Pope Francis has put his considerable authority behind the effort to negotiate a binding international agreement on emissions reduction in Paris in December (Making climate change a moral issue). We can soon expect to see more leaders weighing in, plus numerous attempts by campaigners to capture the headlines and put pressure on national governments in the lead up to the summit.
For now, though, the ball is back with the politicians and civil servants. The recent conference in Bonn, intended to simplify and reduce the length of the negotiating text to increase the chances of agreement in six months’ time, seems to have made comparatively little progress, but will doubtless be seen as a small step in the right direction. If the process of attempting to mitigate climate change under the UNFCCC is to retain any credibility, it is vital that some form of international agreement is signed, however hollow it may turn out to be.
But the emissions reduction agreement itself is not the whole story. Another pathway intended to make agreement more likely is for national governments to put forward pledges on emissions cuts before the formal sessions start in Paris. So far, quite a few have stepped up to the plate, including the USA, Canada and Japan, with the EU still trying to maintain its leading position in the process. But China has made positive noises only about the date at which its emissions will peak, and India is much more focused on building up its own development momentum than planning the decarbonisation of its economy.
The other component intended to ease the path towards global agreement is the Green Climate Fund, the setting up of which was one of the few points of agreement in the otherwise failed Copenhagen summit in 2009. The intention is to raise $100 billion by 2020 to fund adaptation and mitigation programmes in the developing world. To date, 33 governments have pledged about $10 billion, enough to start funding some projects and demonstrate that the GCF is a functioning reality before the Paris talks. Getting close to the funding target is not going to be easy, however.
Against this backdrop, governments are taking a variety of routes to turn their pledges into commitments and meet their existing targets. The UK was the first country to try the regulatory route, passing the Climate Change Act in 2008. Under this, the government is obliged to meet a series of five-year ‘carbon budgets’ put forward by the independent Committee on Climate Change. Once agreed, the targets in these budgets are legally binding.
The most recent (4th) carbon budget covers the period 2023-27 and requires a 50% reduction in emissions (from the 1990 baseline) by 2025. The previous government accepted this, understanding it was ambitious but achievable, but proposals for the 5th budget period will be made by the CCC in December, and these may prove to be more problematic. And, if a target is missed, then what exactly does its legally-binding status mean? Would the government prosecute itself and pay fines to itself? More likely, legal action would be taken by activist groups.
In this context, a landmark decision has just been taken by the Dutch judiciary (Netherlands ordered to cut greenhouse gas emissions). In November 2013, the Urgenda Foundation (aiming for a ‘fast transition towards a sustainable economy’) and about 900 co-plaintiffs brought a case against the government for failing to protect Dutch citizens against climate change. The Hague district court heard the case in April this year and announced its verdict this week.
In essence, this says that the government must cut emissions by at least 25% (against the 1990 baseline) by 2020, compared to the 17% expected from current policies (but less than the 40% demanded by the campaigners). The judgement is based on a human rights argument, with present policy claimed to be putting Dutch citizens at risk from “extreme weather, shrinking ice caps and shortages of food and water” expected in the second half of the century. The Netherlands’ geographical nature is said to make it particularly vulnerable, although we should also note that the Dutch have shown themselves to be the most technologically competent nation on Earth in terms of land reclamation and flood protection.
Human rights arguments these days seem to be flexible enough to cover most circumstances, despite the original intention of the framers of the Human Rights Convention primarily to prevent a repeat of the appalling abuses inflicted during the Second World War. But for them to have succeeded in this instance, the plaintiffs will have had to convince the judges that rising CO2 levels did indeed carry a significant risk of harmful climate disruption to Western Europe before the end of the century.
In this they seem to have been successful, yet another illustration that the IPCC case is widely accepted in official circles. We should still remember, however, that the climate models which suggest this will happen have been singularly unsuccessful in accounting for the pattern of temperatures over the last two decades. They also appear not to have taken into account the latest information on what appears to be deepening solar minimum: Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US – study.
The Dutch government is likely to appeal against the ruling, but in the meantime this case may be the first of a trend. However, despite the jubilation among campaigners, does this in practice do more than cause embarrassment to politicians? In the case of the Netherlands, taking short-term action to meet the 25% target is likely to be costly, and this cost will ultimately be borne by all citizens. Maintaining public support may not be easy. And what happens if the target is missed?
In the longer term, drastic cuts to CO2 emissions are not possible without significant disruption to society, given the current state of technology. Legal rulings are not going to change that. But the publicity piles the pressure on negotiators, and that pressure will build to a crescendo in November and December. Urgenda, for example, is organising a walk to start in Utrecht on 1st November and reach Paris on 29th, to coincide with the start of the meeting, and they surely won’t be alone in this. Negotiators should resist the temptation to make an unworkable agreement at any price, despite the pressure. Future generations will thank them for making considered and rational decisions.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_______________________________________