Climate Change Conferences and difficulties of creating climate change measures

In December, before Mr Obama takes office, the leaders from United Nations meets in Poland to discuss climate change. We all must hope that the leaders will create a new version of the Kyoto Treaty (which expires in four years time), a more modern one without the compromises and faults that are embedded in Kyoto and a Treaty to which America will place its mark.

Mr Obama will not be President when this summit takes place so it would be inappropriate for him to attend but he promises to help lead the world in global co-operation on climate change when he becomes President.

In Europe leadership on climate change is remarkable only by its absence. Poland and Italy are threatening to block a European Union package of climate change measures, including measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Italy and Poland are arguing that in the present financial crisis their industries cannot afford to adhere to tough emissions regulations. They are likely to be joined by other European nations who feel that it is important to keep people in jobs rather than address the long term problems of the whole world.

So we could end up with a complete role reversal on climate change; the United States could agree to tough measures but many European countries may opt out of enforcing tough measures, just like the United States did and received much criticism from the European nations for opting out.

It strikes me that it might be worthwhile postponing the UN summit until it is appropriate for the world’s largest polluter, consumer and wealthiest nation to attend properly briefed with advisors who have had a few months experience in their jobs. Postponement will also give Italy and Poland some time for thought and the ability to calculate more precisely how the economic crisis and emission regulation will affect them. It will not be as bad as they fear. So far the economic recession has been bad, but no one knows how quickly recovery will come and my feeling is that recovery will come quicker than expected.

People tend to be overly depressed in bad times and overly optimistic in prosperous times. We have seen the overly optimistic mode for many years and now it is time to be depressed; we are all too deeply depressed.

But climate change is far more depressing than economic recession, because an recession means that things will sometime get better. Climate change will take us past the point of no return unless we urgently act upon it. Nothing, as Kyoto shows, can be achieved on climate change without the active participation of the United States.

At Kyoto and at Bali the United States did not lead the world on climate change but argued that (a) it may not be caused by humans at all and (b) it was wrong in principle to put all the expense oand obligation to restrict emissions on the developed nations while we let the undeveloped nations and the developing nations have a whole series of exemptions, because they are poor.

The first argument is wrong and does not fit well into sensible concepts of risk management and insurance. The second argument – in effect the immorality of giving anyone a free pass to pollute -has some force and the position of Italy and Poland in the forthcoming EU discussions is a variation on that argument.

The United Kingdom has emitted huge amounts carbon dioxide for hundreds of years on an industrial scale and is the largest aggregate emitter in historical terms. That does not make it right for another country to emit in an uncontrolled fashion for another future historical period, simply to catch up and put itself on a par with the United Kingdom.

I do not know the answer to this conundrum but I suspect that if people no longer have to waste time trying to persuade everyone that climate change at its present frightening rate is caused by humans, we might be able to focus on a fair way to share the burden of the sacrifices and tough measures that have to be taken if we are to leave the planet in a fit state for our grandchildren.