From a bottom-up view on this process, there are two other phenomena I witnessed in Copenhagen that I think are worth reflecting on: Business and civil society. Both have in common that they give hope for more ambitious climate policy in the future. At the same time, both are manifestly different in nature.

Business was omnipresent at and around the COP. Whether at side events, the “fair” with stands in the Bella Center, at hotels and other venues in all over the city or in my research interviews with energy industry representatives its message was clear. Time and again, I heard: “Business is ready. The shift towards the low carbon economy depends on the political process that is lagging behind. All we need a political framework, the level playing field.”
To me, climate friendly business represents a significant pull factor for the political process(es) to deliver. Putting the massive lobbying efforts from these sectors into historical perspective, one sees that back in Kyoto for example there was virtually no business presence. Looking into the future one can easily expect even more push coming from this direction as clean technology sectors expand and, and in so doing, will further pressure policy. Concerning renewable energies – whose impact on climate change policy I am researching for my thesis – this is already evident. While all over the city there were large advertisements for renewables (“The time is now”), inside the conference center presentations were held on scientific scenarios for large shares of renewables in the medium term – the ‘only’ thing needed: policy that induces demand for green goods and services. This could lead to enormous profits.

Civil society – in whatever form one chooses to imagine it – had a huge presence as well. The main venue was KlimaForum (“The People’s Summit”) downtown where discussions, presentations and networking took place. What I saw there seemed like a different universe compared to the elegant business events in hotels and the Bella Center. There one could find people dealing with climate change from all imaginable angles, from the global North just as much as from the South. There were indigenous peoples that were concerned about the impacts of REDD, environmental NGO activists, environmental columnists… Also many groups see Copenhagen as a continuation of the meetings of a justice movement that began 1999 in Seattle.
One particularly impressive civil society event was a climate candle vigil that took place shortly before the end of the conference. We, the participants each held a candle in our hands that represented 10,000 signatures of the largest climate petition ever – ca. 14 million had signed. As it was clear that COP outcome of the COP was going to be disappointing, speakers sought to gave inspiration and hope to the attendees. This is “the first truly North-South global justice movement in history”, it is “just the beginning” of a long fight. It seems evident that the civil society that converged in Copenhagen from all over the globe will return to their local bases as part of a stronger and closer-knit global network and will in one way or another influence domestic action and politics.

From a global governance view, business and civil society, albeit very different, are both mounting pressures groups for climate policies. Yet, many civil society organizations can be described as globalization critics, opposing market solutions, which they argue benefit only a few and don’t really solve problems. For a more ambitious climate policy, it would be desirable that both groups cooperate to create synergies for real climate action instead of counteracting it. A positive sum game where one side would not be opposing effective policies only because markets are involved, and where the other one would not be advocating policies that are profitable to them unless they are effective in fighting climate change too. In any case, the two broad groups will definitely play a role in whatever comes after Copenhagen.

Labels: Business, Civil Society, Climate Change, COP 15, green economy, Renewable Energies

With a week to go for the beginning of the UN’s Copenhagen climate conference everything indicates that the summit will not produce the breakthrough deal that has been hoped for – despite the fact that getting serious on climate change is the only way for us to get out of the world’s twin economic and environmental crises. We desperately need a deal that puts humanity on a low carbon development path towards green development that would also let us steer away from major climate catastrophes. The basic obstacle: The perceived economic cost of a large-scale shift towards a low carbon world economy. It may be true that the required shift would represent a cost for some economic sectors that are inherently non-green, such as the fossil fuel power sectors. However, on a broader level, this is an ill-perceived view: It overlooks that apart from avoiding costly climate change, enormous economic opportunities lie in a transformation towards a green world economy.

More than a year has passed since the near collapse of the world’s financial system and the eruption of the global economic crisis. Governments of many countries swiftly responded by spending large sums of money to stimulate their economies, but the impacts of the crisis are still being felt. High unemployment is expected to continue in the US many other countries, private investment has not yet recovered and growth is low in many economies. However, if left unchecked, the economic impacts of climate change will dwarf the current economic problems, as the influential Stern Review and other reports have shown. Ambitious action on climate change is an opportunity that allows addressing both the current crisis and the future impacts of climate change. As a recent study by The Climate Group, a think tank, has shown, an ambitious global agreement in Copenhagen would not only reduce climate change but also lead to more economic development.

The logic behind this is simple: The stronger the agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, the more demand for green products will it create. From China to the US, from the EU to Brazil, economies worldwide have rapidly growing business sectors that develop and produce green goods and services. The stronger the agreement, the more will the companies involved have the incentive to expand and improve renewable energy technologies, more efficient use of energy in homes and offices, cleaner transport and many other clean technologies and services. While unfortunately, emissions of greenhouse gases are global – they contribute to climate change no matter where they are emitted – fortunately, the products and services to combat these emissions can be global as well. In our globalized world, these green products can be traded among countries. This fact greatly expands the benefit potential for firms in the green sector. Moreover, employment numbers would benefit as well: the UN’s International Labor Organization has found out that renewable energies are more labor intensive than traditional energy sources.  It estimates that employment in renewable energies could increase from 2.3 million jobs globally in 2007 to 20 million jobs by 2030; Greening buildings in the EU and the US alone would create 2 million jobs; And the list goes on and on.

As mentioned, some companies and thereby employees stand to lose from ambitious climate policy. But the cited study by The Climate Group, also shows that the more countries participate in a global agreement, the lower can the price of carbon be that would allow us to protect the climate (pricing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is a strategy to induce less emissions of it). This in turn implies that if we have a truly global agreement, a more gradual but nevertheless massive economic transformation is feasible. This would allow more time for companies and employees to adapt while we still effectively combat climate change.

What some experts have called new diplomacy, for example negotiating such a global climate agreement, faces the challenge that not just governments but also other actors, particularly business and consumers, have to be involved if agreements are to be successful. Shifting the perspective from costs to profits makes this challenge surmountable. A basic insight from the so-called mutual gains approach, which is applied to advance complex negotiations, is that it is easier to reach an agreement if one increases the size of the pie to be shared by the participants of the agreement. The focus has to be on the large opportunities that come with fighting climate change.

The higher the number of countries and the more ambitious the climate agreement reached in Copenhagen, the more is there to be gained by companies and employees all around the world. This means high profits and millions of jobs. And the earlier individual countries start, the faster will they reap benefits and strengthen competitiveness compared to other countries, while laying the foundation for long-term economic growth. As the saying goes: In every threat there is opportunity – Copenhagen is a chance we should not miss if we want to resolve the multiple crises afflicting our planet.

I wrote this op-ed for the course Sustainable Development Policy, which I am taking with Professor William Moomaw at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.

Labels: Climate Change, COP 15, Economic Crisis, green economy