London, 7 December 2009

Global climate change talks will produce changes. But that progress will fall short of what many environmentalists are hoping for and namely firm and binding commitments in reductions in heat-trapping emissions.

Instead, leaders of the summit in Copenhagen, Denmark are saying that they expect a political deal to be reached that will outline the future steps that both the developed and developing world will take. And over the next year, those same policymakers would hope to nail down some hard numbers, especially as the United States perhaps finishes hammering out what is now a climate change bill that is in flux.

The European Union has clearly taken the lead, saying that it is now interested in raising the stakes. It has said it would seek to increase its emissions cuts from 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to 30 percent. But to do this, it says that the other major emitters must also join the fight. The EU has also said it would mostly eliminate its carbon emissions by 2050.

The United States, by comparison, is unable to commit. While President Obama will show his support at the Copenhagen conference for the next-generation green economy, this country is currently encumbered in several political fights that will prevent him from making specific announcements. Instead, he'll pledge this nation's resources to battle global warming.

At present, two competing bills are in the U.S. Congress: The House bill, which passed that body over the summer, would reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. The Senate measure, which must still placate undecided lawmakers, would reduce those same emission levels by 2020.

China, meanwhile, which surpassed this country in 2006 as the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter, has said that it would reduce its emissions as percentage of its own gross domestic product. According to experts, that would amount to carbon reductions from between zero and 12 percent by 2020. In other words, if the Chinese economy flourishes, then the higher levels may be possible. But if it stagnates, then the government there would naturally reduce its emissions without doing a thing.

While the conference won't result in hard commitments, it will set the tone for further meetings. Among the issues to be resolved include the role that nuclear energy will play in this global warming fight as well as that of carbon capture and sequestration for coal plants. Also at stake: prevention of the deforestation in South American nations.

The United Nations, which assembled scientists from around the world, has said that greenhouse gas reductions of 25-40 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 are necessary. To that end, the global community must decide just how much it will contribute to poorer countries to help them along.

"A positive stance from the United States would have spillover effects on other countries in terms of improving the prospects of success at Copenhagen," says European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas, in a public forum. "We also know that there will not be a deal in Copenhagen without finance and the EU has consistently made it clear that it is willing to contribute its fair share as part of an international agreement."

Financial Assistance

One of the stumbling blocks to winning hard promises in Copenhagen is the reluctance of the developing world. China and India, for example, say that they must first focus on modernizing their impoverished nations.

That's why the 27 national governments that comprise the EU have said they will pony up -- so that poorer countries can participate. Altogether, they are saying that the under-developed nations will need $148 billion a year. Commissioner Dimas says that the EU will contribute $22 billion a year of that from 2013 to 2020.

Some in Europe are espousing even more aggressive emissions targets. In the United Kingdom, for example, climate economist Nicholas Stern says that the 30 percent pledge should be unilateral. He said that it is doable.

Lord Stern, who is the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, says that wealthy nations should commit 1-2 percent of their national wealth to battle global warming. That, he says, will result in substantial savings. Advancing the cause would not just help avert rising tides and famine but also put participating nations on the cusp of the green economy.

The EU's Environment Committee says that success in Copenhagen depends on firm reduction targets for both rich and poor countries alike. It also says that financing for developing nations is required as well as penalties for noncompliance. Finally, it says that reductions should be verifiable and that standards should be reviewed every five years to keep up changes in technology.

"What we need is a sustainable growth, founded on sustainable energy and climate friendly production and consumption," says Commissioner Dimas. "That means moving away from the old-fashioned, carbon-dependent technologies that cause the climate crisis and embracing alternatives that are less harmful for the environment."

Europe's ambitions now exceed those of the rest of the world. It would like others to follow suit but that is unlikely right away: The United States has political concerns while China and India have serious economic issues. That's why the agreement will evolve and over time will probably include firm promises to cut carbon emissions.

Ends --

By Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, Editor-in-Chief