The Copenhagen climate summit – Icy times for climate protection?

Second in the series of dialogue forums “The world in flux – The forgotten billions” on 19 January 2010

What happens now after the failed summit in Copenhagen? Who is responsible for the disappointing outcome and how can countries now reach agreement on binding climate targets? The Munich Re Foundation invited the renowned climate experts Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Prof. Mojib Latif and Klaus Milke to answer these and other questions at its dialogue forum on 19 January 2010.

The experts left no one in doubt as to the dire consequences we face if we fail to deal with climate change. “If we carry on in the same vein, we can expect an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere of around 4°C in the course of this century”, warned Prof. Latif of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel. From a scientific point of view, a rise of 2°C at most is tolerable. Professor Schellnhuber believes global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by no later than 2015 if we are to control the climate problem. “If we do not turn things around by 2015, we will have to cut global emissions by over 5% every year after that. This is not really feasible, but it is the reality of the situation”, explained the Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).  
 
Exactly why Copenhagen failed was explained by Klaus Milke, Chairman of Germanwatch: “The inept handling of negotiation by the Danish Prime Minister was a significant factor.” In addition, the principle of consensus favoured by the UN revealed major weaknesses, and the EU, USA and China failed to live up to expectations in meeting their responsibilities.  Schellnhuber, who attended the Copenhagen summit, also criticised the fact that many participants were very adept at making big speeches in the plenary sessions but not so willing to make compromises behind the scenes. “This collection-plate principle by which each state offers just enough to avoid having to make any sacrifices will not help the cause of climate protection”, he warned and added: “At present there is no political scenario designed to achieve this objective.” Still, we should not declare the UN system dead and buried just yet. “Let us negotiate as long as we possibly can” was the impassioned plea made by the German government’s top environmental consultant to those responsible for securing the future of climate protection.
 
Latif, however, believes we simply cannot wait for political solutions to happen. “The failure of Copenhagen has clearly shown that the UN process is not able to bring about a viable climate agreement.” Instead, people should start implementing what is already possible today, i.e. by converting industrial plants from fossil-fired to regenerative energies. As an example, he cited the Desertec Industrial Initiative, which seeks to harvest energy from the desert using gigantic solar installations. He refutes the standard objection that renewable energies are far too expensive, arguing that "it is not a question of money; it is the future of mankind that is at stake”. 
 
Schellnhuber warned against being seduced by the idea of putting enormous cost and effort into mastering complicated technical processes: “It is relatively easy to capture the sun’s enormous fusion energy with mirrors.” However, trying to control plasma in a fusion reactor was a much more complicated matter altogether. Still, people seem to prefer the complicated route: instead of a bird in the hand, they’d rather go for two in the bush. The advice from the PIK Director for December’s UN climate conference in Mexico is clear: “Europe should get together with India and the African countries and push for a binding agreement.”  
 
It was also made clear that a change in climate policy would not come free of charge and without sacrifice. Germanwatch Chairman Milke therefore added: “We have to deny the deniers and turn the burden of climate change into an opportunity.” However, people in Germany have yet to genuinely suffer from the impact of climate change and vested interests in politics are preventing any changes to our economic system. The human psyche also plays an important role when it comes to making sacrifices today that may save the life of someone on the other side of the world in 40 years or so. Milke was sure about one thing in particular: “Climate change will generate a huge wave of compensation claims and many people will have to get ready for stormy times ahead.”
 
How can people be made to realise the severity of the situation? “That is the 64,000 dollar question that can drive you to despair”, said Schellnhuber. Perhaps, the human race is so incredibly successful because it can optimise in the short term but fail in the long term, he added. “Many cultures have disappeared because of this, but this is the first time we have been faced with this problem on a global scale.” Schellnhuber believes people need to take lessons from both the past and the future. He has not given up hope altogether. An unforeseen development following the failure of the climate summit was that many people were genuinely frustrated at the outcome. The Copenhagen climate summit does not necessarily spell the start of an ice age in climate protection. People and politicians have been mobilised, lectures on climate change are better attended than ever before. We can only hope that the disappointing result of Copenhagen will trigger new momentum that can lead to a global agreement. 

The next dialogue forum, entitled “Microfinance – A way out of the poverty trap?”, will take place on 25 February 2010.