What’s at Stake in Copenhagen- A follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol: Focusing on China and the U.S.

Background

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol exempted developing countries from binding emissions ceilings. China and India, who were not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, have emerged as the world's biggest gross emitter of carbon dioxide and the world's fourth largest polluter respectively. The new framework must include the new top emitters, including the BRIC group (this consists of the group of rapidly developing economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China). As U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, noted: "We live in an interconnected world. An effective agreement in Copenhagen would be a powerful vote of confidence in multilateralism." The U.S. must take its responsibility seriously as the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind China (the per capita emissions of the U.S. are far higher than China's), and take meaningful action on the domestic front in order to legitimize the U.S.' calls for the international community to work together on this front.

The Blame Game: 

- Developed countries, including the U.S., insist that developing nations must limit their emissions to make any international treaty feasible. Developing nations account for an increasing portion of the world's pollution, and cannot be left to pursue development through environmentally destructive means. Thus far, China has rejected binding caps on its emissions.

- Excluding developing nations from emissions targets helps their economies grow through careless means, while punishing countries that sacrifice short-term growth for long-run sustainability.

- The absence of such provisions to limit emissions from developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol prompted the U.S. to reject ratification, as the U.S. saw the agreement as weak if it excluded large and developing emissions sources that would gain substantially from technology transfers but sacrifice little towards global climate change.

- On the other hand, China and India claim that developed countries should demonstrate leadership in cutting greenhouse gases (GHGs), since per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world.

- In developing countries, a large part of local emissions result from the production of goods that are demanded by developed countries for export. The Chinese insist that much of their emissions released are on account of producing goods for export to the U.S., rather than for domestic use. China feels that just because the U.S. exports the production of goods demanded by its population, it should not be exempt from being accountable for the pollution released as a result of making those goods. Based on this, the U.S. should be responsible not for the pollution emitted within its geographical territory, but for the pollution released by the factories world-over that produce goods for U.S. consumption. It is estimated that half of China's emissions are on account of goods produced for export, and the U.S. is China's biggest export destination.

- Developing nations also point out that developed nations are responsible for most of the GHGs already in the atmosphere. So, the developing world asks if it is fair for the richer nations to deny them the same quick and easy (read: environmentally destructive) means of growth that they themselves used to develop in the past.

What the U.S. and China Have Done... And Not Done:

The U.S. has begun talks with China to discuss environmental protection measures- a wise step given that the two countries together emit 40% of all GHGs.

In the last decade, China has emerged as the largest generator of wind energy, and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, said: "China is eager to embrace low-carbon development pathways and is ready to be a ‘positive, constructive' player in negotiations going forward." More than 5% of China's stimulus package accounts for investments towards environmental protection. Yet, China continues to reject mandatory ceilings on their emissions, and their record of environmental protection in the past has been spotty and marred by poor implementation.

Closer to home, President Obama's administration appears more environmentally conscious than its predecessors. It has worked to improve the electrical grid to supply more renewable energy, and supports the production of hybrids cars. In March 2009, a $3.2 billion grant was announced to fund local energy efficiency improvements. Obama has also raised the minimum car mileage from 25 mpg to 35 mpg for the upcoming 2012 through 2016 year models. The Waxman-Markey climate bill, passed in the House and awaiting a Senate vote, calls for a 4% reduction in GHGs in the U.S. from 1990 levels, but even this humble cut has proved challenging, even though it is a far cry from the 40% cut that China and India currently demand of the U.S..Ratification of an international treaty that demands significantly higher cuts would require a lot of political commitment.

Taking Steps Forward:

The U.S. must enact meaningful legislation to protect against climate change before December 2009. Such steps on the domestic front are necessary to demonstrate the U.S.'s commitment to environmental protection. It was in this spirit that former Vice President, Al Gore, Declared: "The United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty." Unfortunately, the environemntal regulations that have been negotiated in the past have been severely weekened due to the lobbying of special interest groups, and even humble commitments to address climate change in the federal government have been difficult to pass and strongly opposed. The U.S. must see the months before the Copenhagen meeting as a window of opportunity to emerge as leader in sustainable development and environmental protection.

Climate change is already responsible for over 300,000 deaths and more than $125 billion in economic losses a year. With the Copenhagen talks nearing, it is time to mount pressure for demonstrating dedication to reducing global warming. Failing to bring the big players on board, including the U.S., India and China, could seriously undermine the treaty that is to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. The international community should take advantage of the political momentum that is currently backing the Copenhagen meeting, and demonstrate its willingness to make short-term sacrifices in order to find a sustainable and feasible solution to international climate change.