Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Public Education
About Public Education
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      Public EducationAbout Public Education
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • CO10013 | Copenhagen: A Missed Opportunity
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO10013 | Copenhagen: A Missed Opportunity
Sadhavi Sharma

02 February 2010

download pdf

Commentary

The failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit has come as no surprise, and unless major developing countries take a more principled stand for development, future summits can only serve as a stage for more incoherent politics.

The Climate Change Stalemate

THE RECENTLY concluded Copenhagen Summit sought to achieve what its predecessor in Bali tried to do two years earlier. Both attempts, not surprisingly, came to nought. The terms of the debate were fixated on reductions in carbon emissions rather than a more concerted global effort towards solving climate change– an issue that pervades the politics of our time. Industrialised nations argue that allowing unfettered growth of developing nations would spell environmental doom; developing countries, still facing the scourge of poverty, refuse to give up on much needed fossil-fuelled growth. At the root of the international impasse is this inherent contradiction between emissions reduction and economic development. In the absence of a clear stand on what ought to be prioritised, the discussion can only continue to be a mere diplomatic squabble over numbers and semantics.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit, like the Bali Climate Summit, pushed for legally binding caps on emissions, even as it was clear in the run up to it that the major players would be divided on the issue. What is seen as a success is that climate-change mitigation will be measurable, reportable and verifiable. Also, for the first time developing countries including India will be responsible, albeit voluntarily, for limiting their carbon emissions. The focus on emissions reduction, however, ignores two points: Firstly, while everybody around the table vociferously backs the need for a fall in carbon emissions, there is practically no consensus on how this can be brought about. Secondly, unless we have developed efficient, cheap and widely available alternatives to carbon-emitting technologies, to suggest reduction in carbon emissions is like putting the cart before the horse. It not only would seriously alter peoples’ lives and activities now, by impacting on energy and power generation which help sustain societies. It will also encumber our capacities for innovation and problem-solving in future. This would be undesirable and irrational.

So when nations meet again with schedules for reducing their carbon emissions over the next decade, it could well be yet another numbers game that comes to nought.

CO2 makes the world go round

Beneath the loud rhetoric of emission cuts is the reality that CO2 is actually needed to enable modern society to keep going, and for poor countries to prosper. To acknowledge this would be a good starting point. Despite the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, emissions in most countries that have ratified the treaty have gone up. Between 2000 and 2006, emissions from developing countries rose by 2.3 per cent, while those from developed nations rose by 10 per cent. In the meantime, little has been achieved by way of substituting carbon-emitting technologies.

India and China’s growth in the coming years will depend largely on fossil fuels, as it is the most feasible option they have at this stage. While this may seem catastrophic to many, it is important to developing countries, if these societies are to lift millions out of poverty. The current terms of the debate focus on emissions cuts while placing development on the back burner. This is a rather lop- sided view: future capacities for developing the technologies needed to solve climate-related problems and for generating abundant energy are being thwarted by overarching concerns with emissions. Moreover, arguments by countries like India, which are essentially posed within the same language of cutbacks and limits, do not have the potential for steering the climate debate into any useful direction.

Hypocrisy of the West?

The stand of developing countries, which tend to put the blame for the world’s carbon mess squarely on the West, is limited in scope. India has always maintained that since industrialised nations are responsible for the current levels of emissions, they ought to bear the moral responsibility for global warming and take the lead in cutting emissions.

However, asking developed countries to cut their emissions so that the developing world can continue its pace of growth is no different from the industrialised world asking emerging economies to put a stop to their development. Rise in carbon levels was not an intended by- product of industrialisation; neither does it undermine its benefits such as improved standards of living.

Development over the last decade in India, for instance, has dramatically improved its energy efficiency whilst reducing the carbon intensity. This has not been the result of conscious attempts at cutting back, but of growing forth. While droughts have been common in India up to 2009, the last famine was recorded in the 1970s. Recent natural disasters like the floods in Indonesia, storms and typhoons in Philippines and Vietnam, reflect a need for greater capacities to reconstruct and prevent loss of life. This is often exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure and evacuation measures. Smaller developing countries are vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. Their economies may not transform overnight; Indonesia may not build flood defence systems overnight, for example, but would a crash in Green House Gases make life any better here? Development allows the poorer countries to overcome the vagaries of nature and override its effects. The idea of cutting back, in the West or elsewhere, can only create a rather limited political and intellectual ground for any serious action.

The tendency to shout ‘you first’ obscures the more important question of how we see humans — as carbon-emitting destructive entities or as resilient and innovative beings? It is here that we need a clear and principled stand that recognises the benefits of growth in building future capabilities. Such a stand would go a longer way towards dealing with practical problems that climate change throws at us than would the blame game the world is currently engaged in.

India and China had the opportunity to challenge the terms of the negotiations at Copenhagen. But instead of driving home the case for more development, they came away with voluntary emissions reduction targets and greater timelines.

