The biggest environmental summit in history enters its second week tomorrow and the whole world is hoping that an accord on climate change will soon be reached. The scientific case for such an agreement remains overwhelming and a truly global effort is needed to drastically cut carbon emissions.
Although nobody expects a climate change treaty to be signed in Copenhagen at the end of this two-week conference, a political agreement on the outlines of a new deal can be achieved. If such a deal is reached - which would be good news indeed - an attempt will be made to secure a legally-binding landmark treaty some time in 2010.
The crucial thing is for an agreement to be in place before the 1997 Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012. As Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for the Copenhagen summit (who was appointed European Climate Action Commissioner) pointed out, the political will to address climate change has never been stronger. "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If ever," she said.
If no agreement is reached, a deal in principle covering the 'big picture' could be concluded but this would still leave a lot of details to be negotiated over the coming months or years. Such an outcome would be very disappointing. The worst case scenario, however, would be if the summit breaks down or is adjourned to a later date.
We in Malta should take a direct interest in this historic summit. Like many other small island states, Malta will be negatively affected by climate change - by a rise in the sea level, water shortages and very hot temperatures - should no agreement be reached at Copenhagen. It is therefore good that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi will be joining other world leaders at the summit later on this week.
The key issues that need to be agreed upon are emissions targets by each and every country, financial aid for developing countries in an effort to fight climate change and some sort of structure that would ensure compliance with emissions targets.
In a nutshell, the outcome of the summit depends mostly on what will be agreed to by the US and China, but other principal players in Copenhagen include the EU, India, Japan and Brazil. A year ago, for example, the EU showed considerable leadership in the fight against climate change by agreeing to a 20 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2020 and a conditional 30 per cent target if other developed countries made a similar effort.
Pressure is now being exerted by some quarters within Europe for the EU to agree to put the 30 per cent target on the table during negotiations at the summit and to lead by example. Whether it will come to that is still to be seen and the question was discussed during last Friday's EU summit. However, the argument goes that, since the EU recently agreed to long-term targets of between 80-95 per cent emission reductions by 2050, 30 per cent domestic reductions by 2020 are essential.
The US and China together account for more than 40 per cent of global carbon emissions, so these two countries are playing a crucial role at the Copenhagen summit. The US has proposed a 17 per cent cut from its 2005 levels and President Barack Obama has announced that he plans to regulate emissions without waiting for legislation from Congress. He can do this because he declared that greenhouse gases are threatening to human health, which means the US Environmental Protection Agency can order cuts in emissions without the approval of Congress. Obama is also expected to attend the summit later this week in an attempt to boost chances of success.
China last month announced a plan to reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 40-45 per cent compared with 2005, and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao will also attend the summit, where he will no doubt engage in face-to-face negotiations with Obama. Many at Copenhagen hope the two leaders will go even further than their original emission targets pledges, but this is certainly in no way guaranteed.
Keeping emissions at a level that will prevent an unacceptable rise in temperatures will mean sacrifices by all countries but, in the case of China and the US in particular, it will mean quite a radical change. It will mean greater use of renewable energy and less use of coal-fired electricity by both countries, less use of energy by the US and a slower rate of energy use increase by China.
Copenhagen will require hard decisions and hopefully common sense will prevail and world leaders will not leave empty-handed.