Over the next several weeks you’ll probably be hearing a great deal about both types of Copenhagen. The smokeless kind you put between your cheek and gum will be brought to America (this year in high definition) as the Yankees and Phillies battle it out for the championship of Major League Baseball. In December another battle will begin in Copenhagen, Denmark as representatives from nearly 190 nations gather for a world climate summit in an effort to forge a new international agreement to tackle climate change and combat global warming. This contest, like our World Series, will feature nations with high power offenses looking to hit a financial home-run while opposing nations are hoping to use their best closers to minimize the damage. This contest will be keenly contested, negotiations will be intense, and the outcome will probably be decided by heroics in the very late innings.
The road to Copenhagen was paved by the Kyoto Climate Protocol, which was signed in 1997 and is set to expire in 2012. The Kyoto agreement set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of October 2009, 184 nations have signed and ratified the protocol with the United States, which accounted for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels, being the most notable non-signatory.
Opponents view the Copenhagen summit as an attempt by climate zealots to impose economy-crippling emission caps worldwide and require billions in wealth to be transferred from developed nations like the United States to undeveloped nations. They argue that capping emissions is an attempt to restrict their economic growth and competition while imposing what amounts to global warming reparations. Last week China and India, which account for nearly a third of the world’s population, signed a deal saying they won’t go along with any agreement in Copenhagen that would force them to impose greenhouse-gas emission limits.
Proponents argue that the time has passed to “do nothing” and that the physical and economic impact of global warming is already much worse than anyone could have anticipated. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting in higher global temperatures are rapidly changing precipitation patterns, decreasing water availability, reducing air quality, and increasing the frequency of floods, droughts and wildfires while causing widespread famine and disease. In recent weeks, industry leaders such as Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, began coming out in support of climate change legislation which they feel would create millions of new green jobs, unleash huge investments in new, low-carbon markets, and thereby spur economic growth.
Once again the United States will be a key player in determining what happens in Copenhagen. Other nations are watching to see whether the Senate will make progress on a pending climate and energy bill that would spell out the U.S. national emissions-reduction plan. Without a new law on the books requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. could end up going empty-handed to Copenhagen leaving them with little room to negotiate. Legislation before the U.S. Senate, like a bill that passed the House of Representatives in June, would cap emissions and provide funding for climate assistance. It would set a limit on emissions that ratchets down each year until it reaches an 83 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050.
Persuading the public that the long-term effects of climate change could be averted by action taken now will be difficult in these tough economic times. No matter what side of this issue you fall on, the stakes are high as the entire global community continues to face the inter-related challenges of solving a global economic crisis, a climate crisis and an energy security crisis. Your comments, ideas and suggestions are always welcome (bbruggner@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment