Copenhagen’s moment of truth

On Sunday, we will learn if world leaders meant what
they said when they agreed last month to act collectively to stabilize
Earth’s overheating climate.

Having failed to complete a legally binding agreement at the chaotic Copenhagen summit, world leaders instead endorsed what they said would be a “politically binding” agreement — the Copenhagen
accord — that calls on countries to submit national targets and action
plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plans are due by
Sunday, and without them, the accord is a hollow symbol.

Defections by major developed or developing
countries would doom, in its infancy, the three-page political
agreement cobbled together in the Danish capital.

The accord is far from perfect. It will not in
itself rescue humankind from dangerous and unpredictable levels of
warming. But it provides a solid platform to do so, and the way it came
about suggests a new model for global leadership, one that broke
through the stalemated U.N. climate negotiations of recent years.

The deal was struck in face-to-face negotiations between President Obama and the leaders of four emerging world giants: China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Disagreements between the four developing nations and the U.S. had
deadlocked negotiations among a larger group of leaders from 27
countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The compromise hammered out by the five leaders was ultimately accepted
by almost 190 nations after a marathon all-night session. Only a small
group of countries — including Sudan, Cuba, Tuvalu, Bolivia, and Venezuela — opposed the agreement.

The accord included three elements essential to reversing the dangerous buildup of global warming pollution in the atmosphere.

First, the group set a long-term goal of holding the
global temperature rise to 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit (so far, temperatures have risen about 0.8 degrees
Centigrade, or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). Second, all big emitters — not
just the developed countries of the north — agreed to control global
warming pollution in their countries. Third, the countries in the
accord agreed to regular reporting and review of progress on their
commitments.

The “Copenhagen Five” — the group of leaders whose
compromise made the accord possible — is very different than the small
group of wealthy northern nations that have steered global economic
policy since World War II. Only the U.S. is part of both groups.
Collectively, the five represent 45 percent of the world’s population
and 44 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Whether the “politically binding” accord is
ultimately workable will depend on a variety of factors. It will
require political will among a broader group of nations. Yes, it
depends on China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
But it also depends on the nations of the European Union, traditional
leaders on climate action, to provide leadership in implementing the
accord. It will require nations to stand by their Copenhagen
pledges. (The U.S. pledge, delivered in person by Obama, is for a 17
percent cut in domestic emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.) And it
will need countries such as Japan, Australia and Indonesia to follow through and register their commitments.

Which brings us back to Sunday’s all-important deadline.

As I write this, the signs are encouraging that the
great majority of nations — including those that matter most — will
“associate” themselves with the accord, as required, and register
pledges. Two of the Copenhagen Five — Brazil and South Africa — are already signatories. The United States is expected to register its plan before the deadline, reiterating its Copenhagen pledge. And China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and India
have said publicly they will sign up and make commitments. Given that,
less than a year ago, these same countries were vociferously arguing
that the industrialized world must bear the entire emissions-reduction
burden, this is grounds for optimism.

China, in
particular, has strongly signaled that it intends to green its massive,
polluting economy. Last month, with the dust barely settled on the Copenhagen summit, it adopted new measures requiring electric utilities to purchase wind and solar energy.

In addition, the European Union has signaled that it will stand by the accord, and Australia, Canada and South Korea have already “associated” themselves.

The biggest single question hanging over the fate of both the Copenhagen
accord and continuing U.N. climate negotiations is whether the U.S.
will take the steps required to reduce pollution and join the fierce
global competition to sell tomorrow’s low-carbon technologies. The
willingness of China, India, Brazil and South Africa
to break with the past and commit to controlling emissions signals not
only a concern with the effects of global warming on their populations,
but a realization that they need to adopt clean-energy policies to
compete. They have come to see low-carbon development not as a threat
but an opportunity.

In the wake of the Massachusetts Senate election, however, it is not so clear how the U.S. will proceed.

Though the House has passed a comprehensive
clean-energy and climate-protection bill, Senate leaders are struggling
to find 60 votes for effective legislation. A bipartisan group is
working to craft compromise legislation emphasizing energy security and
jobs. Such an approach — laying out a road map for green jobs, energy
security and pollution reduction — makes sense for the U.S. economy and
would give life to the Copenhagen accord.

The mood in Washington
is grim and partisan, but I firmly believe that Congress can rise to
the challenge of effective climate legislation. A solid majority of
Americans continues to support clean energy and reducing global warming
pollution. I hope their views prevail.

—

(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.

Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.