OxBlog |
Front page
|
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
# Posted 9:06 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
First up is Michael Levi, who provides a very sobering look at how hard it will be for this year's Copenhagen conference (the successor to Kyoto) to produce meaningful results. Hopes are higher than ever for a breakthrough climate deal. For the past eight years, many argued that developing nations reluctant to commit to a new global climate-change deal -- particularly China and India -- were simply hiding behind the United States, whose enthusiastic engagement was all that was needed for a breakthrough. Now the long-awaited shift in U.S. policy has arrived.But George Bush's America wasn't the only problem: The odds of signing a comprehensive treaty in December are vanishingly small. And even reaching such a deal the following year would be an extraordinary challenge...And what if, miraculously, Copenhagen does result in a breakthrough treaty? Even a blockbuster deal in which every country signed up to binding emissions caps would come nowhere close to guaranteeing success, since the world has few useful options for enforcing commitments to slash emissions short of punitive trade sanctions or similarly unpalatable penalties.Levi returns often to the challenge of negotiating a deal that can satisfy both the West as well as India and China. Americans accustomed to thinking about climate diplomacy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may assume that the obvious next step is to translate reduction goals into emissions caps, put them in a treaty, and establish a system for global carbon trading. But this would be problematic for three reasons.Seriously? The Canadians? Are there no good countries left in global politics? Anyhow, Levi argues that the best hope for Copenhagen is a partnership that helps China and other developing countries clean up their act at home: Shifting China onto a cleaner path will require Beijing to identify specific ways in which it can make deep emissions-intensity cuts. That could include better enforcement of building codes, mandating the use of efficient technology in factories, new subsidies for renewable energy, or a provisional commitment to use carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology on new coal plants by 2020. The United States and other wealthy countries should then offer to help China in whatever ways they usefully can. When it comes to building codes, Washington could help develop Beijing's monitoring and enforcement capacity...wind power could be expanded by encouraging China to improve its protection of intellectual property, which would attract investment from international firms; and to help slash emissions from coal, the U.S. and Chinese governments could fund private demonstrations of CCS technology and share the resulting intellectual property.Those are certainly interesting ideas, but one has to wonder about the political plausibility of an approach that rests on China welcoming foreign involvement in its domestic affairs and becoming a leader in the defense of intellectual property rights. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the US government approaches Copenhagen in the same modest spirit as Mr. Levi. Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
Comments:
China, India and other developing nations weren't the only ones hiding behind the United States. Virtually every country calling for stronger action was too.
Nobody wants to do anything and Bush gave them the out to demogogue to their own populations without risk that they woudl have to produce. Notice most of Europe taking a different tone now?
Pretty article! I found some useful information in your blog, it was awesome to read, thanks for sharing this great content to my vision, keep sharing..
Post a Comment
IT Services In Ahmedabad
|