THE Copenhagen Conference on climate change has entered into history. The early drafters give contradictory accounts. Was it a failure? Was it a success? Or was it ‘par for the course’?

The science documenting the increased global warming was not brought into question, despite the hoopla of the deniers, mostly with a narrow self-interest. The doctoring of some of the data by some British scientists was unprofessional. The e-mails purloined from their computers showed no evidence to contradict the conventional state of climate science.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, now play a significant part in the earth’s warming. This is unquestionably due to the build-up in the atmosphere arising from the century and a half of industrialisation in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. This has left a large stock, which with depleting forests and acidifying oceans are not being reabsorbed. In any event, CO2 lingers on for close to 100 years.

The consequences of warming pose grave dangers for the sustainability of growth and development of developing countries, and of life on the planet over the long run. The conference in December was to cap the quantum of CO2 emissions based on 1990 totals and set new reduction levels over the next several years in line with scientific evidence. This was to be done by fulfilling the commitments taken since 1997, especially by the developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol, including concrete programmes of financing and technology transfers, among others.

The US had exempted itself, and over the past 10 years appeared to be mostly in denial. At Copenhagen, the US declared the matter one of prime importance and urgency, along with China, by now the leading emitter of CO2 in absolute terms in the rapidly increasing flow of greenhouse gases. China was still a fraction of the US’ emissions on the conventional comparator of per capita.

In the end, there were several agreements taken by governments on the long-term co-operative actions to which they were working. This was capped by the so-called Copenhagen Accord negotiated among five countries, mainly the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa and ‘noted’ by the conference. It was not by consensus as the process was less than transparent and several countries were neither involved nor consulted.

The process of two separate working groups has been preserved but the accord will provide cover for those who wish to have one single framework so as to set aside the legal treaty that is the Kyoto Protocol. This has been the aim of the US and the developed countries determined to have the large developing countries with substantial emissions subject to the same level of commitment and accountability. This is at the core of the propaganda war of words.

The fact is that greenhouse gases have risen and apparently at a pace quicker than before the Kyoto Protocol mandating reductions. Developed countries have increased their emissions contrary to their commitments and the ability to sell some of the pollution to others under the so-called ‘cap and trade’ market system.

To the credit of the large countries with the bulk of the emissions, they are continuing their efforts in tackling the issues through individual and joint action in the field of clean energy or low carbon technologies.

The Copenhagen Accord includes the agreement by its signatories to notify in a Register or Schedule the quantity of emissions and the timeframes. Developing countries will table theirs as national contributions, and developed countries as commitments, the difference being that the latter are considered binding.

The commitment by the EU had the objective of keeping temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius. That means cutting emission by about 30 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by about 50 per cent by 2050. In fact, paleoclimatologists who have studied past climates now say that temperatures should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid dangerous irreversible effects such as the melting of Greenland and the polar ice caps and advances of deserts over dry areas.

Their arguments are based on studies of past relationships between carbon dioxide and periods of glaciations and warming. To achieve this limit, CO2 concentration should be limited to 350 parts per million by volume (ppm). One way of looking at that is the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm, and we can see that, with this level, the glaciers and ice caps are experiencing net melting during the cycle of a year. Thus, if the relationship between CO2 and melting is accepted, it is necessary for us to cut back from the 390 ppm level to prevent melting, that is, to at least 350 ppm.

Such melting would cause sea levels to rise about 75 metres or approximately 250 feet —a rise which would inundate our airports, sea ports and much of Portmore. In other words, they would be no more. However, let us be very clear that this process would take thousands of years. The real danger, according to paleoclimatologists, is that we are within decades of reaching a tipping point where the melting cannot be reversed. And the immediate danger to us in Jamaica is accelerated sea level rise which would lead to increased storm surges during hurricanes, saline intrusion into our underground water, coastal erosion and endangered human habitat.

So the cutback supported by the EU, which would limit temperature to 2 degrees Celsius or 400 ppm of CO2, is not sufficient. It is for this reason the small island states in the alliance have urged a limit of not more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The reductions proposed by the US is decidedly unambitious. The pledge of a 17 per cent cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 amounts to a mere cutback to about five per cent of 1990 levels, much less than that proposed by the EU countries. This does not rise to the level required by the science and is unacceptable to all serious observers and more so, the developing countries. The US is only now re-engaging, but it will have to be far more forthcoming, including in its attitude to the historic responsibility it bears as the largest emitter/polluter.

