Bin Laden and Climate Change

Late last week, Osama Bin Laden came out with a new audiotape accusing the US for causing climate change.  He says: "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact." The following statement could as easily have been spoken by Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other anti-capatalists:
One of the themes that ran through the Copenhagen Conference was the global divide between rich and poor, north and south.  As many studies have borne out, climate change will do greater harm to the poorest countries.  Because these countries also have the least responsibility for historical emissions, they feel they yet again being harmed by forces beyond their control.  This theme links climate change to a series of other grievances that the poor world holds against the rich, like agricultural protectionism, globalization, colonialism, and others. 

"However, George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the [Kyoto] agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs. They are also behind 'globalisation and its tragic implications'. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money."

Taken to its extreme, this leads to a sort-of conspiracy theory of climate change, whereby the emissions of the US and the rich world has purposefully doomed the poor world to an unending series of disasters.  Any attempts by the US to push binding emissions targets on poor countries (even China) is said to be a conspiracy to keep the developing world poor in an effort to pre-empt competition.  We saw this argument used at the end of Copenhagen by the Sudanese negotiator Lumumba Stanislas Di-Aping when he said:
“It is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries, tt is a solution based on values that funneled six million people in Europe into furnaces.”

For the last several years, when analysts have discussed the security threats of climate change, we've talked about it “as an accelerant of instability or conflict” or as a new competition over scarce energy, water, or food resources.  Perhaps we should now begin to look at it as a new area of grievance between the rich and the poor.  If droughts in Sudan are blamed on global warming, and Sudanese blame the US for the emissions that caused global warming, then a logical next step would be for the Sudanese to engage in action that would cause the US to stop emitting.  Potential actions could include taking oil company workers hostage or even direct acts of terrorism.  A good way to defuse this animosity would be for the rich world to fully engage in a global climate treaty that is seen as fair, equitable, and just around the world.  
 
But -- we shouldn't wait for Osama to then throw down his weapons if the Copenhagen Accord turns out to work: he'll just find something else.

An Analysis of Copenhagen

Just to start: I'm back to blogging on climate change and security issues, after an extended hiatus over the holidays. 

The IISS recently published an analysis, which I wrote, in our Strategic Comments web-based magazine called: "Copenhagen Accord faces first test".  Overall, my assessment from a few weeks after the conference is decidedly more upbeat than my 'first assessment' written the day after the event concluded in a cloud of acrimony. 

As I write in the article:

"The Copenhagen Accord should not be judged by the events in two weeks in December. Its success will be judged by national responses over the next decade."

The first test for whether countries are serious about addressing this issue will come on January 31, when national commitments are due to the UN.

Though some bemoan that Copenhagen did not produce a binding treaty, I think that's a good thing.  US Senators, much like Chinese Communist Party Officials and members of India's parliament, do not like international bodies telling them what they can or cannot do. I would contend that the only countries where you may have members of legislative assemblies asking to be bound by a supranational treaty are Europeans, because they've gotten used to it.  I contend that the Copenhagen Accord, because it is non-binding and calls for voluntary commitments will be more effective than a binding treaty with mandatory commitments (a-la Kyoto) could be.  James Bacchus, writing in Forbes notes that this was how the GATT began in 1948, and it succeeded in its goals of dramatically increasing international trade. 

Instead of a long-term binding treaty, negotiations can continue to adjust to changing scientific, climactic, and political realities under the Copenhagen Accord.  These can be negotiated through processes like the G-20 and the Major Economies Forum.  Ronald Bailey at Reason magazine contends that this closely resembles the program that the Bush administration followed, and I would contend that by 2007, the Bush Administration actually had a pretty good climate policy in place.  The trouble was, nobody stopped to notice by then: the narrative had already been written. 

REDD: Forest Conservation as a key part of Copenhagen

Yesterday, IISS intern Isabella Santoro went to an event at the Center for Global Development on the UN-REDD program. Below is her report about it.

Yesterday, 18 November, the Center for Global Development hosted a seminar titled “Financing Forest Conservation to Combat Global Warming: Keys to Success at Copenhagen.” The event featured eight guest speakers. They focused on the impact of deforestation on global warming, including potential solutions to the problem, examples of successes, and areas of failure.

Deforestation accounts for roughly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than the entire global transportation sector, second only to the energy sector. For some countries, especially major emitters like Indonesia and Brazil, deforestation is the primary form of carbon emissions.

At Bali in 2007, diplomats in the UNFCCC proposed the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) as a cost-effective and reliable measure to confront deforestation and climate change. The purpose of REDD is to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, so that more affluent countries such as the United States and other Western powers can provide a monetary incentive for developing countries to protect their forests as valuable carbon sinks. REDD has not yet been implemented, but it is expected to be part of an agreed framework that comes out of Copenhagen next month.

Will Obama Attend Copenhagen?

One of the big contentions going into December's Copenhagen meeting is how many heads of state will attend. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to attend, in keeping with the priority level that his government has given to the issue.

Now, the Times of London is reporting that Lord Stern, who wrote the Stern Report in 2006, is saying that Obama must attend the meeting in Copenhagen. This article is the latest in a series of 'will he - won't he' articles that seems to have obsessed the Times and other British Papers.

The papers have probably taken their lead from British politicians: earlier this month, Ed Miliband, the British Energy and Climate Change Secretary, called on Obama to "save" the summit.

Examples of this trend include an October 20 article reporting that Obama "'may not attend" the summit, according to Todd Stern, the State Departments special envoy on climate change. This was followed by a report on October 24, also in the Times that Obama would "almost certainly" not go to Copenhagen, citing 'an official close to the Administration'. Today, the Times is reporting that an Administration spokesman insisted that “no decision has been made” about the trip. I'm quite sure that no American newspaper has been following this so closely.

Obama will be in Oslo on December 10 to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Personally, I think it would be a big snub to be so close, and skip Copenhagen. However, one man cannot bridge the unbridgable divides at the UN negotiations. Instead of focusing entirely on Copenhagen, the British press should be looking to the bilateral arrangements that the Obama administration is quietly lining up. If the upcoming meetings with Chinese Premier Hu Jintao and Indian PM Manmohan Singh end with robust climate agreements, then we can begin to talk about success in Copenhagen.

Gordon Brown on Climate Risks

Gordon Brown gave an excellent speech earlier today at Lancaster House in London to the Major Economies Forum (MEF) on climate change and energy about the impacts of climate change.



He invokes the threats of the melting of Himilayan glaciers, in 25 years. He talks about the threats to water supplies, food supplies, and the threats of unprecedented 'climate migration'. Other climate impacts that he invokes include the loss of the rainforests, fisheries, and biodiversity.

He claims that we face a future of two paths: one of 'business as usual' that will deliver growth for some time, but will eventually collapse under these burdens of a warming world. We cannot stand around while the world boils. He contrasts that with the path of 'low-carbon, high growth' that will cause some economic dislocations now, but will avoid the worst catastrophes of climate change. Brown says it will not be easy, and this path will challenge long-held assumptions about politics and economics. However, it must be worth it.

This speech underlines that leadership in the UK 'gets it' on climate change better than almost any other nation. Brown understands that talk about climate change must be forward looking. We cannot talk about the costs of mitigation, without talking about the costs of inaction. Too often, polticians in the US only talk about the short-term. With regards to climate change, we're only just begining a generational project to address this challenge.

Aid to Bangladesh: Part of US Strategy for Copenhagen?

The United States' strategy for achieving an international agreement on climate change at Copenhagen this December is becoming clear. Bilateral deals and negotiations efforts will complement the efforts under the UNFCC for a more comprehensive consensus. In an effort to convince China and India, the US has assured aid to Bangladesh, one of the most vulnerable states to climate change, for adapting to climate impacts and food security.

These efforts could bolster US credibility at the negotiations even when it's unclear if the Senate will vote on climate change legislation before the year's end. By assuring Bangladesh that the US will provide aid to mitigate food insecurity and climate change, the US has strengthened its bargaining position ahead of the Copenhagen negotiations.

Miliband(s) on Climate Change and Security

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has put together a very nice presentation on the foreign policy and security risks of unabated global warming. The map at left gives a good summary of some of the largest security risks of climate climate change.

You can see the presenatation, given by both of the brothers Miliband in the embedded video, below.

Comments on Applebaum's Column: "Green Futillity"

Anne Applebaum has a column in today's Washington Post about the futility of climate-change summits. Certainly, her op-ed was the better thought-out of the two energy and climate change-related pieces on the page. (Sarah Palin wrote the other one)

She's correct in saying "I doubt the wisdom of assuming that eight or 10 politicians will ever solve this problem during a meeting in a conference center."

She is also correct to identify that the problem we should be working to solve is finding a way to make renewable power most cost effective than fossil fuels. The collapse in energy prices over the last year has significantly undercut the renewable power industry – and that has only been partially offset by stimulus funding. She also correctly identifies that the solution to that problem is for politicians to increase the relative cost of fossil fuels; she suggests a tax, but a cap and trade is another method.

However, she overlooks the utility of an international treaty in creating the conditions for politicians to increase the price of fossil fuels. It is very difficult for any politician to vote to raise the price of fuel or electricity. That is part of the reason why ‘cap and trade’ has gotten more political traction: though it is economically equivalent to a carbon tax, it more effectively hides the price increases from the voter. Even modeled as a cap and trade, however, legislation is the Senate faces a very stiff test. Here is where I think an internationally negotiated, binding treaty could be effective: it will give political cover to politicians who would like to vote for it, know that it is important for the country and the world, but are afraid of their constituents (who can be very short-sighted). We often see such a sentiment in international trade policy. The fact that the WTO exists gives political cover to politicians who would otherwise be pushed to support protectionist measures. For instance, the Byrd Amendment (which gave the proceeds of anti-dumping tariffs to the victim of the dumping) was only repealed in 2006 because it had been ruled WTO-illegal. An international agreement give politicians the cover (and someone to blame) to vote for an unpopular – but necessary – agenda.

Also, I think she's wrong about any treaty being unenforceable. Most nations will attempt meet their treaty obligations, because they believe it is in collective interest. Those that don’t will be punished and ostracized. Thomas Schelling explains it better than I can on the Atlantic, here.