Shaun Vorster
29 July 2008
opinion
Johannesburg — THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us global emissions need to peak, and start to decline, in 10 to 15 years.
According to the panel, avoiding dangerous climate change requires developed countries to reduce their emissions compared with 1990 levels by 80%-95% by 2050 and by 25%-40% by 2020. In developing countries, substantial deviations below business-as-usual baselines are required.
This mitigation package includes a burden sharing discount for developing countries. That is because the climate negotiations are linked to questions of global equity. No one disputes that the developed countries carry the bulk of the responsibility for cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution. Similarly, no one disputes that emissions from developing countries are growing rapidly.
The key challenge is to balance the sharing of the little remaining carbon space with affording developing countries a fair chance in the development space.
Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk has expressed this balance as follows : "While we have different historical responsibilities for emissions, we share a common responsibility for the future."
During the Group of Eight (G-8), G-5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and SA) and Major Economies meetings in Hokkaido, Japan, recently, it became clear that there are two proposals. We heard the G-8's proposal for a goal for emission reductions of "50% by 2050". This goal does not meet required-by-science criteria. It is not ambit-ious enough; and without a base year has no integrity. The question is: 50% of what?
We also heard the G-5's more detailed and more ambitious proposal, which is incidentally also supported by many G-8 countries. It has three elements, fully consistent with the science. First, developed countries should take the lead with absolute emission reductions of between 80% and 95% below 1990 levels by mid-century. Second, all developed countries, including the US, should adopt quantified emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol in the range of 25%-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. And third, developing countries should deviate from business-as-usual emission trajectories, supported and enabled by technology and financing.
SA is already putting in place ambitious plans to substantially deviate from baseline emission trajectories. We are leading among developing countries in saying that we are willing to do more. Our action on mitigation will be ambitious, but appropriate to our context -- that of development, to meet the basic needs of all of our people. Van Schalkwyk already announced that SA's Long-term Mitigation Scenario process will lead to the introduction of a regulatory, fiscal and legislative package that addresses short-term adaptation and mitigation.
Many of us travelled to Hokkaido with the expectation that the eight major industrialised economies of the world would show leadership. It was therefore a major disappointment when the US succeeded in dictating a weak G-8 position on climate change. Developing countries put forward a workable and scientifically robust policy package but the G-8 countries failed to match that level of leadership. The Bush administration is still only able to talk about "more rapidly slowing the growth" of US emissions. For a rich country and the largest historical polluter, it amounts to a failure to accept responsibility.
Essentially, what the US wants is for the developing world to help them carry a part of their burden, while limiting access by developing countries to the remaining 30% of the "safe" carbon space.
If the rich countries accepted the policy package offered by the G-5, it would pave the way for significant progress in the current climate negotiations. It would unlock a completely new dynamic.
We remain committed and convinced that a comprehensive outcome for the negotiations is possible in Copenhagen at the end of next year.
Reflecting on the G-8 summit, there are also positive developments.
First, the issue moved to the top of the global agenda. Second, the G-8 and G-5 dialogue was useful in that it crystallised two policy packages that will now be considered in continuing negotiations under the United Nations, where the overall climate agenda is set. Third, the G-5 showed that we share significant common ground and that we stand ready to engage in a progressive and constructive way. And finally, it triggered a wider debate on the role of the G-8 in the global order. As Van Schalkwyk pointed out, "The G-5 countries are not colonies of the G-8 whose national interests are subservient to those of the G-8. The G-5 will define their own national interest and demand their fair share of the carbon and development space."
After Hokkaido, the message is clear: no decisions on globally significant issues can be taken without the emerging developing countries at the table.
Dr Vorster is special adviser to Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Business Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
