This post was written by Global Warming and Energy Apprentice, Justin Guay
Let’s start by framing the situation. We now have 15 days of actual negotiations left before Copenhagen and we have made little to no progress on a host of divisive issues. Substantially, hell- overwhelmingly, adding to this sense of panic is the United Nations Environment Program’s frightening culmination of the past three years of climate science as well as a British Met Office Hadley report showing that in our lifetimes we will experience warming of 4 degrees Celsius. In addition, a report released in Nature outlines three planetary tipping points we have already crossed, of a potential nine that can not be crossed without disastrous consequences. The icing on the cake is the news that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting 50% faster since 2003. Apparently the only people to truly understand the dangerous territory we are headed for are the voting block the Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), whose new motto is “1.5 to stay alive”.
So how did world leaders respond at two critical summits that could have literally produced life saving momentum for Copenhagen and therefore the planet? To put it mildly, they flailed. The Chinese President Hu Jintao, preferred to play his political advantage by refusing to set a specific carbon intensity target instead saying it would be “a notable margin”. He did however, in a seemingly small but nevertheless significant change, alter the country’s intensity targets from energy-based to carbon-based.
For his part, President Obama has, according to Carl Pope, shown that the United States is emerging as the key obstacle to an agreement in Copenhagen. While the Senate deserves the lion’s share of the blame, it was the President’s unwillingness to demand action on stalled climate and energy legislation that may very well seal our planetary fate.
As for the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, it was an utter disappointment. The draft communiqué put no financing package on the table and dropped all mention of climate financing from the final draft. In fact there was an eerie sense of déjà vu as President Obama reiterated the request he made at L’aquila in July for concrete ideas on climate financing at future meetings.
The political merry-go-round did produce at least one positive outcome on the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. Leaders committed to “phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption” while recognizing the use of “targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms” for the poor. Of course this will meet fierce resistance and any form of concrete timeline or plan for achieving this bold goal was left out of the final communiqué.
So now we are in between a rock and a hard place. The President can’t commit to anything internationally without a bill in hand. The body tasked with providing him this vital tool, the Senate, is chalk full of climate change denying hysterics spouted by imbeciles masquerading as Congressmen. If we had twenty more years to wrangle this all out maybe, just maybe, we could avert the coming tipping points. But with these harbingers of doom rapidly approaching - or perhaps passed - we need unequivocal concerted global action. For Copenhagen it may be too late, but let’s make sure that sentence doesn’t soon apply to the planet.