 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Calculate and offset your CO2 emissions simply and efficiently! Click on one of the icons above! | ||
 |
||
After Copenhagen: How do we move forward?
Discussions about the period after the expiry of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 were already started in New Delhi in 2002. Some measure of a breakthrough was achieved in 2007 (COP 13) in Bali, when the countries agreed on an ambitious roadmap (Bali Road Map). Since then, positions have been locked on the key issues, and no breakthrough was achieved during the Climate Change Conference in December last year, despite extremely high expectations. Yet the results should probably not be judged quite as negatively as was often expressed in the wake of the initial disappointment.
Expectations were high in Copenhagen - by the end of 2009, 193 countries were expected to unanimously have developed an ambitious, legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, or at least to have lifted the blockade between the different blocks with a strong political agreement.
After the negotiations had dragged on for ten days, with many highs and lows and even some outbursts, the Danish head of negotiations appointed a group of 26 countries ("friends of the chair") which covered more than 80% of emissions, 80% of the world population and all the relevant interest groups. This group worked out an agreement ("Accord") that included a compromise for a purely political arrangement between the countries with the highest emissions. According to media reports, this decisive "deal" was made in the hotel room of the Prime Minister of China, together with USA, India, Brazil and South Africa. In the final vote, the proposal was torpedoed by Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba – 5 countries with, for the most part, close relationships with OPEC. Consequently, because of the unanimity requirement, the "Accord" could in the end only be "taken note" of in the UN.
This situation leaves many unanswered questions, also with regards to the legal status of the "Accord". Just as the opportunities in Copenhagen were overestimated, the interim results may now not be underestimated:
- The 2°C temperature rise limit was recognised by the countries with 80% of emissions
- These countries have agreed on a relatively high financial and technological support of the countries most affected (100 billion annually until 2020 and short-term aid of 10 billion annually from 2010 to 2012)
- The emerging countries were able to be persuaded of regular reporting in accordance with national rules. If they receive funds for national measures, international rules apply.
- Thanks to Copenhagen, the countries of the world have verified and improved their national action plans and funding objectives. Through this, important decisions oriented towards climate-friendly growth were initiated globally.
- The delays increase the pressure for more ambitious solutions and deals, also in parallel processes (G20, MEF, bilateral, EU).
The upshot is that Copenhagen also has another side to it: Awareness of the opportunities and options for a climate-friendly economy has taken a quantum leap since 2007. The economic and technological potential to meet the 2°C temperature rise limit does exist; the demand for climate-friendly products and services is rising. For a broad breakthrough, national and international economic frameworks are needed which will now quickly set the right incentives and reduce distortions of competition.
Significance for Switzerland
The countries could submit their 2020 emission reduction targets to the Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) by the end of January for the Appendix to the Accord. Switzerland has decided to adopt the position of the EU subject to the deliberations in the parliament. This means a 20% reduction until 2020, compared to 1990, which will be raised to -30% if other industrialized and newly industrialized countries opt for considerable reductions too.
The parliamentary deliberations are voting a little more hopefully: The majority of the advisory commission has at the beginning of the year proposed a balanced and more ambitious reduction target of 20% domestically and given authority for the Federal Council, in keeping with international developments, to set a reduction target of up to 40%, a part of which (75% of the increase) should take place abroad. The parliamentary debate is still pending.
What is certain is that Switzerland has a more ambitious climate policy after Copenhagen and would want to join the more ambitious EU countries and Japan which are now setting even more ambitious reduction targets at home and abroad for the purpose of economic development and promotion of exports, not least in order to avoid being overtaken by China or the USA. These countries are also hoping to bring the emerging countries on board as quickly as possible and to distinguish themselves internationally. Thus the black-yellow government in Germany is, for example, depending on a total reduction of 40% by 2020.
Regarding the 2°C limit:
The largest emitters have so far only been able to agree to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels (2°C limit). According to the IPCC AR4 2007 Report, if this scenario is to be complied with even to a specified probability (about 66 percent), it would be necessary to instate a reduction of 25-40 percent compared to 2000 very rapidly in developed countries, as well as making a substantial contribution towards "business as usual" in the emerging countries. A worldwide lowering of 50 to 85 percent is needed by 2050, or even more according to recent scientific findings (Copenhagen Report). The island states concerned are asking for a limit of 1.5°C, which was manifested in the "Accord" under the heading of reviewing the 2015 objectives.
Print
