Excuse me, which war are we fighting: The war against climate change, or a war over climate change?
We (by that I mean all the people in the world) will most likely have a war of the second sort. That is, if most conditions laid out by various countries - in the run-up to the UN climate change conference, slated for Dec 7-18, 2009, in Copenhagen - is any indication.
In such a war, the industrialized countries are unwilling to commit to any significant cutback on their emissions unless (as they demand) the larger developing economies, at the same time, are willing to pledge mandatory caps on their emissions.
The developing countries are insisting that the industrialized countries take the lead, as the latter are responsible for the atmosphere's accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the last 200 years.
We have only one atmosphere, and it is just like we are living in one house. If someone has occupied the main room for too long, as the argument goes, that person should be asked to pay the main part of the rent.
China is asking the industrialized countries to set an example by cutting their emissions by 40 percent before they are joined by the rest of the world, while India is reportedly asking them to cut almost 80 percent, both based on their own reasoning.
The industrialized countries do not want the developing countries to stay on the voluntary side of the equation. They are demanding that they, the larger ones in particular, also commit to mandatory cuts as those countries are now also becoming important emitters.
Pointing to other people's shortcomings may be a statement of truth, but it may also disguise one's own inadequacies. And, indeed, some industrialized countries have failed to implement the emission cuts they had pledged under the Kyoto Protocol.
Developing countries can easily find more defense of their position that the industrialized countries should take the lead by citing their still low per capita emission records.
There is one more weapon yet to be used. That is the huge amount of manufactured imports by the industrialized countries from the developing ones. Considering the GHG emissions inevitably involved in the making of these, the importers may be asked to pay additional tariff for having caused the demand.
The issue of climate change, one that is facing the whole world, is thus being vitiated; and, turned into a political tussle between two camps that are jealously guarding their conflicting short-term interests.
Let's be straightforward. Despite the so-called positive notes and diplomatic courtesies, if the situation remains so divisive, chances of reaching a workable compromise are slim. The result of the world conference would be a far cry from any meaningful framework for emission control - in both developing and industrialized countries. The event would then be remembered as an embarrassment for all governments, and the UN.
Even if, on a lofty whim, all countries do come up with an impressive charter, and compete for the deepest emission cuts, what use would such promises be if they can't be delivered?
Why cannot countries find other ways of working together rather than assigning (or proposing) difficult tasks for one another only to be rejected, or get stuck with a broken promise?
Why must policymakers let such a potentially endless and fruitless bargaining game exhaust them while actually spending no time on solving the real problems?
Maybe, the Copenhagen conference should create a forum for people to design alternative roadmaps. One alternative could be to structure a system of rewards and penalties on different countries' emission control performance. And, with help from the WTO and international financial institutions, consider the possibility of developing this system as a global business model.
(China Daily June 15, 2009)
