate change and development policy (2010-13).</span></em></p>Countries that drag their feet on climate action have fewer places to hide these days. Rules brought in at the 2014 Lima talks require them not just to set targets, but to publicly justify them too.Jonathan Pickering, Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/395912015-04-07T20:16:13Z2015-04-07T20:16:13ZWhy the Paris climate talks won’t be another Copenhagen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76800/original/image-20150401-31302-2e475x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C26%2C2973%2C1958&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UN lead climate negotiator Christiana Figueres (second from left) has been hailed as having the dynamism needed to drive the Paris talks.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is part 2 of a three-part essay on the prospects for a global climate deal at the Paris 2015 talks. You can read part 1 <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-road-to-paris-three-myths-about-international-climate-talks-38053">here</a>.</em></p>
<p>For three years leading up to the last significant United Nations climate summit, at <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/meeting/6295.php">Copenhagen in 2009</a>, I was the strategic director of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Climate_Council">Copenhagen Climate Council</a>. The purpose of this group – which included chief executives of major global businesses headquartered in China, Europe, and the United States, as well as policy experts, scientists and other leading academics – was to shed light on the importance of reaching a global climate agreement, and to define what that agreement should include.</p>
<p>Copenhagen looked like having the right ingredients to deliver such a deal – the “Goldilocks’ porridge” of international climate talks, if you will. It was convened in the right place (a European capital), at the right time (after public and elite awareness had been raised, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and by catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina and the 2003 European heatwave), and involved the right participants (heads of state able to make major economic, energy and trade policy decisions).</p>
<p>And yet despite all this, the meeting failed to achieve anything more than a flimsy two pages of text – the <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">Copenhagen Accord</a> – which committed signatories to nothing more than agreeing to agree in the future and to account for existing policy commitments. Copenhagen has become shorthand for the world’s failure to get its act together and address the climate problem properly.</p>
<p>I still recall how deflated I felt on leaving the enormous Bella Centre on the outskirts of the city, on the freezing December Saturday after the talks ended. Looking out of the window of the modern, driverless electric subway train quietly taking me back to the city, I saw a group of young children playing in the snow. They didn’t know it, but they had been let down by the people in the vast conference centre. I thought it would be years before anything like the opportunity represented by Copenhagen would occur again.</p>
<h2>Reasons to be cheerful</h2>
<p>More than five years have passed, and I am more optimistic. With eight months to go until the Paris talks, there are solid reasons to be more than hopeful.</p>
<p>First, there is now an awareness (born of experience more than analysis) that the problem is not some future risk, but a real and present danger. No longer does one have to undertake much research to put forward evidence of a more unstable, warmer climate. It is continuous. Last year was the world’s <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VRvlLTuUckQ">hottest on record</a>, and the past month has brought us <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/cyclone-pam">Cyclone Pam</a>, one of the strongest cyclones ever recorded, and seen California spend another <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-signs-water-bill-20150327-story.html">US$1 billion</a> on trying to tackle its drought.</p>
<p>No single event can be directly attributed to human-induced climate change, but their occurrence and severity are utterly consistent with a stream of climate models and predictions going back to the 1980s.</p>
<p>China, Brazil, Indonesia and other rapidly developing countries no longer need convincing of the need to make big emissions cuts. It is their experience of the costs of climate events that have already occurred which has helped to break down the divisions between “developing” and “developed” nations. They all see the benefits in a globally agreed deal that they can contribute to through adopting a low-carbon growth path.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr">Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change</a> showed that the trade-offs between high- and low-carbon economic growth path are meaningless: to be sustainable, economic growth must be low-carbon. Nine years after the review, and with abundant <a href="http://newclimateeconomy.net">work</a> revealing the tangible benefits of transforming the global economy while weaning ourselves off fossils fuels, the debates are now less about the need to reduce emissions at scale, and more about how to do it most effectively.</p>
<h2>Boosting security</h2>
