The fate of the Copenhagen Summit was sealed in Beijing at the G-2 meeting last week. This is the new reality of global politics. China has been very reluctant to throw its weight around. But this time as the deadline approached, both the US and China realised that, like it or not, they were being painted as the two villains of the Copenhagen Summit. The largest polluter and the fastest growing polluter decided that they were not yet ready to face the music. Thus, we will have a declaratory meeting this year and then hopefully a proper signing up exercise next year in Mexico City.
All talk of ?just a few days left to save the world? has to be abandoned. If anyone thought that was literally the case, they may as well give up all hope and cancel their pensions. But the fact is that while the science of global warming is not in doubt (not by me anyway, despite the stunning news that Gangotri is cooling down as the world is warming up?thanks to the power of Vedic Hindutva?), the apocalyptic timetable was always a bit off-putting. If climate change is as vital as its champions say, then we should allow much more time, much more patience to arrive at a consensus rather than threaten ourselves and each other with stories of annihilation.
Apocalyptic stories may have the opposite effect of the one intended. Some readers may recall that in the early 1980s, we were threatened with forecasts that we all would get AIDS given the rate at which it was spreading. If one believed that forecast, then there was no point in sexual restraint since one was going to die in any case. Luckily, the rate of the spread of AIDS was not constant and human behaviour responded to the disease.
Nor was the world harmed by the prospect of nuclear annihilation, which threatened for fifty years during the Cold War. Indeed, now many nations, including India, just love the nuclear bomb. It is a ?must-have? item on any nation?s shopping list. It would be hard for today?s lovers of the nuclear bomb to comprehend why idealists started the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Maybe they made a difference but the world somehow managed not to blow itself up.
Even so the idea that climate change is vital for our future well-being does not privilege it above other issues such as development. The Doha Round is no less vital at least for the next 20 years and it is still not finished after six years. The WTO has a consensual negotiating culture with one nation one vote. Whenever it arrives at a final agreement, it will be abided by. This is because the WTO also has the institutional means of enforcing its decisions. Kyoto was?declaratory and did not come into effect several years after, and has been breached by the EU countries among others, and no one has punished them for it. The EU managed to sabotage emission targets by wrecking the market for carbon trading by underpricing carbon emissions not once but twice. Countries sign up to targets in international fora, but when the leaders return home, their own polluting industries always come first.
The lesson from all this is that there will no doubt be an international agreement on climate change but it will not be easy or quick. Governments know that whatever the expert opinion, the voters are not ready to sacrifice their way of life yet. An opinion poll in The Times showed that in the UK only 41% believe that global warming is due to human activity. But it also showed that car driving aside, people were willing to contemplate higher prices to tackle emissions. Thus, taxing air travel is acceptable. People have got the message about recycling and conserving water, and buying long-life light bulbs. It will be many such small changes in household behaviour that will eventually make a difference.
There is also a gaping hole where new technology can move in. Most carbon emission is due to the technology of power generation and passenger transport. Renewable energy sources will help, as will, nuclear energy, even though I think it is expensive and dangerous since waste disposal poses a huge threat. But we must, sooner or later, have motor vehicles not running on petrol and once that happens, there will be a sea change.
This will happen if governments stop subsidising the old car industry and make room for new technologies.
Obama missed a trick when he let GM survive without asking it to scrap its old machines and install technology for greener vehicles.
So relax. Copenhagen does not matter. After all, do you believe that poverty will be eliminated because the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals?
?The author is a prominent economist and Labour peer