Keeping Our Fingers Crossed for Copenhagen

The most important international meeting on climate change will take place in a few days in Copenhagen. Heads of state and government delegations will come together in attempts to create a worldwide agreement meant to give effective attention to challenging climatic changes. The primary goal of this meeting is to find a political and financial formula that resolves the one great obstacle that, until now, has sabotaged multiple past negotiations on the subject: how to distribute between countries the unavoidable economic burden that accompanies efforts to stem climate change.

For some countries – those with higher incomes – the focus is centered on generating mechanisms that ensure that the growing emission of greenhouse gases are stabilized first and then reduced over the coming decades. For other nations, the main concern is that there be financial schemes in place that enable them to more cheaply adapt to the inevitable effects of climate variation, which are already beginning to show.

The great actors in the negotiations are the United States, Europe, China and India. The U.S. and Europe are relevant due to the volume of their emissions and income level. China and India are major players due to their current and expected future emissions in addition to their economic dynamism, especially in the case of China. Brazil (holder of the largest carbon sink in the world – the Amazon), Japan, and even Russia and Australia have important roles in the new agreement as well.

Additionally, it seems Mexico will play a more important role now than was originally expected, considering it generates no more than 1.5 percent of global emissions. The country’s proactive position – though a bit radicalized – shows that it’s building a national climate change policy, and the direct involvement of President Calderon has made it a major player. Moreover, as the country set to host the next summit in late 2010 and hold the yearlong presidency of the Conference of the Parties (COP) going to Denmark, our country has a position that should not be missed.

However, the overall environment is not easy. Even in the most recent meeting in Barcelona just a few weeks ago, the international community failed to work out the benchmarks outlined in the Bali Action Plan of 2007 and expected to be formally agreed upon in Copenhagen. Marked by a heterogeneous environment with varying national interests and strategic positions – a most exciting scenario for game theorists, but also conducive to a climate of mistrust – the negotiations would require a major breakthrough in order for large sections of the population not to be disappointed.

When will that breakthrough come? Some argue there may be a clear U.S. commitment now that President Obama has shown signs of wanting to reverse his predecessor’s apathy and link climate change to the energy security and economic recovery of his country. But we cannot forget that the U.S. Senate has not yet approved a bill that would allow Obama the domestic backing to move forward. There are segments of the U.S. population who view a climate compromise with suspicion when China, the emerging economic power with whom the U.S. competes, refuses to be a true counterpart.

However, China and the U.S.’s recent announcement stating their interest in a climate agreement should be seen as an encouraging sign, since it is these two countries that account for nearly half of global emissions. Also, some of the major players in this game of chess have been acting behind the scenes, not only through formal forums (G-20, G-8 +5, Major Economies Forum), but also through informal bilateral consultations and in small groups of countries.

In any event, a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen will include: 1) some type of commitment by the major emitters to make cuts by 2020, 2) approval, perhaps in general terms, of one or more schemes for countries with higher per capita income to ensure resources for those with lower levels and 3) some type of evaluation method for the medium term, for example, standardized measurements and other efforts to permit international comparability.

If this occurs, Copenhagen could have a happy ending, resulting in part from informal agreements and the presence of senior political leaders. But, perhaps we should not expect too much.