Who Holds the Key Card to Copenhagen?

For many of us in the climate profession today, Copenhagen feels like a show time when every party is expected to show their last card in hand and put all the oral commitments together for a new international process.

Changhua Wu, Greater China Director, The Climate Group 05/03/2009 14:50

For the developed world, it means real leadership and fulfillment of their due responsibility. And the developing countries, especially the large emerging economies, shall deliver the commitments laid out in the Bali Roadmap. A successful international process in Copenhagen will be key to setting global climate policy direction, thus to gearing our global economy towards a low carbon future.

This sounds simple, clear and even noble. And yet the reality tells a rather different story. At this very late stage, finger-pointing is still happening. Everyone expects others to take on more or at least comparable responsibilities. For a while, the general public, who do not necessarily follow closely the global climate process, get confused. The American voters, for instance, having been out of the Kyoto process for at least 8 years, feel strongly that large developing countries, like China and India, shall take on emissions cap, without which it does not make sense for the US to commit to target. The situation is getting more complicated by the occurrence of financial crisis and economic recession, let alone the fact that many American voters, particularly those from Mid-western states, have already believed that the Chinese and Indians have taken away their jobs. This has been clearly reflected in the US Congressional debates and discussions. Such kind of mentality does not help the US domestic legislation, neither the international negotiation process.

In this whole debate, you cannot help asking such a question: Who holds the key card to Copenhagen success? (This might not be a fair question since the climate framework shall be a consensus of all the 192 countries and regions. But around some key issues such as mitigation, the focus is on some largest parties.) EU has stated relatively clear cap target – 25% by 2020 over the 1990 level and EU has been in the international process since the beginning. Thus, the spotlight naturally falls on the US. President Obama’s statements before and after he took office shed light of hope on the Copenhagen process - the US new Administration seems determined to become a global leader on climate change rather than a dragger.

However, we all know that whether such political statements will be delivered in Copenhagen remains a daunting challenge. The US domestic legislation process and the political schedule don’t necessarily support the Copenhagen one. In about ten months’ time, it appears a mission impossible to bring all the American constituencies behind the President for a significant US commitment in Copenhagen.

The US legislation process should have been its own domestic matter. But somehow, China becomes a key factor in it. In 1997, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution clearly mentioned China as its excuse for not taking on commitments and targets. For those who are familiar with the history of US-China relations, it was not a surprise. Though the leading Democrats on the Hill have been advocating strongly that the US legislation on cap-and-trade be passed before the UN Conference, across the aisle, the Republicans are still holding tight their home-base position – if China and India do not make quantifiable commitments, they will not sign on to any system that “imposes restriction on the US economy.” An interesting but fair question would be: Have the potential restrictions on the Chinese and Indian economies ever been considered?

But if arguably the US holds a key card to the international process, then the US-China nexus is where a lot of efforts have to be made immediately. As suggested by many experts, better mutual understanding and respect shall be the first step to overcome the mistrust that has been interrupting the bilateral relations for decades. Then, the two countries shall seek common ground for collaboration and win-win opportunities. Both countries have been making impressive commitment and efforts in advancing green or clean technologies and industries that will lead to a new wave of economic growth. The currently debated US “stimulus package” contains ambitious targets and investment in energy efficiency improvement and renewable energy, aiming to use this opportunity to revive the US leadership in clean technologies such as batteries, Smart grid, building energy efficiency, solar PV and CCS. China’s already approved “stimulus package” sounds amazingly similar in both wording and focus. Government and business leaders from both countries shall use this critical moment to discuss how to work together and benefit each other.

Though in a market economy, competitiveness always exists and is necessary, the situation now is not that the two countries are competing for how big a piece each will get. Instead, if jointly and collaboratively, the two are actually, with others, drawing the pie and decide how big the future energy efficiency technology and clean energy technology market will be. This shall also become a foundation for the two countries’ political leaders to work together. If arguably the collaboration of energy and climate change is the most important bilateral relationship in the 21^st century in the world, Copenhagen process’ success signals a constructive first step.

From where I stand, what is happening in China is encouraging and also exciting. A strong and comprehensive low carbon policy and regulatory framework is gradually in place to drive the world’s largest developing country through a more efficient and cleaner energy economic revolution. The political will is the strongest ever to set this country on a solid foundation towards low carbon prosperity. This will tremendously benefit the global efforts in tackling climate change.

Back to the Copenhagen process, I am hopeful but also concerned. Many of the debates in EU and North America seem to forget about the existing international framework and foundation of “common but differentiated responsibility”. The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol have to be the solid foundation for Copenhagen, without which it is like taking away the foundation while you are adding bricks to a building. The situation will be less complicated if developed countries come to Copenhagen by clearly stating what and how they will take their due leadership. If we believe in the influence of role model, then we could conclude that others will follow. Let’s stop the pressure game, instead, put in more constructive efforts towards Copenhagen. It is so crucial for now and also for generations to come.

Changhua Wu is the Greater China Director of The Climate Group.