Reaction to the conclusion of the UN climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, last weekend has been almost universally downbeat.
“A slap in the face,” Friends of the Earth International said.
The Guardian’s leader column described it as “another opportunity lost.”
However, there’s a different way of looking at the deal — on emissions reduction, deforestation and financial help for developing countries — that 193 nations reached on Dec. 11. It’s to see the very fact of agreement as a crucial advance.
Climate change presents what economists call a “collective action problem.”
It can be tackled only if everyone acts together: No one country’s efforts will be enough. So if governments, businesses and individuals believe that others are not taking action, a rational response is not to do so oneself. It’s a version of the prisoner’s dilemma — it pays to co-operate, but not if others are not doing so. However, if we don’t act, we will definitely face catastrophe.
That’s what happened after the debacle of the Copenhagen conference last year. Governments and businesses looked at the failure to come to a meaningful agreement and began to withdraw their own commitments. The US, the EU and Australia started rowing back on their pledges. Businesses put clean energy investment plans on hold. Those with a vested interest in not taking action, and the climate skeptics, became emboldened, assiduously spreading further doubt.
Cancun reverses that negative momentum. Now countries have put domestic emissions reduction commitments into a formal UN agreement, further action can be justified. The really convincing political and economic case for investing in low-carbon energy is not just tackling future climate change, but generating “green growth” now.
It’s the jobs and the new clean industries that will be stimulated by a low-carbon world that countries and businesses are eyeing up eagerly. However, investing in these requires confidence that others are also cutting emissions — that there will be new low-carbon markets and that high performance will not be undercut by competition from lower-cost polluters.
After Cancun, the global race to produce clean technologies is back on. Business and investor confidence has a chance of being restored. Europe has justification for moving to its higher 30 percent emissions reduction target by 2020. The really significant shift is the willingness of emerging economies — China, India, Brazil, South Korea and others — to cut emissions growth and their refusal to allow the world to be dragged backwards by the dysfunctional politics of the US. The view now is that the US will simply have to catch up later when the economic costs of its high-carbon economy become painfully apparent.
Cancun’s critics are of course absolutely right to say that what was achieved is not enough. As the agreements themselves insist, all countries’ commitments will have to be revisited in the light of a scientific review in three years. However, let’s not miss the significance of what has been done. If the Cancun commitments are fully implemented, global emissions should peak in about 2020, and that is the essential first step toward a subsequent decline.
And it isn’t correct that Cancun’s 2020 targets mean the global temperature will inevitably breach the tolerable 2°C threshold. The level at which it will stabilize will be determined as much by what happens after 2020: Countries will have to make much greater — and more expensive — efforts, but it is not out of the range of the possible.