<p>The second reason for optimism is that, unlike at Copenhagen, many countries see an effective climate agreement as more than an end in itself. It is also a vital means to address other global challenges. There is a growing, pragmatic appreciation of the relationship between effective climate policy and efforts to reduce further long-term environmental, societal, economic and security risks. <a href="http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com">Human movements from flooding in Bangladesh</a>; <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/06/24-water-scarcity-growth-prospects-middle-east-north-africa-devlin">water scarcity in Africa and the Middle East</a>, and <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/impacts/effects-of-tidal-flooding-and-sea-level-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico">sea level rise affecting major cities</a> are all scenarios that will only intensify existing tensions and problems. </p>
<p>US president Barack Obama’s new <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/06/fact-sheet-2015-national-security-strategy">National Security Strategy</a> has listed climate change as a security risk on a par with factors like a catastrophic attack on the United States, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon’s positioning of the issue of emissions reductions as crucial to future health and security greatly enhances the likelihood of a global diplomatic agreement.</p>
<p>A third reason for optimism is one man: the President of the United States. It isn’t fashionable to fete our politicians, but Obama, in the months leading up to the meeting in Paris, is a real source of hope. In his second term, he has already expended a huge amount of political capital on the climate problem. Through his lobbying of other leaders and the bilateral agreements with <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/us-china-climate-deal">China</a> and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/25/fact-sheet-us-and-india-climate-and-clean-energy-cooperation">India</a>, the president and his negotiating team have effectively been working on a Paris outcome for more than a year.</p>
<p>One shouldn’t be cynical about legacy being a powerful driver for a leader. It is nothing but auspicious that the Paris meeting represents a moment when the US president has the potential to make an international climate agreement one of his lasting achievements.</p>
<h2>In a bind</h2>
<p>Fourth, since Copenhagen the United Nations has come to appreciate that there must be alternatives to a legally binding agreement being the sole criterion for judging the meeting a success. For a negotiation to be meaningful and effective, it needs greater definition than agreeing sentences, targets and timetables. They are needed, but in and of themselves, too abstract.</p>
<p>Over the past year the UN has focused on deforestation as a key area where real progress can be made, and last September it secured the <a href="http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/FORESTS-New-York-Declaration-on-Forests.pdf">New York Declaration on Forests</a>. This statement was agreed by key countries and an impressive list of global environment groups and businesses with the power to shift their supply chains away from the products and processes that drive deforestation. Of course, such statements can’t solve the problem of carbon emissions from deforestation, but it gives a wide coalition of people the ability to influence the issue and take the negotiations out of the technical speak that only negotiators understand. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76884/original/image-20150402-32408-om4va4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The atmosphere at the Copenhagen eventually became downbeat – the Paris summit’s leaders can ensure the same doesn’t happen again.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Rowley</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A final reason for optimism is simply the calibre and experience of the key players. So woeful was the Danish government’s management of the Copenhagen meeting that the conference president, Connie Hedegaard, was replaced by her Prime Minister halfway through the talks.</p>
<p>This won’t happen in Paris. In <a href="http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/the-minister-and-the-ministers-of/laurent-fabius/article/biography-of-laurent-fabius">Laurent Fabius</a>, the current French foreign minister and former Prime Minister, the meeting will be led by someone with unparalleled expertise in international negotiations and a brain the size of a basketball.</p>
<p>Another key role at Copenhagen – executive secretary the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (<a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/">UNFCCC</a>), under whose auspices the negotiations are conducted – was filled by the dour Dutch diplomat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvo_de_Boer">Yvo de Boer</a>. He seemed overwhelmed by the job; photographs of his frowns, eye rubbing and generally torpid body language became an enduring image of the meeting. </p>
<p>With the feisty, dynamic <a href="http://unfccc.int/secretariat/executive_secretary/items/1200.php">Christiana Figueres</a> now in the job, not only will there be no yawning from the stage, but she now heads an organisation that has learned the hard lessons from the Copenhagen circus.</p>
