Why Cancun marks a turning point

After last December's climate summit acknowledged that current global environmental conditions cannot be preserved, countries must prepare for monumental changes, says Lord Hunt of Chesterton

Far from being another unsuccessful meeting on climate change, as some predicted, the Cancún summit is likely to be looked back upon in years to come as a seminal moment.

The accord, reached on December 11, endorsed the various pledges of action by countries to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. More significantly, it effectively accepted that it is probably impossible to preserve the global environment in its present state.

The focus thus now moves to adaptation to deal with a more volatile climate. The exceptional seriousness of the problem was underlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA): based on the pledges and goals in the Copenhagen Accords agreed in December 2009, it predicts that annual emissions will be 21 per cent higher in 2035 than in 2008 – and, if so, the global temperature will rise by at least 3.5°C.

The incremental, non-legally binding Cancún Accord, which builds upon the Copenhagen Accords, will do little to alter that dynamic. Indeed, opposition to the deal has centred on the possibility that, so critics assert, it could result in a global temperature rise of more than 4°C.

The world is thus on the path of the business-as-usual scenario envisaged recently as an unlikely worst case – and the international community must therefore consider unprecedented extremes and changes in climate patterns.

Temperature rises of 3-4°C will, most likely, take continental-sized areas irreversibly past the tipping point. Millions, if not tens of millions, of people are likely to be displaced by desertification, rising sea levels and the melting of mountain snow. International action must now focus on how societies can adapt to (as well as prevent) these changes.

How is the world responding? Firstly, Cancún may not be the strong, legally binding, deal that was needed, but it is better than no deal. Measures include a Green Climate Fund intended to raise and disburse $100bn (€75bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and help their low-carbon development; and an adaptation committee will support countries as they establish climate protection plans.

While the Cancun accord has its weaknesses, it is much better than no deal at all. And, we must be realistic: given the extensively wide range of political, economic and technical approaches to climate change policy across the world, it may now be impossible to frame much a much stronger international agreement that would satisfy all governments, businesses and civil society groups.

The second trend is the growth and diversification of local, regional and national responses. In a Mexico City symposium, organised by Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (Globe), I heard how collaboration in such ‘bottom up’ initiatives will be an essential part of the global effort to tackle the dangers of climate change.

For instance, the Obama administration is relying on national regulations, operated by the Environmental Protection Agency, to monitor and limit further emissions from major power plants. As green stimulus measures, such as the investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, wind down, this work becomes more important.

The Chinese government is preparing a comprehensive climate-change law, while regional governments are substantially improving efficiency by offering financial rewards to those who reduce energy use. These arrangements are evolving into local carbon markets, albeit small and voluntary at this stage.

The EU is promoting carbon trading, to motivate industrial efficiency, and different kinds of low-carbon energy, from wind to nuclear energy. It is also planning to introduce more advanced ways to monitor emissions so that regulation and incentives become more reliable.

Other countries are focusing on preventing the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gases by expanding forestry. For instance, Brazil and Mexico are introducing national legislation for minimising the loss of tropical rain forest, while ensuring the vitality of communities who live in them.

However, these initiatives and the Cancún Accord are aimed at preserving the current global environment. We are heading beyond that point.

Countries should now plan for monumental changes. They will need integrated practical policies that deal both with the full range of climate-change adaptation and natural disasters. (They would do well to look at the Netherlands Delta commission, and the report of the UK Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change.)

Some adaptation measures will have to be planned internationally, but the international co-operation needed most urgently is regional – for example, to prevent deforestation in up-river states and desertification in up-wind states. There is huge scope for ingenuity and community action across the world; political leadership is vital.

Such preventative steps have to begin right away. If not, the cost will rise. It would be folly of the highest order to delay this process until economies grow further, as some influential economists continue to argue.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton is a Visiting Professor at Delft University, vice-president of Globe, and former director-general of the UK Met Office

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)