Sadly the row over the UEA leaked emails continues to distract attention away from what really matters at Copenhagen, namely the size of the carbon reduction commitments now made by all the biggest countries which collectively, if all delivered, would get the world tantalisingly close to the target required to avoid the worst effects of climate change. A UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) report just out states that these commitments would bring down global emissions to about 46bn tonnes a year by 2020, whereas the scientists warn that emissions should not exceed 44bn tonnes a year if severe sea level rises (which could inundate whole countries) and extreme temperatures (parching farmland and forcing the migration of millions of environmental refugees) are to be avoided. Today’s announcement by China, now the world’s biggest polluter though in per capita terms still well below the US, that its carbon emissions will peak between 2030-40 is the most encouraging news so far – if true. There is a catch though – these are all political declarations. Will they actually happen?

The record on delivery of pledges over climate change is not good. None of the commitments made at Kyoto by the three main signatories, the US, Japan and the EU, have so far been delivered, though the EU has come close to its target of a cut of 8% compared to 1990 emission levels and has only been let down by its southern flank – Spain, Portugal and Greece. Canada promised to cut its increase to no more than 6% by 2010, but has actually hit a 25% increase. The Gleneagles Agreement in 2005 to provide tens of billions of pounds to the developing countries to help them adapt to some of the irreversible effects of climate change has been honoured almost entirely in the breach. Once again the developed world has agreed to make available £100bn a year for adaptation for the developing countries by 2020 (well short of the £250bn a year they are demanding), but the past record shows that no more than a few billion has been delivered. Will it be different this time? Probably not.
What would make a difference this time round? Two things perhaps. One is the solidarity of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the upcoming global leaders of the developing world, to extract big cuts and big technology and finance transfers from the rich West matched by strong monitoring and enforcement mechanisms as a condition for the former’s participation. This is likely to be a matter of intense and prolonged negotiation when China’s own commitment last week to cut its carbon intensity (i.e. the amount of carbon generated per unit of economic growth, not the overall level of carbon emissions) by 40-45% by 2020 compared to 2005 would still leave China’s carbon output rising by 90% if its economic growth of 8% per year is maintained. The second relevant factor is the sheer scale of the impacts of climate catastrophe as it steadily unfolds. Scientists believe that the world can only pump some 1,000bn tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere before the danger threshold of a 2C rise in global temperature is passed. At present it’s 40bn tonnes per year and rising, and at this rate the consequences within a dozen years or so won’t just be uncomfortable; they’ll be unbearable.

Bookmark to: