Gloom and pragmatism ahead of the Copenhagen climate-change summit

THE planet is warming, but the mood among climate negotiators seems as chilly as ever. On October 9th the penultimate round of talks before December’s climate-change summit in Copenhagen ended in Bangkok. Only one session remains, in Barcelona in November. Leaders are now busy lowering expectations, saying that this summit will be a prelude to a “Copenhagen II” in 2010.

One problem is procedural: what to do with the Kyoto framework. Some European countries, and many of the poor ones, want to keep it, since it requires the rich economies to bind themselves to numerical targets for cutting their emissions. But it will be difficult for Barack Obama’s administration to sign up to a Kyoto-style deal: the Senate made it clear that it would refuse to ratify the treaty even before George Bush walked away from it. The European Union negotiating block is edging away from supporting a Kyoto-like architecture for Copenhagen, infuriating some poor countries.


One of the two big practical questions is: by how much does the world need to cut emissions? Japan and the EU have set eye-catching headline goals. America has not—though cap-and-trade legislation seemed to advance this week (see article). The rich world wants concrete promises from poor countries. Hu Jintao, the president of China, now the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to cut the carbon-intensity of the country’s economy but he has not said by how much. India says that it will accept only a limit on emissions per person that matches rich countries. That is so easily satisfied that it is no condition at all.

The second big question, less discussed in Bangkok, is what rich countries will pay poor ones both to adapt to climate change and shrink their use of carbon. China has said that rich countries should pay 1% of their GDP a year—which would be $400 billion. Gordon Brown has suggested $100 billion a year. Despite some clever ideas about using small investment guarantees to unlock bigger flows of private capital, the gap remains large.

One deal at Copenhagen does look likely. Deforestation makes Indonesia and Brazil among the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. It accounts for 18% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Brazil has offered an 80% cut, and Indonesia 26% less deforestation than would happen with “business as usual” by 2020, if rich countries help pay for it. (They have not, yet.)

But on another issue, the Bangkok talks went backwards. Poor countries suggested language that would allow compulsory licensing of low-carbon technologies developed in the rich world. Neither the EU nor America wanted that.

Negotiations always look bleakest as their deadline approaches. Even so, the chances are receding of a deal that sees countries promise explicit cuts in emissions. That does not mean Copenhagen is fated to be a failure. But it does mean a great deal of work next year if the world is not to give up trying to stay cool.