CLIMATE change is the single-most worrying challenge facing our world but can the conference in Copenhagen come up with real resolutions to combat this phenomenon or will it be a global public relations exercise. At the end of the day, there will be a new climate agreement, but it would not have enough substance to cut green house gas emission by 2020.

In December, a multitude of world leaders and other delegates would assemble in Copenhagen for the conference on climate change. Ironically, their presence will contribute to green house gas emission and consequently, to climate change. Just think about the long flights, the bottled water, the use of communication and allied equipment, including computers and cell phones and the picture will become clear on how this great assemble of leaders will also be involved in climate generation.

Yet, this conference is integral to the global struggle against climate change. Therefore, this forum will provide the opportunity for leaders to negotiate and be innovative in their quest to stabilise climate conditions. It is therefore easy to see that, there is likely to be some new policy on climate change. Seriously, no country can afford to walk away from the conference in Copenhagen without participating in some arrangement to reduce emissions. Leaders would want to take ownership for movement in addressing this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the quality of the new policy will depend heavily upon the perceptions and realities of the participating nations. These perceptions and realities would be informed by their history, geography, politics and level of economic development, culture, intensity of economic and environmental activism and position on the world stage.

As a result, some delegates could determine that the conference is nothing more than a global public relations exercise where nations have to act out particular roles to the global community. These days it is very fashionable for politicians to talk green.

They need to impress rather than do something tangible to cut emissions. Therefore, they will engage in rhetoric and talk but nothing substantial will be achieved. But even talking about the challenge of climate change has utility. At the very least it raises awareness about the plight of mankind on a planet on fire, whose ability to regulate its temperature has been weakened by the activities of man. Still, nations need to do much more than just talk or negotiate their own special interests between reduction of green house gases and the nebulous notion of development. Indeed, national interests are important, so too is the thought about being our brother’s keeper in an uncertain world.

In fact, on June 1st, a 53 page option paper has been crafted in Bonn. About 182 negotiation teams and 4,000 delegates gathered in Bonn and discussed legal texts. Many have suggested that, the paper appears to lack real focus. That document contemplates adjustments to future climate change instead of the overarching problems of reducing fossil energy consumption in this trying period.

Further, it seeks to suggest that the agreed text at the conference will change policies by large emitters and consequently, help stabilise climate conditions by 2020. However, at best the draft is really a sketch of proposals of many colours and shapes; it is an attempt to find compromises to satisfy main negotiating parties in the light of conflicting interests. Certainly, this is not what is needed. Therefore, this entire conference could end up as just another public relations exercise by political and other leaders, many of whom will be, in reality, representing the interests of will-financed transnational corporations. If this happens then the outcome of Copenhagen will probably be nothing more than an updated Kyoto Protocol with revised long-term global targets, amendments, concerning such issues as: mitigation, adaptation and security.

Notwithstanding that, we remain optimistic that, there may be others, at the conference, who would see it as an opportunity to ensure environmental prudence and leadership. This demands less rhetoric and much more individual and collective action. One area for action is a long term strategy for phasing out fossil fuels over the next few decades. Encrusted in this must be a clear and specific plan of action for those heavy emitter countries.

It is clear that, climate change is really about energy change. Therefore, climate policy must be about energy policy. This is how it ought to be discussed at the conference. Governments cannot give commitments to reduce CO2 but do nothing about the use of fossil energy. Otherwise, they would be hard-pressed to achieve their reduction targets.

Again, developed countries have a moral responsibility for addressing climate change. They are responsible for more than half of global emissions. At any rate, they have the technological and financial capabilities to achieve it. In fact, they should be leading the rest of the world in a discernable programme to stabilise climate conditions. I believe social movements and citizens need to encourage governments to take radical action now to stem climate change. International conferences and agreements are good but the situation is so critical that individual nations need to take action to save themselves and the world.

In the end, there will be a new agreement in Copenhagen but it is not likely to contain sufficient substance to adequately address the situation. As a result, it is highly possible that green house gas emissions would continue to rise beyond 2020.
ROYSTON KING