US Elections

Countdown to Copenhagen meets a setback in Singapore

By Jonathan Bradley in Sydney

15 November 2009

---

We all knew it was going to happen, but now it's official: there won't be any binding agreement on climate change coming out of the conference in Copenhagen next month. It had looked that way for a long time now, but the leaders at the APEC summit in Singapore confirmed it this morning, at a breakfast arranged by Kevin Rudd and Mexican President Felipe Calderón, with the consolation that perhaps, sort of, maybe, something could be worked out at a later conference in Mexico City. As Mike Froman, Barack Obama's deputy national security advisor for international economic matters put it, it was "unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days."

This is, to be sure, no surprise, though it is disappointing. Robert Hill, who leads Rudd's Climate Trust and will represent Australia in Copenhagen, predicted at a USSC breakfast earlier this month that the U.S. would not pass climate change legislation before the summit, and this seems to be one major reasons for the breakdown. If the U.S. has no idea what it's doing, no other country wants to show its hand, whether they're a developing nation like China or India eager to maintain a higher level of emissions to develop its economy, or a Western nation wondering how much it can reduce its carbon output without damaging its international competitiveness. That is not to say the fault lies entirely with the United States; there's been a dearth of co-operation between other nations both developed and developing that has contributed to this setback.

This could mean bad news for the Rudd government here in Australia. After making a major concession on agricultural emissions, agreeing to exclude them from any legislation indefinitely, their emissions trading scheme now has to withstand even more solid charges it will reduce Australian competitiveness. The Coalition's argument that any scheme should be delayed until after we know what other countries agree to will be bolstered now that we know that, Australian scheme or not, nothing binding will come out of Copenhagen. Why, the Coalition will ask, should Australia put its industry at a disadvantage when we know for certain other countries won't come to an agreement at the Summit?

This won't be such a setback to any eventual U.S. legislation, however. American efforts to reduce carbon outputs have been less concerned with preparing for an international agreement and more focused on reducing dependence on foreign energy and creating jobs in a new green economy. Now, instead of missing a Copenhagen deadline they were never going to able to meet, American legislators have a real chance to get something solid in place in time for negotiations in Mexico City next year. Even so, they already doubt they'll get anything done before the first half of next year, and, knowing Congress, that could easily stretch out even longer. Obama is still yet to make up his mind as to whether he'll attend the Copenhagen summit. There's less an incentive now we can be sure no agreement will result from it, but that doesn't mean he should stay home. His attendance might still spur Congress on to produce something in time for Mexico City.

Tags: Climate Change

Print This Post