simon zadek

Well, the ‘walk out’ (not formally a walk out because the G77 spokeperson said “we have not walked out, we are firming up our position on the KP, the KP is our exodus point”) an hour or so ago by G77 negotiators provides a dazzling display of ‘negotiators’ itch’, akin to the itchy trigger finger of someone holding a loaded gun who is feeling frustrated and let down. So they are out, at least for now, just as their political masters begin to arrive in mass. Or at least just as these noble ministers stand for hours in the huge queues outside the Bella Centre that reflect no less than a fit of Danish sense of fairness in not distinguishing between those representing the global voice of vegetarians and the actual ministers who are meant to be inside negotiating.

Scratching the negotiators’ itch has happened on the face of it because of the perceived abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol by wealthy nations as a basis for doing business beyond 2012. And they are right that this is facing a Northern axe, but is that really a smart or even the real reason for walking. History suggests that cumulative frustration leads to walk outs and wars, a fact that is as true for BA facing yet another strike, or us all as these proceedings degenerate by the hour.

There is little money on the table, and certainly nothing that has the number of zeros required (to the right) to do the job on mitigation or adaptation. China has now publicly accepted that it is not a candidate for public financial transfers from wealthy countries (accepting the inevitable, but in rather an elegant and constructive way it has to be said, since they probably could have pulled G77 to walk out just on that point). And the domestic mitigation offers remain stuck decidedly low, at the very best still delivering 5GT too little mitigation in 2020, a seemingly little number but in fact one that would be impossible to claw back beyond 2020 because of the carbon-intense investments that would take place in the next decade without a high carbon price and money to mitigate.

The truth is that there is a deal to be made today, a pathway to COP16 in Mexico that could raise ambitions, and the potential for a ‘review and strengthening’ in 2014 once we are out of the recession and in receipt of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report. But the truth also is that the negotiator’s itch has become so irritating that it is being scratched at every opportunity. Indeed, it might be a viral problem in that it is becoming less likely that the 100 or so politicians due ‘to come in out of the cold‘ (for those into old movies) can find a way to ditch the itch and do the right thing.

Mr Tony Blair led a high-level session yesterday on forests, which as we all now know provides up to fifth of global opportunities to 2020 for carbon mitigation. Blair is the unquestioned master of messaging, so i sat humbly seeking to read the tea leaves in his eloquent words. That said, there is an Obama-like complexity in his dialectics so that it can be a little tough to derive a straight line from the word to the meaning.

Framing his remarks, Mr Blair made clear that his role was to talk about policy, rather than science, economics or some other polemic. So with that in mind, i think what was he said, roughly speaking, was that ‘one needs to accept that this is tough, and that different folks have different views; that the science is agreed, but there are differing views; that there is common cause, but differing perspectives, and that there is lots that can be achieved in Copenhagen, and yet lots to do from next week‘.

Mr Blair’s erudite remarks were of course in large part correct, being a blend of axiomatic and tautological statements. But such accuracy does not serve what I trust was Mr Blair’s intended purpose, to strengthen the chances of an effective deal rather than prepare us and position key folks for a sadly inadequate deal. Yes, we are all challenged here in this compact Northern capital to get to a deal that works, that passes if you like the ‘laugh test of history‘. Yes, there will be weaknesses in whatever is agreed if anything is agreed. But no, we do not need pacifying at this or any stage by great politicians or fly-by pundits, however well meaning.

We need leadership that instills courage not acceptance, and clarity not obfuscation. We need leaders to call what we have by what it is, and to work hard to establish the bar below which spells disaster and to find ways to stay above it come what may.

So thank you Mr Blair for coming by, and i remain as always in awe at your style. But no thank you for your guidance today and please reconsider your messaging, aptly and uniquely communicated, when you pass by tomorrow.

Fighting through the hot air being vented in Copenhagen to understand the real numbers is an obligation, not just a ‘nice to do’. Project Catalyst, an international policy platform that I have been working with for over 18 months, has produced what I think is simply the best piece that crystallises the data in a document entitled ‘Taking Stock: the Emissions Levels Implied by the Current Proposals for Copenhagen’.

14GTs is what we have to mitigate by 2020 below ‘business as usual’ to have a 40-60% chance of keeping temperature rises below 2 degrees. This then is the magic number we have to make vanish, below which species disappear and whole eco-systems are predicted to collapse with unknown consequences.

The bottom line is that current proposals, if achieved at the high end, would deliver 9GT of abatement by 2020, whereas what we need is 14GTs less than ‘business as usual’. The low end of existing proposals would only deliver 4GTs less then business as usual by 2020, way off what is needed.

Waiting until later (2020-2030) to get emissions down is not a real option. The analysis shows that the cost of acting in this later period rather than now would be impossibly high given all the high-carbon investments we would have wired in over the next decade by failing to act now. The ‘wait until the technology is better and cheaper’ is a mirage we should not be fooled by.

So remember the number 14 (GTs), the level of credible mitigation commitments that are needed to be able to leave on 19^th December with a sense of satisfaction at a job well done. Anything less and we have some explaining to do, notably to our children and grandchildren.