Kyoto 2 - the worst case scenario
Â
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon made a rousing speech at the Bali Climate Summit yesterday, outlining the necessity for urgent action by all nations to combat climate change.
“The science is clear. Climate change is happening. The impact is real. The time to act is now.”
“By being creative, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while promoting economic growth.”
“There is an emerging consensus on the building blocks of a climate agreement, including adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing. It must also be comprehensive and involve all nations, developed and developing”
But how does this pair up with the reality?
Despite clearly stating that the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of reducing emissions, particularly in ecological, human and financial terms, the secretary general was quick to temper expectations. At a later press conference Ban Ki-moon described calls for rich nations to make cuts in their green house gas emissions by 2020 as “too ambitious”.
It has been clear this week that many of the major players, including the US, China, India, Japan and Canada do not support the UN’s view both on urgency and on the cost-benefit of action vs inaction. With so many dissenters it seems likely that the final agreement will represent the lowest common denominator - which is quite low.
Our view is that any agreement without clearly measurable targets will be mostly worthless - tough actions will not follow without strong commitments. Instead we will glow in the climate treaty feel-good effect whilst the real issues pass us by.
The worst case scenario might be another Kyoto - a treaty that was both expensive to implement and doomed to failure at the same time. Hopefully we have at least learnt something since then?
Translated..
“Our utopian dream of CO2 reductions and ‘creative’ economic growth was met head on by reality and was defeated.”
“In our effort to have all countries bow down before us and submit to our will, we were ‘too ambitious’”