Just days before the Copenhagen conference, China committed to cutting its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020. Note that their target is based on carbon intensity, which is the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP. China plans to do this by making its plants more efficient and by accelerating the introduction of renewable energy technology.

So far, the country has shut down more than 55 million kilowatts of thermal power plant capacity and there are still 80 million kilowatts of thermal power plant capacity, which do not meet the efficiency standard, that are to be cut. This means saving millions of tons of coal, and greatly reducing carbon dioxide emission. However, because China keeps adding new, albeit efficient plants, the net amount of CO2 emissions may not reduce. It is because of this uncertainty in emissions cut and its refusal to be treated as an industrialised country with binding commitments that has aroused strong criticism by some industrialised countries

The slide to a tipping point will be indifferent as to which country is the source of significant emissions. Yet it is both impractical and unethical to reverse the accepted principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and to ask developing countries to slow and reverse emissions when the financial and technological capacities are insufficient; and when developed countries have also failed quite dramatically to meet their commitments to do so over the past decade. The promises repeated at Copenhagen as ‘best endeavour’ efforts are simply not credible.

The position taken up by the developing countries is based on a historical analysis of CO2 contributions. Once CO2 gets into the atmosphere it stays there for over 100 years and continues to cause global warming. If one looks at the total stock of CO2 now in the atmosphere it is easy to see that over 50 per cent of what is currently causing global warming is due to emissions from the developed countries built up and stored in the atmosphere.

The cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1840 to 2004 is approximately due to USA (29 per cent), Russia (eight per cent), Germany (seven per cent), United Kingdom (seven per cent), Japan (four per cent), France (three per cent), Canada (three per cent), Poland (two per cent), China (eight per cent), India (three per cent) and rest of world (26 per cent). The USA, EU, Russia, Japan and Canada accounted for over 60 per cent of the emission in the atmosphere.

The developing countries therefore argue from a principle of justice and equity that for over a century the developed countries have emitted greenhouse gases for their development and they should be the first to cut back and allowing the developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, to continue emitting for a time to reach sustainable development. China and India further argue that per capita, their emission is much less than that of the developed world. This is the principle that was adapted at the Kyoto convention in 1997 and entered into force in 2005.

What the developing countries wanted in Copenhagen was an extension of the Kyoto protocol. A sustainable pathway promoted by the United Nations was that developed countries would start cutting back emissions by 2010 and that developing countries, including China and India, would continue a trajectory of increased carbon emission up to 2020, at which time they would have to start cutting back.

There is much work remaining. The solution to the global warming problem is not slowing growth or retarding development. The practical solution is to be found in innovation, the application of research to the roll out of new technologies that will be the investment motor for the low carbon economy. There are renewable energy technologies that are currently technically feasible. These include:

* Solar Cell (Photovoltaic) Power Plant, as presently used in Germany;

* Solar Thermal Power Plant, as presently used in Spain;

* Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), as presently used in Hawaii;

* Wave Energy, as is presently being tested in Ireland.

With research and development, we expect to achieve large cost reductions through technical advances, manufacturing improvements and large-scale productions so that these technologies can become economically feasible. Already because of research and development, renewable energy technologies such as wind and hydro-power are now economically feasible.

Along the way we are being distracted by interest in the oil and coal industry. There is a multimillion dollar promotion of clean coal. What is clean coal? It is not really clean. It involves the process of capturing CO2 after burning coal and storing it underground in caverns or mined out oil wells. As of yet this has not been successfully achieved and it is as dangerous as storing nuclear waste.

It cannot be repeated too often — Jamaica must gear itself for the transition to a low carbon economy. The Jamaican society finds itself in January 2010 in a distinctly uncomfortable cleft stick — an underperforming economy of energy-debilitating debt and no clear sense of direction.

Failure, success or par for the course, it is of little real consequence. The effects of global warming will add another deep and damaging additional dimension. The cleft stick will morph into a dead-end. Jamaicans will have to take the initiative to set its national house in order to avoid this unhappy circumstance.

The domestic and international aspects of climate change require that the Government and all social partners pay attention.

Anthony Hill is a retired Jamaican Ambassador.

A Anthony Chen is Nobel Laureate and Professor Emeritus at the University of the West Indies.