The United Nations climate change conference begins in Copenhagen today, but it may spell the beginning of the end to the global warming scare.
For nearly two years, this meeting was touted as the biggest global warming conference since the 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan. That conference resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, with emissions reduction targets for developed nations. These targets expire in 2012, thus Copenhagen was seen as the pivotal time and place to expand the Kyoto approach into the future. American wisely stayed out of Kyoto – which has been a failure, as developing nations like China were exempted from reductions, and many developed nations have failed to live up to its commitments - but many thought President Obama would sign the U.S. up to a post-Kyoto deal.
But economic, political, and scientific reality is intruding. Even with the President promising to attend the conference on the critical final day, it does not look like much will come of Copenhagen other than the usual consolation agreement to try again next year.
The economic reality is that substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is prohibitively expensive, especially given the lingering recession.
The political reality is that China and other fast developing nations insist on being exempted from binding, verifiable, and enforceable targets. But since these nation’s emissions are rising much faster than those of the developed world, exempting them would render any treaty almost meaningless.
The scientific reality is that global warming is proving to be far from a crisis. Climategate – the leak of emails showing gross misconduct amongst scientists with important roles in promulgating the official UN science – further adds to the doubts. The fact that temperatures have been flat for over a decade doesn’t help either.
Pro-Kyoto negotiations will try their best to make Copenhagen their big moment. But most likely, action on any new emissions reduction targets, both via treaty or domestic legislation (currently stalled in the Senate) will be punted into 2010. However, the above mentioned economic, political, and scientific realities aren’t going away. And 2010 is an election year, making it harder for Washington to sign on to something unpopular like a de facto energy tax in the name of addressing global warming.
Global warming alarmists have long thought of Copenhagen as a turning point on this issue. They may be right, but not as they intended.
For background on the Copenhagen conference as well as live updates from it during the critical final week of December 14 – 18th, go to www.heritage.org/copenhagen.
Before Barack Obama accepts his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the White House announced that the president will swing by the climate change summit in Copenhagen to outline the country’s climate goals. The AP reports:
The president will lay out his goals for reducing the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions, pledging to cut heat-trapping pollution by about 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. That target reflects the still-unfinished climate legislation on Capitol Hill.”
This comes immediately after President Obama agreed to a green partnership with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a “Memorandum of Understanding to increase cooperation on energy security, clean energy, and climate change.”
Proposed to be the Conference that replaces the global emissions reduction targets of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen may not live up to initial expectations. A large reason for this is the emphatic reluctance of developing countries, despite commitments to ‘go green’, they won’t agree to carbon cuts. Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman writes:
The Obama administration has also echoed its predecessor in recognizing that a post-Kyoto treaty that continues to exempt China, India, and other fast developing nations is futile. Those nations will account for most of the emissions growth in the years ahead. But the developing world insists on maintaining these exemptions, creating a rift unlikely to go away.”
President Obama’s trip may be nothing more than chance to cross something off his checklist and to say, ‘we’re making progress.” He may also be going to avoid criticism for not going. He won’t be joining the other heads of states during the final three days of the climate summit when all the major negotiations take place.
The reality is the economic consequences are too great and the environmental benefits are too small to sign onto an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto demonstrated this and the U.S. wisely avoided it. President Obama shouldn’t put the U.S. economy or sovereignty at stake for the sake of “getting something done.”
For more, check out Heritage’s Copenhagen Consequences.