Sunday, December 11, 2005
Montreal: headline agreement, victory for all
I am joining I'm sure many other bloggers commentating on the "breakthrough" agreement on climate change policy in Montreal in the early hour of Saturday morning. Nevertheless, stay with me if you will.
The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).
Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.
So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.
Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.
In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.
The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).
Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.
So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.
Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.
In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.
