Reports of clashes between Europe and the US over climate change reveal the scale of the challenge remaining as we approach the Copenhagen negotiations. In reality, there have always been tensions between the major trading blocks in the world, whether it is the emerging economies of China and India or more recent media coverage of clashes between Brussels and the White House.
Given the political leadership shown by Labour ministers on climate change it can become easy to forget that we are still a long way off from achieving a successful treaty in December. Climate change is like no other challenge in terms of its global reach and need for international co-operation. No country acting alone – not even America – can make the transition alone. European countries and the British government have consistently been at the vanguard of tackling climate change. But we cannot deliver an effective international treaty without going through some difficult negotiations, on targets, timescale and resources.
No doubt there will be many more reports of clashes and tensions before we get to Copenhagen; and quite possibly the post-match debrief will be just as controversial depending on the outcome. For all the talk about climate change, the international dimension is as much about foreign policy as it is the environment, if not more so. If we want to get an ambitious deal in December, the negotiations will have to address two key facts: that it is the poorest and least responsible countries (for causing emissions) that are the most exposed to climate change; and secondly, developed countries must show leadership in cutting our own emissions if we want other countries to trust our rhetoric.
As Europeans and as politicians on the progressive left our response is based on our values, particularly the importance of international solidarity and social justice. It will also be about the redistribution of technology and ensuring that new economies are able to develop without the footprint we have left behind. This approach is not necessarily shared by governments elsewhere in the world. The irony is that the election of President Obama created the foundations on which a successor to the Kyoto Protocol became possible; however the Americans may yet remain the greatest stumbling block to a just deal.
In recent months, American politics has become dominated by the battle over healthcare and a reminder that there are still strong reactionary forces at work over there. The fallout from health care has seen climate change lose its footing in Congress and public debate. Europe is well placed to help move the negotiations forward in the weeks ahead but it will require a deft hand. Recent reports over US/EU clashes over the implementation of any new treaty show that there is still a tortuous journey ahead, but that is what negotiations are all about.
As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said to the TUC Congress this week, our government will be working alongside the trade union movement – from the north and south of the globe – to argue for a just transition at Copenhagen. Climate change really does have to be at the top of our agenda. Without action to tackle global warming we have no chance of fulfilling our commitments to economic and social justice. Ambition and leadership are our greatest assets.
Hmm, somewhat disappointing that there are no comments before mine, given the article is now a week old 🙁
For me there are 2 issues; matching retoric with action and deciding how to reduce emissions.
The EU to date, despite the ETS, has not shown a great ability to actually reduce emissions nor stimulate technologies or public engagement that will lead to rapid reductions.
It may be that the rather top-down approach taken in the EU (cap-and-trade is essentially government driven) fails to engage private initiative and public interest. Perhaps an approach more atune with US and Chinese thoughts would work better?
For example, grass-roots investment in energy-related infrastructure/research and promotion of company and consumer initiatives. These may not provide the apparent certainty of an emissions cap, but may drive reductions more effectively.