Blog Image: 

Can the Copenhagen negotiations yield a successor to the Kyoto Protocol? Countries are being asked to commit to greenhouse gas reductions and rules to 2020 and beyond. But serious challenges exist at the UN table and, rather than a legally binding deal, the compromise will be a high-level framework with details to follow.

The Canadian and US positions in Copenhagen will mostly be aligned but the hard global politics of climate change will bite in 2010, a tricky year in the American energy debate. And, for better or worse, that will set the tone here in North America and internationally.

Let's be clear: to agree to 2020 or 2050 targets, most governments would need to make global commitments that extend beyond their elected mandates or, for non-democracies, potentially beyond their authority. The Copenhagen agreement would cover 2012 to 2020 and may seek a 20 percent GHG reduction by 2020 (although some countries are calling for up to 40 percent) from a 1990 baseline, although there is some disagreement here as well.

Whatever the form, the Copenhagen agreement will have to create a common framework for developed, developing and least developed countries It cannot be said too many times. Responding to climate change is all about how we produce, consume and conserve energy - whether in our neighbourhoods, our communities and our urban centres or at the sub-national, national and international levels.

Even in a global deal, all politics is local. So no matter what the result in Copenhagen, the agreement has got to be sold at home - by politicians - to their electorates. Judging from Canada's experience with the Kyoto Protocol, the questions can be either, Did the government do enough? Or did it go too far?

The challenge in Copenhagen and likely beyond is whether there can be agreement on "common but differentiated responsibilities" plus who is going to pay to accelerate such a massive transformation in our global economy and how it can be done. And it really will take decades, not a few years. But we must stop arguing about the past and get started on the future.

Read full article at: http://www.globe-net.com