Copenhagen summit: Change we can't yet believe in

Editorial
The Guardian, Monday 16 November 2009
Confirming yesterday what had already been apparent for some months, Barack Obama and other leaders yesterday said that time had run out to secure a legally binding climate deal at Copenhagen. They said the 22 remaining days were just too few in number to secure binding emissions targets and overcome the divisions between the developed and developing world. This could be viewed as a realistic assessment. Mr Obama said that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The British government's view is also optimistic. As long as political targets and outline commitments are agreed at Copenhagen, why should it matter that a few more months are taken to thrash out the details, if the end result is a package that is workable and enforceable? Rather a good package later than a weak package now. After all, the same thing happened to the Montreal protocol on CFCs, which took a year to harden up but remains the best of its kind.
But that is an optimist's view. There is a big difference between a few more months and the whole process being delayed for another year. If governments and negotiators can keep the pressure going, and if the US Congress passes carbon-capping legislation, then the Obama administration could bring a 2020 target and financing pledges to the table at a UN climate meeting in Mexico or Germany midway through next year. But that remains a big if. As we have seen with the centrepiece of his domestic legislation, his attempts to reform healthcare have been continually set back by the ferocity of the opposition. And at each stage, the reform has become less ambitious. What Mr Obama acknowledged yesterday was that he cannot do everything at once. He does not have the political leverage over his senators – but that is not how he embarked on power a year ago. If, as a result of yesterday's decision, the summit in Copenhagen loses urgency and becomes a talking shop with no all-night sessions hammering out deals, the US Congress could simply be putting off the hard and painful decisions for another year. Without a commitment from a major polluter, such as the US, what chance is there of negotiating global compliance? Not without reason are US officials anxious about the timing of an expected announcement from China on its first carbon intensity target, with reductions of about 40 to 45% relative to economic growth by 2020. China would thus be joining other key nations, such as Brazil and Japan, who have pledged more action than the US.
We know that voluntary action is not enough. China and India are sitting on vast stocks of coal, which push the amount of their emissions above those of older polluters in the west. Forests offer untold wealth to millions in poverty in Indonesia and Brazil, if only trees can be chopped down, and at the very top of the carbon food chain sit western consumers unwilling to part with cheap weekend flights, strawberries in winter and two cars. When we stop buying cars or other durables, our economies grind to a halt. The developed world has become accustomed to ever-increasing levels of material consumption. Cutting carbon emissions is therefore inextricably linked with wider questions of the pressure on all natural resources, land and water.
This is a task that only governments can undertake and it is not as if they have not already had enough time to do it. The meeting that created the Kyoto protocol has convened in 10 other countries and cities since. The immensity of the task ahead is probably more apparent to world leaders than it was a decade ago. But time is running out. To prevent the global average temperature from increasing by more than 2C, there will need to be a global cut in emissions within the next five years or so. Some say the point of no return has already been reached. Does yesterday's decision represent change we can believe in? Not for now, and it remains to be seen if it will come next year.