With only a week to go to the start of the formal negotiations in Copenhagen, the central issue may not be whether some inter-governmental political framework is agreed, but what mechanisms are put in place to deliver carbon emissions. There has been a great deal of talk about likely outcomes: a legally enforceable international agreement (virtually impossible now), or a broad political framework which needs to be as wide-ranging and specific as possible (but is more likely to turn out limited and unspecific), or an agreement between key countries to give a lead (perhaps a US-China understanding supported by the EU and India), or a patchwork of domestic commitments by all the major countries (which has largely been offered already) – or of course a car crash (which cannot be ruled out). But there has been very little focus on the instruments for whatever is agreed, yet that is just as important, and perhaps even more so. So how should the necessary action be delivered?

The developing countries have let it be known that they believe they need some £240bn a year by 2020 to achieve adaptation against climate change, yet the rich countries have pledged only £100bn. Worse, even what the rich countries have previously pledged, they have not delivered. Japan pledged £10bn, the UK £1.15bn, Australia £200m, and the EU £64m, yet nothing at all has actually been delivered yet by anuy of these countries. Only Germany, which pledged £139m, has delivered – in their case the full amount. The World Bank has pledged a clean technology fund of £4.3bn, but has so far delivered nothing. It has also pledged £1.6bn for a strategic climate fund, but delivered nothing. That is of course why developing countries want the delivery mechanism to be via the UN where they have much more equal power. The UN has pledged a global environmental facility of £760m, and delivered the full amount. It has promised £528m towards the millennium development goals, and delivered £85m so far, plus £172m towards a least developed countries fund and delivered £31m, and £50m for a strategic priority on adaptation and delivered the full amount.
The EU has also proposed that only a quarter to a half of the £100bn should come from public funds, and the rest from carbon markets and the private sector. But the developing countries oppose over-reliance on liberalisation and the private sector in the light of their past experience of the IMF and World Bank. There are also strong reasons for rejection of carbon markets like the EU emissions trading scheme when experience has shown that the cap is set far too loose, too many free permits are offered, too few countries are covered, and carbon offset schemes that shift emissions to the developing world are poorly monitored. A far better alternative is an international carbon tax, whether in the form of a levy on passenger flights, an auction of emission credits or, best of all, a Tobin tax on financial transactions.

Bookmark to: