Q&A: Copenhagen's united front

In the months leading up to Copenhagen, developing world leaders met multiple times to strategize and solidify their position on climate change. Because of their poverty levels, populations in developing regions are generally seen as the most vulnerable to changes in climate and subsequent extreme weather, such as droughts, flood, heat waves and rising sea levels. Calestous Juma Image: Harvard University, Belfer Center But since arriving at the conference, these developing world negotiators hav

Written byKatherine Bagley

| 3 min read

Save for Later

Calestous Juma
Image: Harvard University, Belfer Center

But since arriving at the conference, these developing world negotiators have hit several obstacles -- such as linkurl:leaked treaty drafts;https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/09/copenhagen-summit-danish-text-leak and linkurl:rifts;https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8403745.stm between China, India and the rest of the developing world -- that have called their authority in the debates into question. linkurl:Calestous Juma,;https://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/231/calestous_juma.html from Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a contributor to the World Bank's 2010 report on development and climate change, corresponded with The Scientist through email on why the developing world is uniting against climate change and what exactly they are hoping for in Copenhagen. The Scientist: Of all the science issues the developing world has had to decide how to handle -- HIV/AIDS, research funding, biotech, genetically modified crops -- climate change appears to be the first one they are tackling with a united front. Why do you think this is? Calestous Juma: It should not come as a surprise that developing countries agree on... climate change. There has been a long history of negotiations going back to the late 1980s, and many developing regions, especially Africa, are bearing the brunt of climate change, yet their carbon emissions have been very low. What is new is that for the first time African countries are putting forward a common negotiating position on this issue -- a sign of an emerging Africa... maturing as a political force. This may be a result of the fact that the African Union is becoming more effective as a source of political guidance. TS: In the wake of the leaked emails from British researchers, it seems skeptics in industrialized nations have been given a new platform for their mistrust of climate science. But you rarely hear of climate skeptics in the developing world, why? CJ: There are fewer skeptics for a variety of reasons. A part of skepticism is driven by vested interests or empathy with vested interests. As a result, some oil-producing developing countries are sources of skepticism. But on the whole, developing country economies are more vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and natural disasters, so their views are more shaped by natural events and not vested interests. TS: What exactly do developing countries want included in a new climate treaty? CJ: They have been consistent over the years in seeking access to climate technologies, [such as clean energy and carbon capture and storage technologies], to enable them to adopt more aggressive mitigation and adaptation strategies [that will help them curb their own emissions while continuing to develop their infrastructure and economies, as well as cope with the effects of climate changes, specifically extreme weather]. Furthermore, they have been seeking financial support to enable them make the transition to low-carbon economies. What is different is that the demands are now being made in the face of more discernible evidence of the impact of climate change and are therefore more urgent and real. TS: Why do you think a rift has formed between emerging countries, such as China and India, and the rest of the developing world in terms of what they want from a climate treaty? CJ: China and India are already committed to extensive use of certain technologies such coal power plants. A cap on emissions before the end of the lifespan of the plants would have economic consequences for them. But less industrialized regions, such as Africa, are in a better position to start with low-carbon technologies because they are less committed to traditional industries. And they are more likely to agree to caps if they have access to clean technologies. In a way, I think the less developed countries of Africa could set a new path of low-carbon growth because they have less robust, incumbent industries. TS: What steps need to be taken by developing countries to ensure their interests are included in a new treaty? CJ: [It] will take smart negotiations with detailed knowledge of the industrial structures of various countries as well as the technological options available today. It will not be done through a stroke of diplomatic genius or sheer pressure from civil society organizations. This is a case where progress will come from the accumulation of small positive steps, not from a single deal.
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Community - Obama's decision to arrive late to Copenhagen;https://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/780.page
[7th December 2009]*linkurl:Community - Is Copenhagen doomed?;https://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/776.page
[4th December 2009]*linkurl:Climate change and the biosphere;https://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54053/
[1st January 2008]