Copenhagen starts today
192 countries, 15,000 participants, 105 heads of states for the last day (Kyoto didn’t see any, but only environment ministers), Copenhagen is indeed as the media are saying « the most important summit on climate in the history », but could it be else ?
Was there any possibility of such a meeting in 1800, 1900 or even 1980 ? Moreover, considering the constant media washing on climate changes, we wouldn’t have understood that no head of state would have been attending the summit.
Yes, Copenhagen may be a great chance to – finally ! – start changing the way things are going, but it may well be a big disappointment for those who have great expectations.
1) The targets
Before talking about new targets, what about those of Kyoto in 1997 ? The 40 most industrialized countries agreed on a 5% decrease of their emissions of greenhouse gases in between 2008 and 2012. As of 2007, we are far from the 5%, the European Union for example has only reached 2.7% !
Figures vary with countries, for instance Spain has increased by 50% its greenhouse gas emissions (or GGE), Portugal by 40%, but the Baltic States have seen a 50% drop, mainly because of the industrial and energetic reorganization after the soviet era. France has increased its GGE by 5%, while Germany has decreased it by 10%.
Near us, Turkey has seen a 70% increase ! New-Zealand, often seen as a « green » state has increased its GGE by more than 20%.
Lastly, China has seen an explosion of more than 150%, India of 110% and South Korea of 100%, while the United States and Canada have increased their GGE by about 20%.
All in all, year 2008 has seen a new record of the world GGE.
Considering that the main stake of the Copenhagen negociations will be an agreement on the reduction of the world GGE, it would be good to remember that even the Kyoto target of 5% has not been reach yet. I wouldn’t like to see Copenhagen summed up as a figure battle and a compromise between rich and poor countries on their targets and the way they can compensate them (especially through the carbon market where big polluters can pay taxes for not reaching their targets).
Going back to the actual promises, here are some figures :
- the United States have commited themselves to decrease their GGE by 17% in 2020. Now, the problem is that this figure is based on the 2005 emissions, which means a decrease of only 3.5% compared to the 1990 emissions (which are the base of most countries and that of Kyoto), so it means that this target is actually still lower than the Kyoto target 12 years ago !!!
- Canada is talking about a 20% reduction, but compared to 2006, so less than 3% compared to 1990, still much lower than the Kyoto target.
- the European Union has indicated a target of 20% reduction by 2020, compared to its 1990 emissions. A 30% reduction is considered if other industrialized countries agree on this figure.
- Japan and Russia are talking about 25%, if other industrialized countries make the same commitment.
- China has indicated its will to decrease its « carbon intensity » (measurement of its carbon dioxide emissions per production unit – or how to increase its percentage by changing units ??) by 40 to 45% in 2020 compared to…2005 ! I am curious to know how much it makes in terms of reduction of GGE…
Emerging countries (but big carbon dioxide emitters, mainly because of deforestation) such as Brasil, South Africa, Indonesia or Mexico are talking about a 26 to 50% reduction compared to…now ! Moreover, their commitment depends on the financial and technical help they would get from the rich countries. Brazil is even talking about slowing down the deforestation (am I dreaming ?!) although we perfectly know that planting forests – which become carbon sinks – is actually one of the « easiest » way of reducing our GGE (they absorb the carbon dioxide and produce oxygen).
2) The means
UN secretary Ban Ki-moon said last week he was « very confident for Copenhagen », « we will find an agreement and, I believe, this agreement will be signed by all UN countries, which will be historic ». Thereby the goal of this summit unfolds as a search for an agreement and its figures. We remain stuck on GGE and, that’s it.
What about constraints ?
If ever the summit would be successful enough to see an agreement, what would be the legal constraints to punish the countries which would not reach their targets ? It seems that, in order not to give the impression of a failure, political leaders would content themselves with a « political » agreement, but there would be a need for an international treaty in 2010 to talk about the constraints and the legal ratification. Let’s not forget that the WTO cycle in Doha drags on for more than 10 years now. I do hope that if there is an international treaty, it may occur in 2010, the sooner being the better, if not we would have lost another year.
What about the means ?
We keep on hearing about the end of oil, the research for new energies of substitution and the development of renewable energies already available. I’m afraid people understand « gasoline » or « fuel oil » when they hear « oil », but who ever talks about our « oil civilization » ? Who talks about the total dependence of the world economy on oil ?