<p>Of course, none of these factors guarantees a successful outcome in Paris. But I believe each makes it more likely. The crucial question now is what an adequate climate agreement actually looks like, and how history will judge the Paris summit’s ability to deliver it.</p>
<p><em>This is part 2 of a three-part essay on the prospects for a global climate deal at the Paris 2015 talks. You can read part 3 <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-global-deal-that-drives-good-decisions-what-success-at-the-paris-summit-should-look-like-39592">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39591/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Rowley is a former strategic director of the Copenhagen Climate Council, and was a climate policy advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.</span></em></p>The much-hyped 2009 Copenhagen climate summit yielded only a flimsy accord. But, as Nick Rowley writes in part 2 of his three-part essay on the 2015 Paris climate talks, there are several reasons why this year won’t see another flop.Nick Rowley, Adjunct professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380532015-04-06T20:09:18Z2015-04-06T20:09:18ZThe Road to Paris: three myths about international climate talks<p>With only nine months to go before the most important international meeting on climate change since <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/meeting/6295.php">Copenhagen</a> in 2009, what are the chances of success at this year’s Paris talks? What might “success” mean? And can the mistakes and challenges that have befallen previous meetings be avoided and tackled?</p>
<p>To help address these questions, let’s first dispense with three pervasive myths that continue to make the task of achieving an adequate global response to climate change harder.</p>
<p><strong>Myth 1: the international climate negotiations have failed</strong></p>
<p>There is a widespread belief that more than 20 years of international climate negotiations have been a waste of time. They haven’t. Developing methods to account for atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, awarding funding for taking these measurements, reporting and verifying emissions reductions, and, in the case of the <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">Kyoto Protocol</a>, fashioning one of the most ambitious agreements in international law – none of this would have happened without the negotiating process provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (<a href="http://unfccc.int/2860.php">UNFCCC</a>).</p>
<p>Although the 1997 Kyoto agreement <a href="https://theconversation.com/kyoto-protocol-fails-get-ready-for-a-hotter-world-10742">proved flawed</a>, it led directly to multi-state policy responses such as the European <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm">emissions trading scheme</a> and to national carbon-budgeting legislation such as Britain’s <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents">Climate Change Act</a>, not to mention a plethora of policies and incentives to promote renewable technologies and infrastructure.</p>
<p>The frustration is not that the international process has failed, so much as that the success so far has been only partial, and nowhere near what is needed to reduce the risks of climate change effectively. Far from advocates and negotiators being to blame, the shortcoming is more due to the complexity of the problem, the power of fossil fuel interests, and the nature of the ever-changing globalised economy. Disappointment at what the international process has achieved should only be a reason for us to redouble our efforts, not give up on achieving a multilateral agreement on a problem shared by us all.</p>
<p><strong>Myth 2: it’s mainly about just getting countries to sign up</strong></p>
<p>Despite the climate problem having been defined by the media and many environmental groups as essentially binary (either you advocate climate action, or you don’t), it isn’t. The world has never had to address a problem of this magnitude – one that knows no boundaries and has causes that are closely linked to the post-industrial infrastructure that has done so much to drive economic growth and human betterment.</p>
<p>Let’s be grown-up about the magnitude of the task: we need to change our energy, electricity and transport systems at an unprecedented scale and with unprecedented speed, globally.</p>
<p>The change required in electricity generation, distribution and use is very much like the transformation in digital communications over the past 20 years. But there is one important difference. Unlike the world of possibilities opened up by the digital revolution, the amenity most of us enjoy from electricity will, at best, remain unchanged. To the end-user, the electricity created by solar cells or wind doesn’t feel, work, smell or look better than that generated by coal. </p>
<p>To continue the analogy, the energy revolution won’t deliver an electricity equivalent of upgrading your simple old phone to a sleekly designed smartphone with hundreds of new possible uses. It will be like having the same old land line but with different technology behind it.</p>
<p>Addressing the climate problem and measurably reducing the risk of climate change is a massively complicated, “<a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/Transcript_KeynotespeechtoClimateChangeandSocialJusticeConference_RossGarnaut_3April08/$File/Keynote%20speech.pdf">wicked</a>” problem. We’d like it to be straightforward, but unfortunately the British climate economist Lord Stern of Brentford was right when he <a href="http://www.oxonia.org/newsletter_publications/OXONIA%20Newsletter_16-3-2006.pdf">memorably described the climate challenge</a> as “a complex inter-temporal international collective action problem under uncertainty”. </p>
