INTERVIEW WITH PHD STUDENT AND OBSERVER WITH THE BELGIAN DELEGATION, SIMON SCHUNZ

The COP15 taking place in Copenhagen this month are the most important negotiations since the 2nd WW. Simon Schunz, a PhD student at KU Leuven and a observer with the Belgian delegation in Copenhagen, takes us through and explains some key aspects on the road to reaching a global climate deal.

The Voice - Can you give us a sense of how big this climate conference in Copenhagen is?

Schunz: It is important and also very complex. Climate change is a complex issue, but also because institutionally so many fora have been created for these negotiations. To give you an example, in Kyoto, in 1997, there were 12,000 people and in Copenhagen this year, they are expecting 20,000 people. There are roughly as many countries participating in Copenhagen as in Kyoto – about 192 –, but the delegations have increased in size and the number of observers – NGOs and mass-media – has also risen.

The Voice - What has changed since Kyoto?

Schunz: Context-wise, two important changes have taken place. First, the science is more compelling now – the predictions and climate models have evolved to be more accurate since the mid-1990s. That puts a lot of pressure on the upcoming negotiations and it has also contributed to the rise of interest in the topic. The second major change is related to global governance. Since the mid-1990s we have seen the rise of emerging powers like China, India, Brazil or South Africa. These countries are becoming more important in terms of their economic weight, but also in terms of their political weight and, not in the least, in terms of their emissions. We see a steep rise in emissions for China and India. China, in particular, has overtaken the US in 2007, becoming the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and the projections are that these emissions will continue to rise. So, the major challenge, and what has changed since Kyoto, will be to get everyone on-board or, at least, the major polluters.

The Voice - What are the most important issues that will be discussed in Copenhagen?

Schunz: There are two negotiation tracks. One is under the Kyoto Protocol, because this agreement doesn’t expire and, on this track, negotiations will continue between the signatory countries of the Kyoto Protocol about a second commitment period (beyond 2012) and new mitigation pledges on behalf of these countries. On the other track, there will be a broader forum, including the US, which will tackle four major issues: mitigation for industrialized countries, adaptation for developing countries, technology transfer, finance – which links the previous three – and a long-term shared vision.

The Voice - Where does the US stand in the upcoming negotiations?

Schunz: The Kyoto Protocol was not ratified by the US. The Obama administration doesn’t want to make the same mistake, which is to conclude a treaty that will never be ratified in the Senate. The Senate has to ratify international treaties and this is done by a 67 out of 100 senators’ vote, which is a high majority. So, the US is now waiting for the Congress to sign on its own climate legislation, in order to set a precedent. The problem is that this legislation will not pass in Congress before Copenhagen and, in this sense, the US has no basis to negotiate. Still, the delegates point out that they have done more in 10 months than it has been done in the past 10 years in the US.

The Voice - Cap-and-trade for everybody?

Schunz: I think there are attempts on both sides of the Atlantic to make cap-and-trade the key tool of global climate policy. At the moment there is legislation on the table in 35 countries. I would be more sceptical, though, as to consider cap-and-trade “the solution” for the future, including the developing countries. I think that the carbon market is part of the mitigation solutions, but it’s not the only solution. Also, because of the use of offset emissions, it might be potentially ineffective, taking into account that different industries may prefer buying carbon credits, instead of investing in infrastructure and cleaner technologies. That might lead to a drawback in reducing GHG emissions world-wide.

The Voice - Can you tell us a few things about the UN programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)? How important is it as a tool for developing countries?

Schunz: REDD is valuable not only for developing countries, but for everyone, because emissions from deforestation amount to about 15 to 20 percent according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The basic mechanism for REDD is reducing emissions through decreased deforestation. Thus, it puts in place a mechanism for countries with a large forest cover like Brazil, Indonesia or Costa Rica that makes it profitable for them not to clear land for agriculture or to cut their forests to sell the wood. There are still a lot of uncertainties concerning REDD and I don’t think it will be resolved in Copenhagen. The COP in Copenhagen will be more about the critical lines than the technical issues like the details on REDD: how it will be financed – project-based, on national level, public funding or the carbon-market.

The Voice - Is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) really a solution to reducing emissions? It has been argued that it’s not cost-effective, that it’s not energy-efficient and that it is potentially unsafe in the long run.

Schunz: You’re probably right. You see, coal is one of the biggest pollutants among fossil fuels, but coal is also a socio-economic reality and countries like China or even Poland still rely heavily on it. Thus, using CCS to contain the carbon dioxide that coal plants emit might be a possible solution for the medium-term. What we have to understand, though, is that the technology is still in its infancy and will necessitate very high investments. There are pilot projects now, but we don’t know when it will be available and effective enough for use on a large scale. This brings us to the question if we should rather make those investments in solar or wind technologies. To me, CCS is similar to storing atomic waste underground. Is it ever going to stay there? I don’t know. We should be realistic and consider this technology, but not put it as one of the top three solutions to reducing emissions.

The Voice - Copenhagen will not be a legally binding agreement anymore - how does it affect Europe in the coming year?

Schunz: What was expected originally of Copenhagen was to come to a legally binding agreement, covering the building blocks I mentioned in the beginning. Now, the word is out – and it has been for the last six months – that there is not enough time to scale down the paper and make into a legally binding agreement. What we can reasonably expect now from Copenhagen is a politically binding agreement, maybe in the form of a Conference of Parties decision – a document that will contain specific pledges in emission reductions, finance and a concrete time-table for translating this political decision into a legally binding decision. To answer your question, I don’t think this affects the EU’s position at all in the coming year. We’re still hoping that in 2010, either in June or in December, all these concluded political agreements will be translated into legally binding agreements. I think it is very important that this happens as soon as possible. To give you an example, the Kyoto Protocol was signed in December in 1997 and it took four years to get into an operational state and another four years to ratify it. Scientists say that the peak in GHG emissions should come within the next 10 to 15 years and so, if a post-Kyoto agreement doesn’t come into force by 2011, we will be in “trouble”. |