About the Author

Sadhavi Sharma is Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. She was previously a Research Associate at PUKAR (Partners for Urban Knowledge, Action and Research) in Mumbai, India. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security / Global

Commentary

The failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit has come as no surprise, and unless major developing countries take a more principled stand for development, future summits can only serve as a stage for more incoherent politics.

The Climate Change Stalemate

THE RECENTLY concluded Copenhagen Summit sought to achieve what its predecessor in Bali tried to do two years earlier. Both attempts, not surprisingly, came to nought. The terms of the debate were fixated on reductions in carbon emissions rather than a more concerted global effort towards solving climate change– an issue that pervades the politics of our time. Industrialised nations argue that allowing unfettered growth of developing nations would spell environmental doom; developing countries, still facing the scourge of poverty, refuse to give up on much needed fossil-fuelled growth. At the root of the international impasse is this inherent contradiction between emissions reduction and economic development. In the absence of a clear stand on what ought to be prioritised, the discussion can only continue to be a mere diplomatic squabble over numbers and semantics.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit, like the Bali Climate Summit, pushed for legally binding caps on emissions, even as it was clear in the run up to it that the major players would be divided on the issue. What is seen as a success is that climate-change mitigation will be measurable, reportable and verifiable. Also, for the first time developing countries including India will be responsible, albeit voluntarily, for limiting their carbon emissions. The focus on emissions reduction, however, ignores two points: Firstly, while everybody around the table vociferously backs the need for a fall in carbon emissions, there is practically no consensus on how this can be brought about. Secondly, unless we have developed efficient, cheap and widely available alternatives to carbon-emitting technologies, to suggest reduction in carbon emissions is like putting the cart before the horse. It not only would seriously alter peoples’ lives and activities now, by impacting on energy and power generation which help sustain societies. It will also encumber our capacities for innovation and problem-solving in future. This would be undesirable and irrational.

So when nations meet again with schedules for reducing their carbon emissions over the next decade, it could well be yet another numbers game that comes to nought.

CO2 makes the world go round

Beneath the loud rhetoric of emission cuts is the reality that CO2 is actually needed to enable modern society to keep going, and for poor countries to prosper. To acknowledge this would be a good starting point. Despite the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, emissions in most countries that have ratified the treaty have gone up. Between 2000 and 2006, emissions from developing countries rose by 2.3 per cent, while those from developed nations rose by 10 per cent. In the meantime, little has been achieved by way of substituting carbon-emitting technologies.

India and China’s growth in the coming years will depend largely on fossil fuels, as it is the most feasible option they have at this stage. While this may seem catastrophic to many, it is important to developing countries, if these societies are to lift millions out of poverty. The current terms of the debate focus on emissions cuts while placing development on the back burner. This is a rather lop- sided view: future capacities for developing the technologies needed to solve climate-related problems and for generating abundant energy are being thwarted by overarching concerns with emissions. Moreover, arguments by countries like India, which are essentially posed within the same language of cutbacks and limits, do not have the potential for steering the climate debate into any useful direction.

Hypocrisy of the West?

The stand of developing countries, which tend to put the blame for the world’s carbon mess squarely on the West, is limited in scope. India has always maintained that since industrialised nations are responsible for the current levels of emissions, they ought to bear the moral responsibility for global warming and take the lead in cutting emissions.

However, asking developed countries to cut their emissions so that the developing world can continue its pace of growth is no different from the industrialised world asking emerging economies to put a stop to their development. Rise in carbon levels was not an intended by- product of industrialisation; neither does it undermine its benefits such as improved standards of living.

Development over the last decade in India, for instance, has dramatically improved its energy efficiency whilst reducing the carbon intensity. This has not been the result of conscious attempts at cutting back, but of growing forth. While droughts have been common in India up to 2009, the last famine was recorded in the 1970s. Recent natural disasters like the floods in Indonesia, storms and typhoons in Philippines and Vietnam, reflect a need for greater capacities to reconstruct and prevent loss of life. This is often exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure and evacuation measures. Smaller developing countries are vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. Their economies may not transform overnight; Indonesia may not build flood defence systems overnight, for example, but would a crash in Green House Gases make life any better here? Development allows the poorer countries to overcome the vagaries of nature and override its effects. The idea of cutting back, in the West or elsewhere, can only create a rather limited political and intellectual ground for any serious action.

The tendency to shout ‘you first’ obscures the more important question of how we see humans — as carbon-emitting destructive entities or as resilient and innovative beings? It is here that we need a clear and principled stand that recognises the benefits of growth in building future capabilities. Such a stand would go a longer way towards dealing with practical problems that climate change throws at us than would the blame game the world is currently engaged in.

India and China had the opportunity to challenge the terms of the negotiations at Copenhagen. But instead of driving home the case for more development, they came away with voluntary emissions reduction targets and greater timelines.

About the Author

Sadhavi Sharma is Visiting Researcher at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. She was previously a Research Associate at PUKAR (Partners for Urban Knowledge, Action and Research) in Mumbai, India. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info