CCD – Session One by R. Coopamootoo

Session one: What is different about Climate Change Diplomacy?

The session was chaired by Ambassador Michael Zammit Cutajar, the Maltese Ambassador for Climate Change, formerly Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. 

Four papers were presented as follows:

• “Contraction and Convergence – The Proportionate Response to Climate Change” by Mr Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute

• “Facing Climate Challenge: The Four Horsemen of the Diplomat’s Apocalypse” by Mr Aldo Matteucci of DiploFoundation

• “Learning Lessons from Disaster Management Diplomacy” by Dr Ilan Kelman of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research

• “Case Study for Innovation in Climate Change Diplomacy” by Mr Andre Stochniol, Director and Founder of the International Maritime Emissions Reduction Scheme (IMERS)

Mr A. Meyer conceived the world climate system as a sink which absorbs carbon dioxide emissions and recycles them.  He is of the view that the sink system has been disturbed and can no longer accommodate increasing rates of emissions.  His mathematical models and risk analysis show that a critical point, at an emission of 9.0 Giga Tonnes of Carbon (GTC), has been reached.  Steps need to be taken immediately to restrain emissions and he perceives the eighteen months ahead as a crucial phase in human history.  One of the solutions is to allocate carbon rights to every person. Mr Meyer insists that the model he uses is quite absolute being based on simple mathematical projections.

Dr I. Kelman used disaster-related activity efforts as tangible situations to discuss possible scenarios to address climate change problems.  Disasters sometimes encourage enemy communities to cooperate in addressing them, one example being the two earthquakes which happened respectively in Turkey and in Greece; in either cases, each country helped the other.  However, such disaster-related efforts are typically of short-term nature, and besides, are possible provided certain long-term factors are apparent, such as political leadership.  Dr Kelman is of the view that climate change is a long-term phenomenon, and it must not be confused with other situations such as water conflicts.  Climate change requires scientific evaluation and proportionately, a similar objective response.  He believes that mixing political and scientific realties will not work out in this case.

Mr A. Stochniol proposed the use of a carbon charge (in other words, a carbon tax) to cap carbon emissions caused in the area of international maritime transport.  He views this area as a significant contributor to emissions.  He notes the sector was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  The use of a specific carbon charge which could be payable at the rate of 1 USD per 1000 USD of traded goods would by-pass the difficulty of coordinating policies and outcomes via several multilateral organizations, each of which having partial competence. He considers this solution will result in ambitious results.  He suggests that an influential government could take up the task of formally proposing the idea on the road from Bali (2007).  In his model, half of the funds would go to adaptation measures, and the other half to mitigation ones.

Mr. A. Matteucci said a consumption factor was essential in understanding the carbon footprint.  This makes the problem identification more complex.  First, production in one end of the world is consumed at the other.  Second, if the poor would want to catch up with wealth owned by the West, then the world population in current terms may be estimated at 72 billion.  He argues that the problem of climate change is primordially a political and economic one, instead of being scientific.  Four obstacles handicaps action and leads to procrastination:

i)                    paralysis by analysis, that is the cycle of papers and discussion never ends;

ii)                   the counsel of perfection, which again delays action;

iii)                 to what extent should the current generation bear the consequences of past actions and future consequences;

iv)                 assuming the problem of climate change is huge and so dividing the world into the friends and foes of climate change.

It is no use making complex models, which are, besides based on numerous assumptions.  He rather thinks that the issue must be faced up with reason, by defining values and goals then determining the costs and benefits of various alternatives.  This approach implies an understanding of the principle of change.

There was a tendency to see Mr Stochniol’s proposal as tangible.  His proposal may warrant more in-depth attention.  Mr Matteucci thought such a proposal was a practical way of looking at the problem of climate change.

 R. Coopamootoo07.02.2008Mauritius – rapporteur for PGD 2008/09 course

Tags: 2008, climate change, Climate Change Diplomacy, Malta