Global Climate Change After Copenhagen: What Comes Next?

Speakers:

• Opening remarks: Eric Farnsworth, Vice President, Americas Society/Council of the Americas
• Moderated by: Juliet Eilperin, National Environmental Reporter, The Washington Post
• Christiana Figueres, Principal Climate Change Advisor, ENDESA Latinoamérica, and Climate Change Convention Negotiator for Costa Rica
• Rubén Kraiem, Partner & Co-Chair, Clean Energy and Climate Industry Group, Covington & Burling, LLP
• Sascha Muller-Kraenner, European Representative, The Nature Conservancy
• Robert Schoellhammer, Deputy Resident Director, Asian Development Bank, North American Representative Office
• Closing remarks: Annette Heuser, Executive Director, Bertelsmann Foundation North America

Summary

The Americas Society and Council of the Americas, in collaboration with the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Asia Society, hosted a public discussion on November 17, 2009, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. The purpose of the event was to discuss prospects for the upcoming negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and what the outcome will mean for global efforts to mitigate climate change. The most salient topics that emerged from the conversation included possible scenarios for Copenhagen and after; the role of international versus domestic commitments; and the expectations of the United States, the European Union, and Asian countries going into the negotiations as well as the constraints these countries/regions face. The important role of the private sector in addressing climate change was also emphasized.

Introduction

AS/COA Vice President Eric Farnsworth opened the event with an overview of the current situation pre-Copenhagen. He highlighted the recent developments at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders Meeting in Singapore, where world leaders announced their intention to seek a short-term political agreement in Copenhagen and then work to turn that into a binding treaty in 2010. He hinted that this two-step process might be a response to the United States. Washington’s ability to make binding commitments is limited without domestic climate legislation, which the U.S. Congress is not expected to pass in time for the Copenhagen conference. In light of the fact that a legally binding agreement will not come out of the climate change summit, Farnsworth asked the panelists what they expect to result from the conference. Is a two-step approach realistic?

What can we expect from Copenhagen and after?

There was a general consensus among the panelists about the need to “acknowledge the inevitable” reality that negotiations in Copenhagen would not produce a definitive, legally binding agreement. The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin, who served as moderator, asked if the two-step agreement was a sign of the collapse of global climate negotiations. The Nature Conservancy’s Sascha Muller-Kraenner stressed that, to avoid collapse, everyone must think “very precisely about the political agenda and the timetable for the next year and the coming years.” Muller-Kraenner outlined three possible outcomes of the Copenhagen meeting: “stopping the clock” and agreeing to disagree; a political agreement; a political agreement with conditionalities. According to Muller-Kraenner, the first scenario would be a “serious blow” to the process. In the second scenario, the agreement would be nonbinding, but it would include decisions on emissions reductions, financing, technology transfer, deforestation, and adaptation. The final scenario would be a political agreement in which countries commit to continue on a “business as usual” path of reducing emissions as well as pledge to make further reductions if and when all the key players agree to do the same. All three scenarios would necessitate continued negotiations to arrive at a legally ratifiable treaty in the next year.

Role of international versus domestic commitments

While underscoring the importance of global commitments, panelists also recognized the limitations of an international agreement. Robert Schoellhammer of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said, “Just having an agreement doesn’t mean that things will happen, that national governments will change, policies will change.” Rubén Kraiem of Covington & Burling, LLP, agreed that an international agreement, even if legally binding, is not a guarantee and stressed that key countries must enact domestically enforceable measures to bring down their emissions. Muller-Kraenner emphasized the need for work at the bilateral level in addition to negotiations in the United Nations. For example, the United States is already engaging China bilaterally on these issues, he said, and the European Union must do the same.

Expectations and constraints of the different countries/regions

Looking across the globe, countries/regions have different expectations and constraints going into Copenhagen. According to Kraiem, the United States will not allow “what happened in Kyoto to happen again,” and the Obama administration will not commit itself to anything without domestic political consensus. Since the U.S. Congress won’t pass climate legislation before the Copenhagen conference, the only window it will have is early 2010, before the midterm elections in November. Politically, it will be “virtually impossible” to pass climate legislation in the United States close to or after the elections, said Kraiem. He is encouraged by the work of Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to craft legislation with bipartisan support, and he believes that the United States will eventually commit to an international legally binding agreement. But he cautioned that the U.S. commitment would be far short of global expectations.

According to Schoellhammer, Asia is on the “front line” of the effects of climate change and takes the issue very seriously. For Asian countries, however, the focus is largely on adaptation rather than mitigation. The ADB works with 14 Pacific Island countries, and “they’re concerned about disappearing,” he said. In Copenhagen, the main issue for many of the Asian countries is the discrepancy between developed and developing economy consumption on a per capita basis. U.S. per capita emissions are roughly ten times those in India and about five times China’s, said Schoellhammer; Asian countries are not going to limit their economic growth in order to reduce emissions. There must be action in developed countries to get Asia’s buy-in for reform.

Both Eilperin and Muller-Kraenner noted the unequal political attention being given to Copenhagen by the United States and Europe. An example of this is the announcement of the two-step process, which was not made by Obama himself but by an official in his administration. This is in contrast to European leaders, such as Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, who, according to Eilperin, are out front on these issues. The Europeans want a political deal to emerge from Copenhagen, not just a “lyrical political declaration,” as Muller-Kraenner put it. The basic components of such a deal for the Europeans are the numbers: emissions reductions and financial assistance. But for the European Union to commit to figures, said Muller-Kraenner, it needs the United States and China to do so as well.

An important role for the private sector

Christiana Figueres, a top climate change advisor with ENDESA Latinoamérica and Costa Rica’s climate change convention negotiator, discussed the important role markets play in emissions reductions, calling them the “glue.” She anticipated that after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, developed countries will commit to much greater emissions reductions. Without the opportunity to combine domestic emissions reductions with less expensive international reductions purchased in a market, she said, developed countries won’t be able to meet deeper targets. Existing markets must expand to take on the new commitments but, according to Figueres, the markets will be ready.

Schoellhammer also highlighted the important role of the private sector. The ADB estimates that to begin to bring down emissions in Asia by 2030, it will cost $9.7 trillion—an amount the public sector cannot supply on its own. Schoellhammer stressed that the private sector must get involved by investing in energy and transportation or wherever companies can make a profit and have a positive impact on climate change mitigation.

Closing

In closing, the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Annette Heuser reemphasized the short timeline the United States has to pass domestic cap and trade legislation. She also echoed the call for a concrete timetable for 2010 in order to avoid letting policymakers “off the hook.”

Council of the Americas follow-up meeting is being planned for early 2010 to discuss the results from Copenhagen and the path ahead.