<p>If it were just about agreeing ever more ambitious targets and replacing “evil” fossil fuels with nice clean ones, success would be easy. But it’s not.</p>
<p>Effective climate policies have to do more than just price carbon: they have to change the way we develop our cities and land; ensure we value and preserve forests; and allow us to generate clean electricity and transport ourselves and all the things we buy and enjoy, in ways that no longer involve the combustion of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Some countries are going to have to continue using coal for a considerable time yet; there remain significant technological challenges to using renewables for more than electricity generation (such as in making concrete, steel and aluminium), and notwithstanding the appeal of electric vehicles, the shift away from oil as the primary fuel for transport requires a lot more than changes to the private car fleet. Transport isn’t just about moving people; everything on the table in front of you was made somewhere else and fossil fuels were burned to get it to you.</p>
<p>Despite all the detailed analysis, august reports and newspaper column inches, climate policy remains immature. The <a href="http://gcrio.org/USCCAP/index.html">first national climate policy</a> was launched by President Clinton a mere 21 years ago. Developing policies with the scope and potency required is an unprecedented challenge that will see failure, learning and – as with all meaningful change – <a href="http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2952.html">some measure of loss and cost</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Myth 3: we just need countries to “see the light”</strong></p>
<p>There remains a misplaced hope among many advocates of ambitious climate policy that there will come a point when shards of truth and light and wisdom suddenly begin to cascade through a major international meeting. These hopes were first pinned on the <a href="http://unfccc.int/cop3/">Kyoto summit</a>, then it was <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/montreal_nov_2005/meeting/6329.php">Montreal</a>, then <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/bali_dec_2007/meeting/6319.php">Bali</a>, then famously <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/meeting/6295.php">Copenhagen</a>, and now Paris.</p>
<p>I’ve described this view as a myth, but really it is a woefully naïve understanding of how political power operates and international agreements are secured. Given the complexity of the challenge – and frustrating as it is, given the risks posed to our climate – progressive incremental change is all that can be achieved.</p>
<p>It didn’t feel like it at the time, but I was fortunate to observe US President Barack Obama in Copenhagen. His performance as a negotiator trying to salvage some <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">modicum of agreement</a> out of what others had let become a train wreck, was almost chilling in its effectiveness. This was hard work, and doubly so when all that he could achieve was avoiding complete failure.</p>
<p>For such a noted orator there was <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-press-availability-copenhagen">no rhetoric</a> on leaving the Danish capital, just a cool-headed acceptance of where the politics of climate had thus far failed, and the need to re-double our efforts: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is hard within countries; it’s going to be even harder between countries … hard stuff requires not paralysis, but going ahead and making the best of the situation that you’re in, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The President wasn’t scripted, he was frustrated and tired. And he was right.</p>
<p>Much has changed in the five years since Copenhagen. The toxic confusion of domestic climate policy in countries such as Australia should not blind us to these important, and largely positive, developments. </p>
<p>So while I firmly believe it is wrong to expect a singular triumph or an outright disaster in Paris, there are reasons why I believe that this year’s outcome can be both significant and positive.</p>
<p><em>This is part 1 of a three-part essay on the prospects for a global climate deal at the Paris 2015 talks. You can read part 2 <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-paris-climate-talks-wont-be-another-copenhagen-39591">here</a> and part 3 <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-global-deal-that-drives-good-decisions-what-success-at-the-paris-summit-should-look-like-39592">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38053/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Rowley is a former strategic director of the Copenhagen Climate Council, and was a climate policy advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.</span></em></p>Hopes are high that a global climate deal can be reached in Paris this year. In part 1 of a three-part essay on the prospects for such a deal, Nick Rowley sets out three myths about the UN talks that need to be dumped before we go forward.Nick Rowley, Professor, Sydney Democracy Network, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.