Now that Copenhagen’s Dead, Can We Say What We Think?

by Will Wilkinson on December 22, 2009

Here’s one of the most interesting things about the debate over climate policy prior to failure in Copenhagen. Advocates of a grand global accord seemed to grasp all along that the probability of securing an agreement with teeth was surpassingly small. However, to acknowledge this publicly would be to reduce the probability of success even further. And if somehow almost everybody comes to think that an agreement is not unrealistic, then the chances of success go up. In that kind of clap-for-Tinkerbell context, statements about the probability of success come to be seen as moves in a coordination game, because they are, whether or not they are intended to be.

It always seemed to me that anybody who knew anything would see that negotiating an effective, binding, international agreement was terribly far-fetched. Indeed, the fact that it seemed necessary to so many to clap for Tinkerbell was proof enough that it was indeed far-fetched. But, naturally enough, that didn’t keep boosters from clapping, or from frowning aggressively on those with the temerity to point out how unlikely it all was.

Anyway, now that Tinkerbell is dead, boosters have regained the permission to say things that ought to have been pretty obvious all along, which is refreshing, I guess. Here’s Jeffrey Sachs:

From the standpoint of actual reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, this agreement is unlikely to accomplish anything real. It is non-binding and will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissions reductions. Who will take seriously the extra costs of emissions reduction if they see how lax others’ promises are?

The reality is that the world will now wait to see if the US accomplishes any serious emissions reduction. Grave doubts are in order on that score. Obama does not have the votes in the Senate, has not displayed any willingness to expend political capital to reach a Senate agreement, and may not even see a Senate vote on the issue in 2010 unless he pushes much harder than he has so far.

The Copenhagen summit also fell short on financial help from rich countries to poor countries. Plenty of numbers were thrown around, but most of these were, as usual, empty promises. Aside from announcements of modest outlays for the next few years, which might – just might – add up to a real few billion dollars, the big news was a commitment of $100 billion per year for the developing countries by 2020. Yet this figure was unaccompanied by any details about how it would be achieved.

Experience with financial aid for development teaches us that announcements about money a decade from now are mostly empty words. They do not bind the rich countries at all. There is no political will behind them.

How much of this should Sachs have been able to predict? More interesting: How much of it did he predict?

  • Nobody has any fucking idea how to do geoengineering. How would you even know that your geo0engineering technology worked? I am fine with doing some research and development on it, but it isn't a silver bullet. Some things like white roofs are perfectly sensible, but some of the proposals seem pretty risky to me. We don't really have a test planet to try this stuff out on.
    The reason Copenhagen went south is because China and India didn't think it was in their interest. But the interests and perceived interests of countries can change. There is a possibility that in the future an agreement can be made and no reason not to work toward one.
    The best way to promote carbon neutral energy technologies is with a cap and trade system here in the US and in the EU. That will provide plenty of incentive for new technology. It will also lead to low tech solutions that can be replicated. This should also include low hanging fruit lick black carbon and methane emissions. A carbon tax/cap and trade system would also be a relatively efficient way to rasie government revenues.
    There are also many things that are a net positives for our economy, but are hard politically. We can have urban policy that promotes greater density and more waliking/public transit. We eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and eliminate tariffs that prevent sugar based ethanol from being used in the US. We can reform our agriculture policy.
    At any rate we shouldn't be electing members of congress who deny the existance of this problem. By exacting a political price for this sort of behavior we can promote a more honest political debate on these matters.
  • James K
    I am fine with doing some research and development on it, but it isn't a silver bullet.

    Agreed, its a stopgap measure at best, but it might buy us necessary time. I favour research into it as a contingency plan, not as a primary solution.

    But the interests and perceived interests of countries can change. There is a possibility that in the future an agreement can be made and no reason not to work toward one.


    That works both ways. If an agreement is reached, what's to stop a future government from repudiating it? You cannot bind a sovereign nation, and any solution that involves getting dozens of countries to reach and sustain an agreement with a 100+ year time horizon requires just as much wishful thinking a solution based on hoping the problem goes away on its own.

    And there is a reason not to pursue such an agreement. Political will and attention are finite, we need to keep our politicians focused on the solutions with the highest expected pay-off. That means research agreements, not emissions abatement agreements.

    The best way to promote carbon neutral energy technologies is with a cap and trade system here in the US and in the EU.


    No, the best method is a carbon tax, and it has to include at least China and India as well or its a waste of time. But every country in that list has an incentive to let the other countries take the burden of emissions abatement as they can still reap the benefits, its a classic collective action problem. On top of that different governments have different preferences in trading off environmental quality and economic growth. The Chinese government depends on economic growth for its political stability. I have no doubt that they'd sacrifice millions of the citizens to natural disasters if it allowed them to keep growth going.

    There are also many things that are a net positives for our economy, but are hard politically. We can have urban policy that promotes greater density and more waliking/public transit. We eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and eliminate tariffs that prevent sugar based ethanol from being used in the US. We can reform our agriculture policy.


    Greater density sounds fine to me, but people choose to live in the suburbs for a reason and I am hesitant to judge their preferences. You would be doing the world a great service by reforming your agricultural policies (my country's farmers, who have been operating in a free market for more than a decade would certainly be pleased), and this is also costless, at least from an economic policy perspective, so yes you should do it, but this is alas not much more than tweaking the edges.

    Really the best thing to do would be to eliminate the ban on nuclear waste reprocessing and cut back the compliance costs associated with building nuclear power stations. Fission power is carbon neutral, its as safe as anything else and it would let you do something useful with all that toxic goo you've got lying about.
  • James K
    Craig:
    Good intentions are worth nothing if they have no realistic prospect of accomplishing anything. An international agreement on emissions abatement will never happen due to collective action problems and different environment / growth preferences in different countries. International summits attempting to form such an agreement are a waste of precious political capital.

    I don't know about Will, but my preferred solution would be:
    1) an international prize fund to promote carbon-neutral energy technologies
    2) an international research programme into geoengineering, in case we need to buy time.

    I support trying to save the planet in a way that might actually work.
  • Since you seem not very interested in getting an agreement I am sure it is easier for you not to engage in any wishful thinking. It seems to me that no matter how libertarian you are you have to see that at some point we have to stop pumping larger and larger quantitie of CO2 into the atmosphere. If the worst case scenarios come true and CO2 is found to have forces on the high end of what is currently predicted, then hopefully it will become easier to cut emissions unless you think China is insane. If that is true then we will be glad that we began setting up the process now. Global Warming isn't a light switch, it can come in various quantities. Meanwhile I am sure that your efforts to prevent congress from passing cap and trade legislation don't weigh on your conscience at all. I'll be supporting senate candidates who aren't against trying to save the planet.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: