Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Saving Ourselves...From Ourselves


Copenhagen offers the prospect of a robust political deal, endorsed by the world's leaders and witnessed by the world's people, that sets out clear targets and a timeline for translating it into law. To be a truly historic achievement, such a deal must do two things.
First, it must lay the basis for a global regime and subsequent agreements that limit global temperature rise in accordance with the scientific evidence. Second, it must provide clarity on the mobilization and volume of financial resources to support developing countries to adapt to climate change.

The stakes are enormous. Economic growth has been achieved at great environmental and social cost, aggravating inequality and human vulnerability. The irreparable damage that is being inflicted on ecosystems, agricultural productivity, forests and water systems is accelerating. Threats to health, life and livelihoods are growing. Disasters are also increasing in scale and frequency.

But despite the mounting evidence of negative impacts, reaching a deal will not be easy. It will require extraordinary political courage -- both to cut the deal and to communicate its necessity to the public.

A mindset shift is required. Distrust and competition persist between regions and nations, manifest in a 'no, you must show your cards first' attitude that has dogged the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. This has to be overcome.

A deal that is not based on the best scientific evidence will be nothing better than a line in the sand as the tide comes in. But short term considerations, including from special interest groups and electoral demands, are working against long term solutions.

Success in reaching a deal will require leaders to think for future generations, and for citizens other than their own. It will require them to think about inclusive and comprehensive arrangements, not just a patched up compilation of national or regional interests.

A deal that stops at rhetoric and does not actually meet the needs of the poorest and most climate vulnerable countries simply will not work. The climate cannot be 'fixed' in one continent and not another. Climate change does not respect national borders. We are all in the same boat; a hole at one end will sink us all.

For it to work, climate justice must be at the heart of the agreement. An unfair deal will come unstuck.

Industrialized countries such as the United States must naturally take the lead in reducing emissions and supporting others to follow suit, but developing countries like India or China also have an increasing responsibility to do so as their economies continue to grow.

Tragically, it is the poorest and least responsible who are having to bear the brunt of the climate challenge as rising temperatures exacerbate poverty, hunger and vulnerability to disease for billions of people. They need both immediate help to strengthen their climate resilience as well as long-term support to enable them to adapt to changing weather patterns, reduce deforestation, and pursue low-emissions, clean energy growth strategies. The deal must include a package of commitments in line with the science and the imperative of reducing global emissions by 50-85 percent relative to 2000 levels by 2050.

This requires a schedule for richer countries to move to 25-40 percent emission cuts by 2020 from 1990 baselines; clear measures for emerging economies to cut emissions intensity; and clarity about both immediate and longer term finance and technical support for developing countries, notably the poorest and most vulnerable among them.

Will we get there? The targets that have been proposed for emission reductions by many industrialized countries such as the EU, Japan and Norway are encouraging, as are those being made by the big emerging economies including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Korea.

Recent announcements by the US on emission targets represent a significant shift and provide a basis for scaling up commitments in the coming years. So does the recognition by emerging economies that they also have a role in supporting the most vulnerable countries.

Welcome too are the proposals for financial support to LDCs and small island states made at the Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad, as well as proposals by the Netherlands, France, and the UK, among others.

But much greater specificity on finance is needed. Existing ODA commitments to help the poorest countries meet the Millennium Development Goals need to be met. And significant additional finance that is separate from and additional to ODA needs to be mobilized to support them meet the incremental costs generated by climate change.

A deal which is not clear on the finance will be both unacceptable to developing countries, and unworkable. Finding the additional resources and communicating its necessity will not be easy, particularly in the current economic climate, but it must be done.

A successful deal could incentivize not only good stewardship of forests and more sustainable land use, but also massive investment into low carbon growth and a healthier planet, including in sectors such as energy generation, construction and transportation.

And it could usher in an era of qualitatively new international cooperation based upon common but differentiated responsibilities - not just for managing climate change, but for human development, social justice and global security.

Ultimately, at stake is whether our leaders can work to help us save ourselves from ... well, from ourselves. The legacy of today's politicians will be determined in the weeks to come.

Kofi A. Annan is Former UN Secretary-General, Chairman of the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Africa Progress Panel, President of the Global Humanitarian Forum.

5 comments:

Carlos Rangel 4th Period said...

To save ourselves from ourselves, and bring together our leaders of the world is the longest shot this world will ever have. Honestly, this message and purpose of this attempt at taking responsibility in making the world a btter place just doesn't seem likely to me..I'm sorry if im sounding like the bad guy but comon, there are too many egos and man is based on one thing: to get ahead of everybody else and really throughout time we've made alliances and fought against eachother which just doesn't cut for me that we can all come to an agreement. I just think this is too much for the world to handle, i mean comon if your gonna say we're all on a boat than this is a REALLY BIG BOAT! Even though we would like to all work together, or at least thats what we want to do, some countries just simply wont abbide by doing what other countries want. Thats just how they are. But say our leaders come to agreement, it will be the biggest economical attempt at a healthier earth because this is a huge risk they would be taking i mean will they agree on who pays what and how much? Theres just too many creative differences like a potentially great band. They all have their own intentions but in the end will the all work out together? That opinion is up to you.

Sara H-Sabet 8th said...

For the Copenhagen summit to actually be successful politics must be put aside . . . the problem? The only people who have the power to make decisions are politicians. To actually agree upon the set problem and how to solve it, they must listen to the research (and not the rehearsed speeches). Only if this is first agreed on can you then move into the logistics of financing the change. Be it cap and trade or technology support the resources to mobilize exist; it’s just a matter of not being greedy.

Andrew Jiang 8th said...

It's good that more people are taking efforts to hinder negative climate change, and I think the Copenhagen meeting is a step in the right direction. We may be too late to prevent irreparable upon our planet, but the sooner we start, the better. I think that international, especially American, motor and energy industries will remain the greatest obstacle to cutting down on emissions. Doing what is necessary to restore the balance of nature will be difficult, but I believe that people are capable of it.

PeytonOldham1 said...

ok well first of this is the biggest hypocrisy in the history of hypocrisies because they produced an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. They could have avoided laying over 1000 miles of computer cable and 50,000 square yards of carpet, serving more than 200,000 meals. brining in more than 120 private jets and brining in limos from surrounding countries because there weren't enough there to support the 16,500 people. but i mean who listens to the facts any more..... i mean its just so much easier to listen to what ever lies the news will throw out there but its ok being that those who actualy know whats going on know that climate change is the bigest hoax in history..... but i must be lying right well if you do a lil resarch you will find that hackers intercepted emails... if you dont believe me From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK




UNAPOLOGETICALLY AMERICAN

Jiaqi Niu 8th said...

This Copenhagen Summit is really where politics doesn't have to be ignored, but this is where politics have to work together despite different political beliefs. This shouldn't just among the US, China, and India. This is really where everyone pitches in. Every nation has to come up with a comprehensive plans to reduce pollution without hindering economic growth. What many politicians and world leaders don't realize that this trully our last gamble to save what we have.