What did Copenhagen show?

Translated from Norwegian

 

Was Copenhagen a fiasco or a new start? I prefer to think of it as a new start, but not an easy one.

My view of the climate summit in Copenhagen as follows. It did not produce the extensive and legally binding agreement that we had hoped for and the world needs. It culminated in a two-and-a-half page accord on general principles and direction. All in all it was a failure. A large majority of national delegations returned home disappointed. But this is not the end. I agree with the chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, that this is the start.

It should, however, be the start of a new way of thinking and negotiating. Al Gore reflects on the way people think and take decisions in his most recent book Our Choice. He is concerned about our reluctance to act in our own best interests. Our inbuilt alarm system triggers a reaction when we are faced with imminent danger (like an attack from a fierce wild animal) or a situation that experience tells us needs to be addressed (like the economic crisis). However the threat of climate change seems to bypass this mechanism. The relationship between cause and effect is perceived in a different way; the crisis is developing slowly and my behaviour may not influence my own situation directly. The benefits of taking action may only be felt in the future.

I believe Al Gore is right. To resolve the climate crisis, we need to change not only our behaviour, but also our mindset. Economics should get us to stop wasting resources and start saving, to shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources. Gore shows us connections that we may not have thought of before, illustrating that the solutions to long-term climate change can also address challenges we are facing here and now. These include developing new green jobs, building better homes, protecting natural heritage and biological diversity, and promoting quality of life rather than frenzied hyper-consumerism.

We also need to update our negotiating skills. Countries need to get better at defining common interests. In traditional negotiations, the parties fight intensely for their own zero-sum demands. But good negotiators succeed by highlighting common interests. All that unites the parties can then outweigh the more minor differences.

This is what should have happened in Copenhagen. Climate change threatens the future of everyone, and should be an ideal issue to address in the light of common interests. But at the same time we see traditional patterns of power and influence coming into play – in an extremely complicated landscape that eclipses our more important common interests.

Another reason why the Copenhagen summit failed to produce results is the complexity of the negotiations. Not only did negotiators from 192 countries take part, but thousands of activists, journalists and businesspeople also tagged along. Yet another reason is the fact that the world has become more multipolar. There are more centres of power. There is a correlation between what happened in Copenhagen in 2009 and the trade negotiations in Geneva in 2008. A picture is developing of the trends colouring our new century: broad agreement is needed, and building bridges between the US, China, Brazil, India and the EU is not easy.

A failure – yes, but nevertheless we see a grain of hope in the press photograph of a handful of heads of state and government from both North and South talking together into the small hours, sitting on hard, stackable chairs, drinking coffee from plastic cups and nibbling dry biscuits. They had to take over as negotiators, and force themselves and each other to reach some kind of agreement. They found an opening – albeit a small one – where common interests won over differences.

This is where the road ahead begins. The Copenhagen format is too large and too complex. In parallel with concrete discussions on climate change and international trade, we also need to discuss ways of combining legitimacy with effectiveness in international cooperation. Some point to the G20, others to the G2 – the US and China. Here, too, we are on the starting line. We still regard the UN as the most important framework, but we cannot remain passive while complex discussions seek the most appropriate forums for decision-making. On the contrary, we should aim to be part of these forums.

Today – Christmas Eve – is a day for taking stock. We need to take on board the fact that climate change is an issue that will never be fully resolved. It will concern us every day for the rest of our lives. We should consider what it means to think along new lines, what it means to have common interests. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative is good example. Certain developing countries have rainforests, and some countries, like Norway, have money. Together we have built up mutual trust and made it possible for these two resources – rainforest and money – to meet. Reducing deforestation reduces global warming. We must continue to think along new lines in this way, to find links between long-term goals and short-term benefits. We must ensure that the great community of common interests wins over individual differences.