Haggling in the Hague
A news item about the 2000 UN climate conference.

Tim Mitchell


This news item was written by Tim Mitchell and published in Evangelicals Now in January 2001. It is not to be reproduced without the written permission of the author. Copyright Tim Mitchell, January 2001.

Feel free to email the author at t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk


Introduction
The UN climate conference in The Hague ended without agreement. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said he felt “gutted”, the conference chairman said the delegates “had not lived up to the expectations of the outside world”, and Greenpeace – never short of rhetoric – declared that “people from rich countries should prepare to build ever higher and wider dikes, from which they can watch the rest of the world suffer and drown from climate change”.

Not a disaster…
Actually, it is not that simple. The conference of 186 countries in November 2000 was not a one-off, but just one stage in a long negotiating process. The Hague climate conference was also known as ‘COP-6’, because it was the sixth annual negotiating session since the Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force in 1994. Moreover, the talks did not ‘collapse’; they were suspended until May/June 2001.

…but a set-back
Nonetheless the politicians’ failure to reach agreement does represent a serious set-back. The aim at The Hague was to reach agreement on how to implement the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol was signed in 1997, committing the developed world to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 5% (relative to 1990) by 2008-12. However, it cannot enter into force until agreement is reached on exactly how to achieve those cuts.

Agreement
The negotiators at The Hague were working towards an agreed objective: “stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The reason for that objective is the scientific consensus that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”. We cannot continue to emit greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – at current rates without further changing the climate. The Kyoto Protocol only represents a fraction of the cuts in emissions necessary for stabilisation.

Vested interests in Britain…
However, even securing the Kyoto cuts means changing our ways of living. For example, we need to switch to less carbon-intensive forms of energy, use public transport more, and insulate our homes properly. Since it is generally cheaper and easier to pollute, we prefer to pollute, and not many politicians will stand in our way. Part of the reason why British fuel taxes are so high is to reduce the pollution from cars and lorries. The recent fuel protests illustrate the power of vested interests to protect their right to pollute.

…and abroad
It is difficult enough to reach agreement in Britain about taxing pollution. Those difficulties multiply when we try to reach agreement among 186 countries. Perhaps the biggest vested interest lies in the USA, where 4% of the world’s population emit 23% of its greenhouse gases, and where petrol is just 50 cents (30p) a litre.

Disagreement
As a result the US Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which commits America to a 7% cut in emissions. Just as important as the size of a cut are the details of how it may be achieved, which was the subject of negotiation at The Hague. On the surface, the disagreement between Europe and America might appear to be merely technical, or a clash of political cultures. For example, America wants to pay for emissions reductions abroad (where they may be cheaper) or buy ‘rights to pollute’ from other countries, and count them towards the reductions in emissions it promised at Kyoto. Carbon ‘sinks’ are another example: whereas human ‘sources’ put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, forest and grassland ‘sinks’ take it out. Europe and America disagree over whether these ‘carbon sinks’ should count towards their reductions.

Loopholes
In fact the disagreement is not ultimately over the technicalities, but over their use. The Americans aim to use these ‘market mechanisms’ to avoid making any reductions in emissions at home. Europe has consistently argued against loopholes that allow countries to escape making cuts in domestic emissions. The French minister leading the EU delegation accused the Americans of trying to unravel the Kyoto Protocol itself: “What the US is doing is completely calling into question the commitments made at Kyoto”. It was this fundamental clash that prevented agreement being reached at The Hague.

Moving forward
It is difficult to see how the clash will be resolved. However, even though negotiations will continue and a way may be found, no political process can immediately halt climate change. The recent floods have shown us how vulnerable we are. We need to plan with climate change in mind and minimise our personal pollution. Our aim is not to ‘save the planet’, but to be wise stewards and good neighbours. The law of the land does not prevent us from polluting, but “so speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:13).

Tim Mitchell is at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, Norwich.
The author thanks Dr Mike Hulme for his comments.