Look around you : everything is made, partly or entirely, out of oil or its by-products. If we would have to live today without oil, we would have to say goodbye to :
- all the plastics, by-products and things made out of it : cars, trains, planes, computers, TVs, mobile phones, mp3 players, furniture, decoration items, coffee makers, food wrapping, fridges, bags, ring binders, CDs and DVDs, shoes, boots, raincoats, clothes, textiles…
- asphalt
- medicines in capsules or powder (yes ! most of the medicines contain one or more by-products of oil)
- make-up, beauty products, soaps, shampoos…
- fuel oil and heavy fuel oil (HFO) (for boats, tractors, generators, heating, power plants…)
- kerosene (and thus planes, again)
- LPG, butane, propane
- oils, greases, lubricants…
- paints, inks, enamels, solvents, cleaning products, detergents…
I stop here the list for it is nearly endless so much our economy is dependent on oil and its by-products. It is besides a highly delicate topic, no wonder no one is bringing it to the everyday conversation !
We saw not so long ago in France and elsewhere, when the price of oil has doubled, trucker strike and threatening to block the economy if we do not compensate their losses. Is there someone supposed to tell them, and to the entire population, as soon as the oil will again increase the entire economy will have to suffer? If the raw material increases, its derivatives will also increase, and therefore the items listed above will increase too, in other words everything that makes the live of people around the world!
Unfortunately (or not, this is a point of view), oil will undoubtedly increase steadily and continuously in the coming years as new reserves discovered are outweighed by global consumption, then we draw from our oil reserves each year a little more.
For those interested, it is legitimate to ask why and how did we get at that point? Why oil multinationals are so powerful and rich? Why did we become so dependent and did we not have diversified our means of production?
Around the 30′s, gasoline, diesel and kerosene products had insured their users all types of vehicles. But refiners met with incredible amounts of unsaleable product and not storable for some of them flammable and polluting like naphtha (also called heavy naphtha). Naphtha is the distillation cut that comes after the kerosene and gasoline. Researchers have thought about this seemingly difficult problem and found the solution. Through an amazing chemical fact: the polymerization reaction, naphtha is now the source of the essential oil products, especially plastics.
In the 50′s, consumables from oil reached 3 million of tons, half for plastics. In 2010, production of plastic will probably reach 300 million of tons, or 200 times more!
The industrial (petrochemical groups and not just oil) had no advantage in manufacturing industries that are seeking other ways to produce what makes our daily lives. First they got rid of a dangerous unmarketable product and, secondly they sell with huge profits because most proficient as the cycle of processing plastic and other derivatives. In addition, the product is inexpensive and available, they had a huge advantage facing other possible means of production.
Those responsible are not such the petrochemical groups that governments and scientists of that time who have not seen the danger of a “monoculture” and a total dependence to a single raw material and its derivatives, and we were not alerted.
The result is that we do not know at the moment, what could replace oil. We do not have the technology to replace it as a mean of energy and production. Not only to manufacture all the products from our daily lives which contain it one way or another.
If we want reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we must nevertheless find a way to remedy it, and soon, because oil reserves are estimated at about global consumption in 2050. Meaning in 40 years or two generations. But do not understand 40 years of oil at today’s prices, the more oil and its derivatives will be rare the more it will be expensive, our lives will become an unsolvable puzzle. Recall that the two things necessary for man to live are water and food, but they also depend indirectly on the price of oil. Except if you live on your own crops and rain water, we will pay dearly for absolutely everything that makes our daily lives.
So today it is not just about reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, but also about the post-oil era. It remains an economy to invent, the one of the future!
Alternatives to oil are:
- Other fossil fuels (but is it really an alternative?): coal, natural gas, oil sands … Besides the fact that their reserves are neither unlimited, the pollution generated by their operation is directly responsible for increasing our GHG emissions and climate changes.
- Biofuels. If we can find a biofuel production using raw materials not related to food and not entering into direct competition with the cost issues of such materials (corn canola, soy …), and if this production is not high water consumption, biofuels have a future. Currently, the corn to produce fuel disturb its course for food and is responsible for clearing millions of hectares of forests worldwide. Also this production requires large amounts of water from 1000 to more than 20,000 liters per liter of biodiesel produced according to the plant used! Clearly, at present, this is NOT the solution, not even a solution.
- Wood and its derivatives. We know that forest fires is a major producer of GHG emissions. Similarly, private fireplaces have a responsibility. However, the use of sawdust or briquettes from sawdust produced by wood industry, is a way to recycle a product previously little used. Moreover there are no boilers emitting little gas emissions.
- Air conditioning and heat pumps. They emit no greenhouse gases but have the problem of recycling their gas and are energy intensive. They can’t respond to mass production.
- Nuclear energy. It is based on a commodity that it also has limited reserves. Also if it is not producing greenhouse gases, there is still the problem of storage and reprocessing of waste.
- Renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal). Currently, even if a few hours of sun theoretically is sufficient to supply energy to the entire planet, we don’t know neither can we replace the global needs of fossil fuels by renewable energy. On one hand because the returns are not yet sufficient or require huge space, on the other hand because the investment costs still aim to wealthy clients. Without willingness to subsidize these energies, the research, the possibilily to pay over 3, 5 or 10 years the investments of individuals and businesses through a “Green Bank” owned by the state with low rates, development will only be slow and uneven. They are however the only viable one long term the current state of our knowledge if we want to combine development and pollutant discharges.
- Energy efficiency. I believe VERY MUCH in this solution. On one hand we can reduce our consumption by optimizing it (off / standby power sources/number and power of our light sources/ consumption of household appliances …) on the other hand by constructing buildings that consume clearly less energy and even producers (insulation, heating, non-polluting materials to breathe and build, ventilation, humidity …). Existing buildings should undertake a complete renovation, establishing stricter energy standards quickly. This solution has the advantage of being immediately available, the techniques are there and they are controlled. This decision could be made unless we have strong incentives (duty?) and adequate financial support through the “green bank” cited above as an example. We are talking about saving energy by turning off the TV and installing solar panels, of course, but why not mention the current extremely poorly insulated and very energy intensive buildings ? The additional costs of a bioclimatic building varies depending on materials and techniques used and the objectives to be achieved, but an average of 8 to 10% per square meter is a good index. Now we know how to build a house or a building without heating with a dual stream ventilation that ensures a constant temperature inside the building without the extra radiator whatsoever, whether in summer or winter. Combining this lack of heating insulation pushed yields an annual cost of electricity / energy to a ridiculous point (around 10 to 20€ per apartment). You can also install reducing water flow, collect rainwater for toilets, washing machine and, if the lobbies of the water in France wanted it (!), the dishwasher, the shower and sinks also saving over 50% or more on water bills. This solution will cost even more than the price of energy and water will increase significantly in coming years. It will be possible to recoup the investment in 4 or 5 years.
3) The issue of poor and emerging countries.
No one denies that rich countries must finance both the development and control of GHG emissions in poor or developing countries. In fact no agreement on GHG emissions will be meaningful without agreement on the funds to invest and how to do it. The question is how and how much.
The UN is seeking approximately $ 10 billion annually by 2012, and roughly 100 billion per year by 2020 or 2030.
This may seem overwhelming, but 100 billion is what costs the U.S. war in Iraq in 6 months! Since the beginning of the invasion of the country, experts estimate the total cost to the global economy to $ 3.000 billion! So 30 years of development for poor countries?
The war in Afghanistan has killed at least 500 billion of persons so far meaning 5 more years.
Priorities, priorities, priorities …
The help would be about technical assistance on one hand (wind, solar, hydro …) and financial on the other hand, to reduce emissions, to stop deforestation and to adapt to changing economies.
As for how to manage this fund, nothing is settled. The United States prefer a management by the World Bank, Europeans are reluctant, some speak of a separate fund within the United Nations where each country would have an equal voice in voting and attributions. At the Poznan conference on climate in December 2008, a sharp disagreement arose between donor and recipient countries, that want to retain control over the amounts at stake.
4) Conclusion.
The objective of Copenhagen is to reach an agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including this time the United States which had not ratified Kyoto, and emerging countries like China, India or Brazil, which have seen their emissions of greenhouse gases exploding in recent years. On the other hand to find the funding mechanisms for poor and emerging countries and amounts involved.
If Copenhagen can answer these two questions, it will be a success. If one of only two is answered, it will undoubtedly fail.
It will be necessary to raise and solve the problem of replacing fossil fuels, oil and its derivatives and the means to achieve these reductions.
It is a time to alert public opinion about issues of climate warming in degrees or inches of additional sea level, it is time to enter concrete maners in ecology in everyday life, to explain and demonstrate to citizens what actions they can already do, what investments they should make or provide and how they bear the cost. Many simple actions, many investments are recouped within three years or less than a year, and involve both reduced costs and reduced pollution.
Others require an accompanying state to finance heavier investments, combining tax cuts, but mostly green check payments over several years through a “Green Bank” and / or “green credit”. Interest on these loans would finance investments in states and aid to poor countries. Everybody would win as well. W must still find ways to implement these policies and to convey information to citizens and businesses.
The longer we wait, the more changes will be abrupt. We will not avoid the fact that a real explanation will have to come, like it or not, we will have to stop, restrict certain industries if we want to help the planet. While sectors will lose jobs, companies, industries will close (but is it not always the case in restructuring?) and hide it, or let people think they can continue to live and work in the same world is a lie, it is a crime. However it must be said and repeated that the changes will take place will also create millions of jobs worldwide, new industries will grow because we must respond to new demands, new needs related to the environment.
Act now!
Words and intentions are not enough.
Summits neither.
