BEFORE we get lost in the exchange of increasingly bitter words over who was to blame for the disappointing outcome of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations, let us reconsider what was at stake—in particular, for a developing country like the Philippines.
We are not among the worst sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Far from it, as President Macapagal-Arroyo noted in her speech before the UN forum, we emit an estimated 1.6 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita. In contrast, the global average is currently 6 tons per head, and one objective of the two-year negotiations which culminated in Copenhagen was to lower this world average to 3 tons per capita.
But we share the predicament of many developing countries: We bear relatively little responsibility for global warming, and yet we are among the most vulnerable to the adverse impact of climate change. President Arroyo reminded other heads of government: “The UN reports that the Philippines is one of the top 12 countries at the greatest risk from climate change. We top the list of nations most in danger of facing more frequent and more intense storms as the impact of climate change intensifies.”
It was in our best interests, then, for Copenhagen to succeed unequivocably, success being defined as a firm agreement on substantial reductions in emissions on the part of the developed world and an equally robust agreement on providing funding for developing countries to fight the effects of climate change. That the so-called Copenhagen Accord produced neither (except for a “fast start” fund of $30 billion in the next three years) means that the country’s best interests were not served.
We must therefore add our voice and our resources, including the skills of our very able negotiators, to “complete Copenhagen” in the shortest possible time. This means working in concert with allies like the United States and partners like China to forge a legally binding agreement in 12 months at the latest.
This is much more difficult than it looks. The first casualty of the incomplete Copenhagen negotiations was the process itself. The momentum that had been built up over the last two years, since the conference in Bali, Indonesia, is at great risk of dissipating. In 2001, the world trade talks in Doha ended inconclusively; the negotiators looked to the next round of talks in Mexico to resume the discussions. More than eight years later, the trade talks remain moribund.
Much the same thing can happen to the UN-sponsored climate talks, the next round of which is (again) scheduled to resume in Mexico. If the momentum is lost, what is possibly the most complex international negotiating process in history can lose itself, for years, in endless debate.
Unfortunately for all of us, there is no time to waste. Despite the recent and curiously timed scandal called (naturally, if unimaginatively) “Climategate,” the scientific consensus remains robust. The fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 2007, marshalled the clearest evidence yet that human intervention is at the core of global warming. An interpretation of the scientific data, popularized by the European Union and later accepted by many other countries, posits that the worst effects of climate change can be contained if average world temperature by 2050 rises by no more than 2 degrees Celsius from the pre-Industrial Age estimate. (The evidence is that, since that time, average world temperature has already risen by about 70 percent of one degree.) The 2-degree limit is a far from settled issue (low-lying islands states like the Maldives argue that the limit should be 1.5 degrees or even lower). But the Copenhagen Accord, while it acknowledged the 2-degrees-by-2050 threshold, failed to specify the steps that would bring the world safely under the limit, and under deadline.
What’s at stake, then, is both macro and micro: Nothing less than the fate of the planet itself, and at the same time the fate of the negotiating process, too. The Philippines cannot afford to stand on the sidelines, just because it’s a developing country. It must, using its coalition-building skills and its negotiating expertise and in close concert with other at-risk countries, work on the frontlines. Because when it comes to the adverse impact of climate change, that’s exactly where it’s at.
