Seeking Climate Reconciliation
We all know the familiar litany of climate hesitation. It’s not really happening. It’s not human-influenced. It’s not an immanent danger. It’s not affordable. One by one, all the stumbling blocks to climate action have been evaluated and placed aside.
As thorny as any of these topics may have been – or, for some, still are – one stickler remains. How shall obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be shared? Who gets to add how much to the planetary atmosphere?
Negotiating commitments for continued and accelerated emissions reductions is the goal of the upcoming Copenhagen summit: the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Like lesser strifes or even spousal spats, the climate discord comes with a history, and many of its participants – including you, me and everyone else that has enjoyed the benefits of industrialization – carry some baggage. Let’s reflect.
Emissions Hangover
“The greenhouse effect is not caused by emissions,” stresses Brazil’s climate minister Jose Miguez. “It is caused by the accumulation of emissions in the atmosphere.” That might sound like diplomatic wordplay, but the current/cumulative distinction is significant.
Carbon hangs on for a long time. Oceanographer David Archer finds that fossil fuel CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of a few centuries, “plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever.” In the scheme of things, the gases produced by an Edsel remain nearly as relevant as those from a Prius.
Emissions histories loom accordingly large, and U.S. citizens past and present top the list, collectively accounting for 29.3 percent of humanity’s CO2 production from 1850 to 2002 (pdf).
In and Out of the Annex
The North-South (developed-developing) climatic divide took shape at the 1992 Earth Summit, where the UNFCCC was open for signature. All countries would bear “common but differentiated responsibilities” the treaty said, and the differential bottom line was that 30-some-odd (currently 40, plus the European Union) industrialized countries would adopt national policies to limit emissions. These countries were grouped as Annex I. Countries outside the Annex, developing countries, got a pass.
Closing the first major UNFCCC loophole – that its commitments were not legally binding – fell to negotiators of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. joined the process as a UNFCCC signatory, but the Senate preempted any American obligations with the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which perceived another major loophole in the Annex system itself. “The exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed.”
Stressing a narrowly defined national self-interest, the Senate passed Byrd-Hagel 95-0. Yet what some would see as pique, others might describe as prescience. By 2006, country-by-country emissions profiles had shifted, and China had became the world’s CO2 emissions leader – on an aggregate, not per-capita, basis. Pre-COP15 negotiations in Bangkok last week marked the first time that the European Union joined the U.S. in openly calling for a more inclusive, beyond-the-Annex approach.
A False Dichotomy?
The Annex system splits the developed/developing world, with no provision for graduating a developing country to Annex I status, regardless of emissions levels. Before I venture any farther onto climatically thin ice, let me highlight a few key positions.
A developed-world point of view:
US chief negotiator Jonathan Pershing: “We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. … We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries.”
Developing-world points of view:
Chinese position paper: “Developed countries shall take responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions.”
Brazil’s Miguez: “We are proposing that the second period of commitments [negotiated at COP15] be based on the historic responsibilities of each country.”
India’s Economic Times: “The differential treatment of developed and developing countries is clearly laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. ... India and other developing countries argued that the proposal put forward by United States, Canada, Australia and European Union was an attempt to blur this differential treatment.”
People, Not Countries
This issue of P&P has highlighted leading ideas for breaking the climate stalemate. They range from Peter Singer’s equity-based “one-person, one-share,” to Paul Baer’s description of a rights-based framework, and Shoibal Chakravarty and co-authors’ focus on high-emitters. The main commonality in these proposals is their emphasis on individuals, rather than on nations. As Baer and coauthors assert, exemptions from emission requirements should be granted to poor people, not poor countries.
Rather than summarize these proposals, I’ll ask readers to follow the links. On a strategic level, their main arguments are: Discard the Annex system. Calculate CO2 – and other greenhouse gas emissions – on a per capita basis. Seek equity from first principles.
Truth and Reconciliation
The crux of the climate deadlock is the fact of historic responsibility. Baer and coauthors incorporate historic emissions levels into their calculations. Singer offers an ethical argument for dropping it, based on the limited historic (pre-1990) understanding of greenhouse gas effects. Yet as I’ve noted, developing countries generally embrace a historic narrative.
For any who have enjoyed the historic benefits of industrialization, complacency about the risks of climate change invites moral corruption. For any who have suffered or whose children may suffer the consequences of climate change, victimhood creates a powerful pull. Under business-as-usual projections for a changing climate, many of today’s children would grow up to become both perpetrators and victims.
I suggest that what is most needed is a turn toward reconciliation – an accommodation that openly acknowledges the past, so that we can better anticipate the future. The experiences of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission would seem to offer valuable lessons.
I welcome your thoughts. This is my post for Blog Action Day 2009.
