And the winner is? Well, not the environment if the Pollute-O-Meter is to be believed. Whilst the Greens provide some hope, the policies offered up by the Libs and Labor still see us increasing our national emissions significantly by 2020.  Given the recent preference deal brokered between Labor and the Greens though, if Labor were to hang on to power on August 21 it does raise the fascinating prospect of having to reconcile the best and the worst of our national climate policy.

The race to the bottom — a fun comparison of our parties’ lacklustre climate policies is a post from: Greensense

The event runs from December 7–18 and will be based at the Bella Centre, located just South of Copenhagen CBD. For those that are interested, the latest schedule can be downloaded here.

One thing that struck me after chatting to friends, colleagues and clients about the trip, is how few people know what Copenhagen is actually about — Why is it being held now?  Who are the main players? What are the possible outcomes? With that it mind I’ve attempted to provide a quick overview below.

What is the Copenhagen conference?

The conference is a giant international meeting of delegates from 192 countries. In actual fact it’s the 15th in a series of UN conferences on climate change. The first took place in 1995 in Berlin, the most recent in Bali two years ago.

Who are the main players?

Although 192 countries will participate in the conference, there are really only four blocs of countries that are collectively looking to influence decisions. In one corner we have the G77, the UN’s largest group of developing countries, who are arguing strongly that rich nations should make emissions cuts first, and then compensate developing countries to enable them to industrialise cleanly. In the other corner we have the developed, so called Annex 1, countries including the US, UK, Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, Turkey, New Zealand, and all the EU countries. Within Annex 1 there are also competing blocs, for example the EU, US and Russia. Broadly speaking Annex 1 countries are arguing that both developed and developing countries should undertake emissions cuts together.

Finally, we have India and China. China pretty much aligns itself with the G77 and India appears to be something of a swinging voter.

What does Copenhagen have to do with Kyoto?

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the UN set a long-term — but voluntary — goal of reducing the emissions of developed countries to 1990 levels by 2000. Few countries met this target. By 1997, therefore, negotiations progressed towards a binding treaty that would mandate specific emissions reductions for countries that signed up. The pivotal talks were held in the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto.

Overall, Kyoto promised a 5.2 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2012. There was much argy-bargy during the Kyoto negotiations, with certain countries like Australia bargaining hard for generous emissions targets. Famously, of course, Australia actually managed to negotiate an emissions increase.

Even so, Kyoto’s fine print stated that if at least 55 countries comprising at least 55 per cent of global emissions signed on, the Kyoto protocol would come into legal and binding effect. This happened in 2005 when Russia signed up, formally bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February that year.

The first Kyoto Protocol commitment period expires in 2012, which is why a new agreement is needed.

What’s on the agenda at Copenhagen?

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreement will need to be reached on four key political essentials:

1. How much are industrialised countries willing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed?

What are the possible outcomes?

It’s hard to say, but they probably fall into one of four categories:

1. A binding commitment by both developed and developing countries to relatively modest near-term, but more ambitious long-term emissions reductions. This is the best case scenario.
2. A binding commitment by developed countries, but non-binding and more modest commitments by developing countries
3. No broad agreement at all; instead, a patchwork quilt of national policies negotiated on a country-by-country basis.
4. A total collapse of the negotiations like the recent Doha and Geneva trade talks, which ended in impasse after developed and developing nations failed to reach agreement on agricultural tariffs.

Greensense heading to Copenhagen is a post from: Greensense