Obama Killed the Copenhagen Talks

Since the Copenhagen conference, there has been much media speculation blaming China and India for the failure of the Copenhagen talks. However, the secret recording of the last hours of the Copenhagen talks, released by the German paper 'Der Spiegel', tell a very different story.

It appears that the meeting intended to save the planet from potentially irreversible climate impacts was not important for Obama. In fact at the meeting on 18th December 2009 he was recorded saying "we are not staying until tomorrow.... all of us obviously have extraordinarily important other business to attend to."

What is the "other business" Obama referred to that was so "important"? What could be more important the only planet we inhabit, the sole habitat for all life in the known universe, from potentially irreversible and catastrophic biosphere changes?

Of course - Obama was referred to the economic recession - a problem Obama obviously considers "extraordinarily" more important than the future of the entire planet.

China have been blamed for rejecting the mention of targets of 80% cuts by 2050, and asking for more time. However, it was Obama who first snubbed the Chinese Premier, apparently, by organising an important meeting without him. Due to this political snub, Wen Jiabao did not attend the final talks and was replaced by a junior minister; possibly affecting the final outcome (although this could also demonstrate the dangerous power of rumours).

The Chinese representative was right to point out that the vast percentage of historical responsibility for climate change lies with developing nations like the US and Britain; not with developing nations like China and India where the population is only just managing to escape from dire and abject poverty.

French PM Sarkozy tried to accuse the Chinese of hypocrisy; which deeply offended the Chinese - since of course the historical evidence and data demonstrate it is the developed nations that are being hypocritical. The whole energy system of developed countries has been built up around petroleum-based consumption, and now they are saying that the Chinese must somehow 'share' the cost of the climate problem that they caused themselves.

The basis upon which the burden and cost of mitigation were to be shared was not being hammered out clearly. The details were left entirely vague and undefined. The principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' had to be considered. That was probably why the Chinese asked for more time. They did not want to be backed into a completely unfair and unequitable agreement.

As the Chinese minister pointed out; "in the past 200 years of industrialisation, developed countries have contributed more than 80% of emissions. Whoever created this problem is responsible for the catastrophe we are facing". This is a totally ethical and reasonable argument. However at this point in the recorded meeting, the Chinese minister was interrupted and talked over by the other leaders.

At this stage, the talks were suspended for a break for the Chinese minister to speak to the Premier, and also to meet some developing countries in another room (India, Brazil and South Africa). However, it was then that Obama secretly met privately with this 'BASIC' grouping and hastily signed the appallingly weak 'Copenhagen Accord'.

Obama signed the agreement behind the European's backs, also completely excluding the rest of the world, thereby sneakily signing a weak agreement that suited his own interests (which are clearly not climate change). The world has been so blinded by Obama's personal prowess that they have brushed over this appalling failure.

He was not even willing to stay a few more hours to attempt to sign something more sufficient for the planet.

Only time will tell whether he will redeem himself.

Can you really discount the future?

Economists often use a 'discount rate' on their investments, effectively assuming that we value the present more than the future. It is assumed that in the future, people will be better off, so the value of savings will be lower.

The Stern Review turned that around; arguing that because of the chance of catastrophic impacts in the next 100 years from climate change, we should not discount the future at such a high rate. There is the chance that the next generation or the one after that will be worse off, in many ways. Particularly since we will have used up so many finite natural resources.

We come to the issue of intergenerational equity. Can we really 'discount' the future? Do people really value their children more than their grandchildren?

I would argue that is unethical. Of course we should value the present, but also think about the future for our children and grandchildren. We cannot just 'live for the moment' which justifies all kinds of reckless behaviour (and on an individual basis it will shorten your lifetime, for example excessive drinking).

A high discount rate reflects a level of impatience or myopia (short-sightedness). Instead we should be investing in the future, rather than solely focusing on fuelling our ultra-consumerist whims and desires. People used to say things like “a penny saved is a penny earned” - but people seem to have forgotten about those values. Household savings in China are much higher than in the West, perhaps one of the reasons they are doing so well.

Also, if we used a lower discount rate it would obviously make renewable energy investments much more attractive. Instead of continually paying to 'fuel' your boiler or supply, you pay an upfront cost for the equipment and then reap the benefits of free, renewable energy later on (apart from maintenance costs).

How much would it really cost to avert a climate crisis? Most estimates place the cost of mitigating climate change at about 2% of world GDP. Since world GDP is $60trillion, that makes it around $600 Billion.

However, the cost of the “bank bailout” was around $400Bn in the US and £850Bn in the UK according to some estimates! (Source: Reuters) That already exceeds the cost of mitigating climate change over the whole world....

The economists and politicians that run this planet must be crazy.